Recording meetings in Belgium.
Belgium is straightforward on the law and awkward on the sources: everything exists in Dutch, French and often German, and summaries in one language routinely miss what the others say.
The General Data Protection Regulation applies here of its own force rather than through a national translation of it, and the national act below handles the parts member states are left to decide for themselves. The supervisory authority enforces both. Alongside it, Article 314bis of the Criminal Code addresses listening to or recording private communications during transmission, by someone not taking part in them, without the consent of all participants.
As in the Netherlands, the criminal provision is framed around the non-participant, which leaves the ordinary meeting-recording case to data protection law: a lawful basis, transparency at the time, proportionality, and bounded retention. The practical difficulty in Belgium is linguistic rather than legal. The Data Protection Authority publishes as the Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit and the Autorité de protection des données, and the codes are consolidated in each language separately, so an English summary is usually a translation of one language version rather than of the law as a whole.
- The data protection instrument
- Wet van 30 juli 2018 / Loi du 30 juillet 2018 (Act of 30 July 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data), Belgisch Staatsblad / Moniteur belge, 5 September 2018
- Who supervises this
- Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit / Autorité de protection des données (Data Protection Authority)
Criminal provisions
These sit alongside data protection law rather than replacing it. They generally address conduct that is covert or that involves conversations the recorder was not part of, which is a narrower category than everyday meeting recording, and a considerably more serious one.
Code pénal / Strafwetboek, Article 314bis
Criminal Code
Unlawful interception or recording of private communications. The provision addresses listening to or recording private communications during transmission, by someone not taking part in them, without the consent of all participants.
What is specific to this country
- The GDPR applies directly in Belgium rather than through a national equivalent. A meeting recording that identifies the people in it is personal data, so making, storing and sharing it is processing, and it needs a lawful basis under Article 6.
- Transparency is a separate obligation from lawful basis. Article 13 requires that people are told what is being collected and why at the time it is collected, which for a meeting means at the start rather than afterwards.
- Belgium is trilingual at the institutional level and the data protection authority publishes in Dutch, French and German. Citing the instrument by one name only is a common source of confusion when checking sources.
- Article 314bis is framed around a non-participant intercepting communications, so the everyday meeting-recording question is usually answered by the data protection layer rather than the criminal one.
What to do in practice
The practice below is not the legal minimum in every jurisdiction. It is the practice that is defensible in all of them, which is a more useful target when your calls cross borders.
- Say it out loud at the start, before anything substantive is discussed, and say what the recording is for. Not a line in the invite nobody read.
- Give people a real way to decline. An announcement that leaves no room to object is closer to a notification than to consent.
- Write it down. A line in the notes recording that the meeting was recorded, and that nobody objected, is worth more later than anyone's memory of the moment.
- Keep external meetings to a higher standard than internal ones. Colleagues share an employment context; a customer, a candidate, or a supplier does not.
- Decide how long you keep recordings, and actually delete them. Indefinite retention converts a small, well-handled recording into a growing liability.
- Treat sharing as a fresh decision. The question is not whether you were allowed to record, it is whether this particular person was meant to hear it.
Questions
Does Belgian law let me record a meeting I am part of?
Article 314bis is aimed at intercepting or recording communications by someone not taking part in them. The participant case is generally analysed under data protection law instead. Whether a particular recording is lawful still turns on the purpose, the participants and what happens to it afterwards, which is a question for a Belgian lawyer.
Which language version of the law should I rely on?
The one that governs where the conduct takes place. Belgium publishes its consolidated law in Dutch and French, and the versions are equally authoritative, so citing only one is a common source of confusion when checking a point.
Who supervises data protection in Belgium?
The Data Protection Authority, which publishes under its Dutch and French names. Sectoral bodies exist alongside it for some areas, so the competent supervisor is not always the general authority.
Sources
Primary sources, so you can check this rather than take our word for it.
Recording that announces itself.
Canto's notetaker joins as a named participant the organiser admits, and the recording, the transcript and who can see it stay under your control. 300 minutes a month, free forever.