On 1 April 2026, the Belgian law transposing DAC8 was published in the Belgian Official Gazette. This European directive significantly expands tax transparency in relation to crypto-assets. The law entered into force on 11 April 2026 and introduces new reporting obligations for crypto-asset service providers.

In practical terms, crypto exchanges, brokers and custodial wallet providers, among others, will be required to report certain data concerning their users and transactions to the Belgian Federal Public Service Finance. That information may then be exchanged automatically with the tax authorities of other EU Member States.

The measure forms part of a broader European development. While traditional financial accounts have long been subject to automatic exchange of information, crypto-assets have so far largely remained outside that framework. DAC8 aims to close that gap and aligns with the OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework and the existing Common Reporting Standard.

Moreover, DAC8 is not limited to crypto-assets alone: the broader framework for the international exchange of tax information is also being amended, including in relation to electronic money, central bank digital currencies and certain tax rulings.

The reporting obligation is particularly relevant for crypto-asset service providers operating in or connected to the European Union. They will need to assess whether they fall within the scope of the rules, which users and transactions are reportable, which due diligence obligations apply, and how to adapt their internal processes in a timely manner. The first reporting period relates to calendar year 2026, with reporting to take place in 2027.

For companies active in the crypto sector, this is therefore not merely an administrative change. DAC8 affects tax compliance, data processing, contractual arrangements with users, and the broader governance of crypto-related activities. Timely legal analysis is advisable in order to avoid sanction risks and operational surprises.

Does your company have questions about the impact of DAC8 or other tax reporting obligations? Contact the specialists at STUDIO | LEGALE.

Terminating a commercial lease by mutual agreement may seem straightforward. In practice, this is often done through a simple written agreement. However, a judgment of the Justice of the peace court of Antwerp (2nd District), dated 27 January 2025, confirms that an informal approach entails significant risks.

A commercial lease may be terminated by mutual consent, but not simply in any manner. Article 3 paragraph 4 of the Commercial Lease Act stipulates that such termination must be recorded either by a deed of authentic instrument or by a declaration before the Justice of the Peace.

These formal requirements are mandatory and are intended to protect the tenant.

A simple, private agreement is therefore, in principle, insufficient

In the above-mentioned case, the landlord and tenant had entered into a commercial lease for nine years. A few months later, the tenant’s business was not performing as well as expected. The parties therefore concluded an agreement of amicable termination on 9 February 2024, whereby the keys were returned immediately.

However, the termination was not recorded in a notarial deed nor formalised before the justice of the peace.

Why is this a risk?

If the legal formalities are not complied with, the tenant may invoke the relative nullity of the termination. In other words, they may argue that the commercial lease is still in force.

This means that an agreement which appears clear at first glance may nevertheless be called into question retrospectively. The risk therefore lies not so much in the agreement itself, but in the uncertainty that arises when the formal requirements are not met.

Why did things turn out well for the landlord in this case?

In this specific case, the justice of the peace ruled that the commercial lease had indeed been validly terminated. The decisive factor was that the tenant had actually implemented the agreement. He had ceased operations, returned the keys and vacated the premises.

According to the court, this meant that the tenant had waived the right to continue to rely on the invalidity of the termination. Therefore, in this specific case, the commercial lease was deemed to have been validly terminated.

However, this is not an automatic outcome and certainly not a safe strategy.

Key lesson: avoid uncertainty

This ruling is by no means a licence to disregard the legal formalities. On the contrary. Anyone who terminates a commercial lease by means of a purely private agreement creates scope for dispute and uncertainty, even if both parties initially agreed to the terms.

The message is therefore clear for both landlords and tenants: if you wish to terminate a commercial lease by mutual agreement, ensure that all legal formalities are fully complied with.

An incorrect notice of termination by the landlord can also be costly

Risks do not arise only in the context of amicable termination. An incorrect notice of termination by the landlord can also prove costly. After all, a commercial lease cannot be terminated at will.

The Commercial Lease Act imposes strict conditions regarding the notice period, form and grounds for termination. If these are not correctly observed, the notice may be invalid or give rise to substantial compensation, such as an eviction payment that can amount to several years’ rent.

An apparently minor error, such as an incorrect notice period, inadequate grounds or an incorrect notification, can have a significant financial impact.

Commercial leases are therefore also highly formalised for landlords, and a correct approach is essential.

What should you look out for in practice?

The correct termination of a commercial lease goes beyond the agreement itself. You should also ensure clear arrangements regarding:

• the correct method of termination;
• the date on which the lease actually ends;
• the handover of keys;
• the settlement of any outstanding rent, charges and interest;
• the handling of the security deposit;
• any final agreements regarding damage or outstanding debts.

Questions about your commercial lease?

Are you, as a landlord or tenant, considering terminating a commercial lease? In such cases, a quick and thorough review often makes the difference between a clear conclusion and an uncertain outcome later on.

STUDIO | LEGALE can assist you with:

• drafting and reviewing termination agreements;
• discussions regarding commercial leases and notice of termination;
• recovery of arrears and damages;
• negotiations between landlord and tenant;
• proceedings before the magistrates’ court.

Taking the right approach from the outset often prevents disputes down the line.

Author:

• Laurie PEER

In everyday economic transactions, individuals and companies are constantly represented by employees, directors, managers, lawyers, or brokers. In most cases, this goes smoothly. But what if it later transpires that the person who acted did not have (or only had limited) authority to do so?

What is apparent legal representation?

In principle, a person may only perform legal acts on behalf of another if he is authorized to do so and remains within the limits of that authority.

However, if it appears that a person is acting on behalf of another person, while in reality he has no or only limited power of representation, we refer to this as apparent representation.

In principle, in such cases, the represented party is not bound by the legal acts that were performed without valid authority.

However, there are two important exceptions to this principle, namely the ratification of the legal act by the represented party, or the existence of an apparent mandate.

When is one bound by apparent legal representation?

In order for a legal act performed without authority to be enforceable against the apparent principal, three cumulative conditions must be met.

Firstly, there must be an appearance that does not correspond to reality. The impression must exist that the agent has power of representation, whereas in reality this is not the case, or only partially so.

In addition, the third party with whom the apparent agent acted must not have had reasonable grounds to know that the alleged authority did not exist. The assessment is always made on the basis of the specific circumstances.

Finally, the appearance must be attributable to the person in whose name the act was performed.

What are the legal consequences?

When these conditions are met, the third party acting in good faith can invoke the doctrine of apparent authority. In that case, the appearance is considered to be reality.

The consequences can be significant and vary depending on the party involved.

The actions of the unauthorized representative can be directly attributed to the apparent principal, who is then deemed to have entered into the commitment themselves, with all the contractual, financial, and legal consequences that entails.

The unauthorized representative himself is not off the hook either. He can be held liable by the apparent principal for acting without or beyond his authority.

Does this sound familiar? Are you unsure whether you are bound by the actions of a third party, or are you being held accountable for a power that you never granted? Please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected]. 

Authors:

• Joost PEETERS
• Lena HERBOTS

Resources

• Artikel 1.8, §5 Burgerlijk Wetboek
• (1^e k.) 2 mei 2025, C.24.0072.N, RW2025-26/12, 448.
• (1^e k.) 2 september 2010, C.10.0014.F, Arr.Cass.2010/9, 2085.
• VANSWEEVELT T. en WEYTS B., Handboek Verbintenissenrecht, Larcier Intersentia, 2023.
• VAN LOOCK S., ‘Gevolgen ten opzichte van derden: vertegenwoordiging van de lastgever’ in X. Bestendig Handboek Distributierecht, Kluwer, 2020.