On 7 September 2026, the Interfederal Screening Committee (ISC) published its annual report on the screening of foreign direct investments in Belgium in the period 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026. In its third full year of operation, the Belgian FDI regime continues to mature, with a steady rise in notifications and a more proactive FDI authority.

Key figures – notification numbers continue to surge

Between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026, the ISC received 191 notifications – almost double the number of notifications compared to the previous year (see our briefing here on the second annual report). Of these, 162 investments were cleared unconditionally, two were authorised subject to conditions, and 27 notifications are still pending. No notifications were withdrawn by the investor itself.

Only eight notifications (i.e., 4% of all notifications) proceeded to the Phase II screening procedure. Of those, three were unconditionally approved, two were cleared subject to conditions, and three remain under assessment.

While no transaction was blocked during the reporting period itself, the ISC's first publicly reported prohibition decision followed shortly after, in August 2026.

The ISC is increasingly vigilant   

The ISC reportedly sent 27 requests for information to investors in relation to transactions that had not been notified, up from 16 last year, signalling intensified monitoring and detection efforts. Séverine Waterbley, the Chair of the Board of Directors of the FPS Economy, notes in the annual report that the ISC strengthened its capacity to detect investments that should have been notified under the screening mechanism and that this increased vigilance has contributed to the increase in the number of notifications.

Process remains smooth where filings are complete

On average, the Phase I verification procedure commenced within three days of notification, and the average duration of the Phase I review period was 32 calendar days. The ISC issued suspensory information requests in 45 cases, a notable increase compared to seven cases the year before.

Generally, these figures show that investors can continue to rely on a relatively predictable process for Belgian FDI notifications, provided these notifications are complete at the time of filing.

Sector spotlight – data continues to lead

The five most affected sectors are the same as last year: sensitive information / personal data (29.1%), energy (18.9%), digital infrastructure (8.8%), health (8.8%), and dual use (8.1%). For the third consecutive year, data-related investments account for the largest share of notifications, reflecting the broad reach of the Belgian FDI regime, which under "data" covers any Belgian companies that have access to, or the possibility to control, sensitive information or personal data.

US and UK investors remain at the forefront

Consistent with prior years, US and UK investors account for the majority of filings, representing 41.6% and 21.0% of notifications, respectively, followed by Canada (5.5%), Switzerland (5.5%), and China (3.7%). The Flanders Region continues to attract the majority of foreign investments, with over 60% of all notifications.

Outlook for the fourth year

Looking ahead, Belgium is required to align its national rules with the minimum standards set out in the revised EU FDI Screening Regulation (Regulation 2026/1386), which entered into force on 16 July 2026 and will start to apply from 17 January 2028 (see our briefing here for further details). The annual report notes that the process to revise the Cooperation Agreement of 30 November 2022 (between the federal and regional governments in Belgium) has already kicked off. 

Also, going forward, the economic security doctrine adopted by the European Commission in December 2025, aimed at strengthening the European Union's resilience against geoeconomic risks, will form an important reference framework for the assessment of foreign direct investments in Belgium. The ISC is expected to factor risks such as the transfer of sensitive technologies, the creation or reinforcement of strategic dependencies, the acquisition of critical assets, and systemic vulnerabilities linked to certain actors, in its security assessment. It is yet to be seen however how the ISC will interpret and apply these principles in practice.