Navigating Belgium’s Private Investigations Act: What Employers and Multinational Corporations Need to Know

BRUSSELS — The landscape of corporate governance, human resources, and internal compliance in Belgium underwent a fundamental shift with the official entry into force of the country’s new Private Investigations Act (PIA). Replacing the outdated Private Detectives Act of 1991, the modern legislative framework was designed to regulate private security and investigative operations in an era characterized by advanced digital footprints and complex corporate structures.

However, while the title of the legislation immediately invokes imagery of private sleuths and corporate espionage, its reach extends far beyond the traditional detective agency. In fact, the most profound and far-reaching innovation of the PIA targets the corporate boardroom and the human resources department.

Any business that conducts workplace investigations in-house—whether looking into allegations of employee harassment, internal theft, financial fraud, or compliance breaches—may now fall squarely within the scope of the PIA. Consequently, these companies find themselves subject to stringent licensing requirements and rigorous procedural obligations that could drastically disrupt standard operational protocols.

Main Facts

The implementation of the Private Investigations Act introduces a sweeping regulatory framework that blurs the line between traditional private security and routine corporate compliance. At its core, the legislation sets out to govern any gathering of information concerning individuals when organized on a structural basis to safeguard corporate interests.

• Broad Corporate Scope: The PIA applies not just to external security firms, but potentially to any corporate entity maintaining an internal investigative apparatus. This includes compliance departments, internal audit teams, corporate security units, and human resources personnel.
• Licensing Mandates: Engaging in activities defined as private investigations without the requisite authorization from the Belgian Ministry of the Interior is a legal violation. Licenses are granted for a renewable five-year term, but obtaining them involves strict criteria regarding the residency and nationality of the investigative personnel.
• The HR Exception: Human resources professionals investigating incidents involving their own immediate employer benefit from a partial exemption—specifically, they are not required to carry a professional identification card. However, they remain bound by the broader procedural constraints of the PIA.
• Multinational Exposure: For multinational corporations operating shared-service centers or group-level compliance functions outside of Belgium (or outside the European Economic Area), the law creates immense operational friction. Group functions investigating Belgian-based subsidiaries are classified as conducting internal investigations under the law, triggering potential compliance liabilities.
• Severe Evidentiary Risks: Non-compliance with the PIA risks rendering internal investigation findings inadmissible in subsequent labor tribunals, potentially crippling an employer’s defense in wrongful termination or disciplinary dismissal lawsuits.

Chronology of Reform: From 1991 to 2024

To understand the weight of the new regulatory burden placed upon Belgian and multinational employers, it is necessary to examine how the legal framework evolved over more than three decades.

1991: The Legacy Framework

For over thirty years, the Private Detectives Act of 1991 served as the governing statute for investigative professionals in Belgium. Tailored to an era of analog surveillance, traditional stakeouts, and physical detective agencies, the 1991 law was narrow in focus. It primarily targeted individuals or commercial agencies offering investigative services to third parties for a fee. Corporations handling internal misconduct cases rarely considered the 1991 Act applicable to their internal HR or legal teams, creating a regulatory blind spot for corporate internal investigations.

The Shift Toward Modernization

As corporate structures grew more globalized and data privacy laws—most notably the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—reshaped the workplace, the Belgian legislature recognized that the 1991 framework was obsolete. Investigators were no longer just following subjects on the street; they were analyzing digital access logs, reviewing closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage, parsing through employee emails, and conducting formal internal inquisitions. The legislature sought to modernize the oversight of all information-gathering activities to protect individual privacy rights and ensure transparency.

December 16, 2024: The PIA Enters into Force

Following legislative debates and royal assent, the Private Investigations Act officially entered into force on December 16, 2024. The new law explicitly swept away the 1991 statute and introduced a modernized, highly technical definition of private investigation activities. From its first day of enforcement, businesses maintaining structural investigative functions were put on notice regarding their legal obligations.

Deconstructing the PIA: What Constitutes a Private Investigation?

