Belgian Pillar Two UTPR case: analysing the decision of the Constitutional Court of 24 September

Okay, well, this case, Jean-Philippe, is closely watched, I think, by a lot of people in the Pillar 2 space, internationally.

So I'm really interested to understand a bit better, why did the court now decide that AMFRI still has this legal interest, irrespective of the side-by-side agreement that was reached?

Yeah, there, if you read the decision, the arguments of the Constitutional Court to decide that there's still the requirement legal interest are threefold.

First, and that's the most straightforward one, is that, OK, you have the side by side system there.

But Belgium did not legislate yet.

Belgium did not introduce domestic legislation yet.

The fact the argument put forward by the by Belgium saying like, well, we're about we're legislating the side by side, there's implementation is ongoing.

did not convince the Constitutional Court.

So first argument important.

There is no legislation yet in Belgium implementing side by side.

Second, even if Belgium were to implement the side by side regime and the side by side safe harbor, it would only apply if the ultimate parent entity is located in the US or in a jurisdiction that has a qualifying side by side safe harbor.

They said it is, however, situations possible where you have a Belgian subsidiary with the US parents, but where the ultimate parent entity is not located in a jurisdiction that has a qualifying side-by-side safe harbor.

So even then, the UTPR could still apply.

And third, the court noticed that even if you have side-by-side, the side-by-side regime, which is applicable as of 2026, you could still have an impact, Belgian subsidiaries with the US parents could still be impacted by the utpr in 2025 so that's why the tree grounds, based upon which the constitutional court said, well, there is still the required legal interest in the case.

Yeah, very interesting.

So basically, Jean-Philippe, three week translated, the European court checked in with the Belgian court to see, is there still an interest? But yeah, to be clear, the Belgian court decision now keeps this case alive.

But the real question, whether duty PR is a lawful measure, that is still on the table, right?

Yeah, fully correct, Pieter.

So this is just a procedural step, a procedural hurdle that had to be taken.

But now the case is back.

is back to the Court of Justice of the EU, which now will have to decide on the substantive issues there.

So no final decision on the merits of the case yet.

Okay, well, this case, Jean-Philippe, is closely watched, I think, by a lot of people in the Pillar 2 space, internationally.

So I'm really interested to understand a bit better, why did the court now decide that AMFRI still has this legal interest, irrespective of the side-by-side agreement that was reached?

Yeah, there, if you read the decision, the arguments of the Constitutional Court to decide that there's still the requirement legal interest are threefold.

First, and that's the most straightforward one, is that, OK, you have the side by side system there.

But Belgium did not legislate yet.

Belgium did not introduce domestic legislation yet.

The fact the argument put forward by the by Belgium saying like, well, we're about we're legislating the side by side, there's implementation is ongoing.

did not convince the Constitutional Court.

So first argument important.

There is no legislation yet in Belgium implementing side by side.

Second, even if Belgium were to implement the side by side regime and the side by side safe harbor, it would only apply if the ultimate parent entity is located in the US or in a jurisdiction that has a qualifying side by side safe harbor.

They said it is, however, situations possible where you have a Belgian subsidiary with the US parents, but where the ultimate parent entity is not located in a jurisdiction that has a qualifying side-by-side safe harbor.

So even then, the UTPR could still apply.

And third, the court noticed that even if you have side-by-side, the side-by-side regime, which is applicable as of 2026, you could still have an impact, Belgian subsidiaries with the US parents could still be impacted by the utpr in 2025 so that's why the tree grounds, based upon which the constitutional court said, well, there is still the required legal interest in the case.

Yeah, very interesting.

So basically, Jean-Philippe, three week translated, the European court checked in with the Belgian court to see, is there still an interest? But yeah, to be clear, the Belgian court decision now keeps this case alive.

But the real question, whether duty PR is a lawful measure, that is still on the table, right?

Yeah, fully correct, Pieter.

So this is just a procedural step, a procedural hurdle that had to be taken.

But now the case is back.

is back to the Court of Justice of the EU, which now will have to decide on the substantive issues there.

So no final decision on the merits of the case yet.