To determine whether an organization’s internal operations cross the line into regulated territory, legal and compliance teams must look closely at how the PIA defines a private investigation. The statute relies on four cumulative criteria that must be satisfied for an activity to fall under its purview:

1. Information Gathering: The activity must involve collecting information, tracking data, or conducting inquiries.
2. Focus on Persons: The investigation must concern specific individuals (such as employees, contractors, or business partners).
3. Safeguarding Interests: The purpose of the inquiry must be to protect the legitimate interests of the entity conducting or commissioning the investigation.
4. Actual or Potential Conflict: The investigation must occur within the context of an actual, anticipated, or potential dispute, conflict, or legal proceeding.

The "Internal Investigation Service" Trap

When an employer investigates suspected employee misconduct—ranging from harassment and discrimination to intellectual property theft and fraud—it is inherently gathering information about a person to safeguard its interests during a potential labor dispute.

If this activity is organized on a structural basis, the business is legally operating an "internal investigation service" under the PIA. Crucially, the threshold for a "structural basis" is remarkably low: if investigative tasks form even a minor part of a single employee’s formal job description, the organization meets the criteria.

Multinational Group Dynamics

Multinational corporations frequently centralize their compliance, internal audit, and legal functions. For instance, a European parent company might deploy a centralized compliance team located in Germany or France to investigate a whistleblower complaint or a bribery allegation at its Belgian subsidiary.

Under the PIA, investigations carried out by a group function on behalf of affiliated companies are viewed as being conducted for the business’s own purposes rather than for third parties. Consequently, compliance officers, security personnel, and HR managers located outside of Belgium—or even outside the EEA—who investigate Belgian personnel must comply with the PIA’s mandates.

Statutory Exclusions

Not every interaction between an employer and employee constitutes a private investigation. The law provides specific, albeit narrow, exclusions:

• Standard HR Reference Checks: Routine background checks conducted during the hiring process for prospective job applicants are exempt.
• Mandatory Legal Investigations: Inquiries executed strictly in performance of a statutory legal obligation are excluded. This frequently includes formal whistleblowing investigations governed by the strict confines of the Belgian Whistleblowing Act.

However, legal experts warn that the Whistleblowing Act has a relatively narrow scope. Many employers maintain internal reporting channels designed to handle a much broader spectrum of workplace grievances than the minimum legal requirements dictate. Furthermore, investigations sparked by a whistleblower report frequently expand into adjacent areas of misconduct. The moment an internal investigation stretches beyond what is strictly required to satisfy a legal obligation, the entire process falls back under the full scope of the PIA.

Licensing Requirements and Multinational Challenges

The operational hurdle most likely to trouble foreign and domestic enterprises alike is the mandate for formal licensing.

Under the PIA, any entity operating an internal investigation service must secure a license issued by the Belgian Ministry of the Interior. These licenses are granted for a renewable five-year period. However, obtaining and maintaining such authorization presents severe structural roadblocks:

• Residency and Nationality Restrictions: Licenses will only be awarded if the members of the investigating team are Belgian nationals or maintain their primary residence within the European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland.
• The EEA Gateway: For corporate groups based within the EEA, a viable pathway exists. Belgian authorities will account for regulatory guarantees and equivalents provided by another EEA Member State, allowing a license to be granted even if the internal investigation service lacks a physical operating seat directly inside Belgium.
• The Extra-EEA Dilemma: For multinational corporations with headquarters or centralized investigation hubs located outside the EEA (such as in the United States, the United Kingdom, or Asia), no such regulatory equivalence exception exists.

Alternative Solutions for Non-EEA Entities

Because non-EEA multinational groups cannot easily secure an internal investigation service license for non-EEA-based teams operating in Belgium, businesses must explore alternative legal avenues to investigate local wrongdoing:

1. Engaging Licensed External Agencies: Retaining a third-party private investigation firm that already holds the requisite Belgian licenses.
2. Relying on External Legal Counsel: Utilizing independent external attorneys to conduct the workplace investigation, a practice that frequently benefits from professional legal privilege and navigates around standard private investigation licensing restrictions.

The HR Exception: Navigating the Gray Area

One of the most delicate balances struck within the PIA is the provision concerning human resources professionals.

HR personnel who execute investigative activities on behalf of their own specific legal employer regarding incidents involving their own colleagues do not need to hold an official identification card, effectively exempting them from standard detective licensing requirements. Nevertheless, all other substantive and procedural provisions of the PIA remain fully applicable to these HR-led investigations.

What is an "Incident Investigation"?

The PIA fails to explicitly define the term "incident investigation." However, the official explanatory memorandum accompanying the legislation sheds light on the legislative intent. Once misconduct has been identified or reasonably suspected, an incident investigation may legitimately involve:

• Reviewing and analyzing closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage.
• Retrieving and examining electronic access control data and digital badge-reader logs.
• Inspecting electronic door locks.
• Conducting formal investigative interviews with coworkers and witnesses.

Litigation Risks and Evidentiary Exclusion

Because the "incident investigation" exception lacks statutory precision, legal advisors anticipate a wave of challenges in Belgian labor courts. Employees facing dismissal or disciplinary action based on internal HR reports are expected to aggressively challenge the admissibility of the investigation findings.

If an employer interprets the HR exception too broadly—or utilizes HR personnel to conduct an inquiry that crosses the line into a formal, structured private investigation without adherence to statutory protocols—employees may successfully move to have the evidence thrown out. This could invalidate disciplinary dismissals and expose the employer to costly wrongful termination claims. Consequently, legal counsel strongly advises employers to interpret the HR exception narrowly and evaluate every investigative step with caution.

Official Responses and Strategic Recommendations

Employment law practitioners and corporate compliance experts have responded to the enactment of the PIA with urgent calls for internal policy reviews.

Marga Caproni, Partner and Head of the Belgian Labour & Employment practice at international law firm Squire Patton Boggs, has been vocal in warning organizations about the hidden traps of the new legislation. Industry stakeholders emphasize that businesses can no longer treat internal workplace investigations as informal, unstructured internal matters.

Recommended Action Plan for Employers

To mitigate regulatory exposure and protect their evidentiary positions in future labor disputes, employers operating in Belgium should immediately implement the following strategies:

1. Audit Existing Investigation Protocols: Review all internal policies concerning how workplace misconduct—including harassment, fraud, and theft—is investigated. Determine whether current practices cross the threshold of forming a "structural" internal investigation service.
2. Map Group-Level Compliance Functions: For multinational companies, evaluate whether compliance, audit, or HR teams based outside of Belgium (or outside the EEA) routinely handle Belgian employee matters. Establish whether those teams require licensing or if alternative local resources must be deployed.
3. Strictly Vet the HR Exception: Ensure that human resources personnel understand the boundaries of the "incident investigation" exception. Avoid utilizing HR teams for broad, systemic inquiries that mirror traditional private detective work unless strict compliance safeguards are observed.
4. Leverage External Counsel When in Doubt: For complex, high-risk, or cross-border investigations, consider engaging licensed external investigators or utilizing external legal counsel to preserve legal professional privilege and ensure absolute adherence to Belgian law.

Implications and Outlook

The entry into force of Belgium’s Private Investigations Act marks a fundamental maturation in how European jurisdictions view workplace governance. By pulling internal corporate investigations under the umbrella of state regulatory oversight, Belgium has raised the stakes for employers.

The days of ad-hoc, internal fact-finding missions conducted without regard to statutory licensing or procedural limitations are officially over. As Belgian courts begin interpreting the boundaries of the PIA and the HR exception in upcoming labor disputes, employers who fail to adapt their compliance frameworks will find themselves vulnerable to severe legal challenges, invalidated dismissals, and regulatory penalties.

In the next installment of this three-part series on the Belgian Private Investigations Act, we will explore the procedural mechanics of conducting a compliant investigation under the PIA, including the interplay with the GDPR, prohibited fields of inquiry, strict interview regulations, data subject rights, and the severe legal consequences of non-compliance.