Royal Decree on Structured Electronic Invoices

Product 3

Article 3 inserts a new Section 6 relating to structured electronic invoices in Chapter I of Royal Decree No 1, which comprises two separate articles (Articles 13ter and 13quater).
As indicated in the general explanatory memorandum to the law of 6 February 2024, one of the main stumbling blocks to the breakthrough of structured electronic invoices is the current lack of semantic (content of the invoice), syntactic (format or language used) and technical (mode of transmission) interoperability, which is essential to ensure interoperability between business systems, regardless of their technology, application or platform, provide and process information in a consistent manner.
Semantic interoperability means that the e-invoice contains a certain amount of required information, and that the precise meaning of the information exchanged is preserved and understood in an unambiguous manner, regardless of the way in which it is physically represented or transmitted. Syntactic interoperability means that the different data components of an electronic invoice are presented in an electronic format that allows direct exchange between the sender and receiver and automatic processing.
The Act of 6 February 2024 takes as its starting point that this problem must be solved by opting for common rules on semantics, syntax and mode of transmission, which are laid down in more detail in this decree in accordance with Article 53, § 2bis, second paragraph, of the Code.
It is recalled that, in accordance with Article 53(3)(2) of the Code, the members of a VAT group must issue invoices or special documents relating to their transactions to other members of that VAT group in accordance with the standards laid down in this Decree if, in accordance with Article 53(2bis) of the Code, they had been required to issue a structured electronic invoice for that transaction where the addressee had not been a member of the same VAT group.

The new Article 13ter of Royal Decree No. 1 lays down the standards that structured electronic invoices must comply with in terms of semantics, syntax and transmission.
The first paragraph of this article imposes that taxable persons who are required to issue a structured electronic invoice in accordance with Article 53, § 2bis, second paragraph, of the Code must, in principle, issue structured electronic invoices in accordance with the European semantic and syntactic standards on electronic invoicing (see below), as given concrete expression in the format Peppol BIS (Pan-European public procurement online – Business Interoperability Specification) in the UBL version and via the Peppol transmission network. Peppol BIS includes as a format all documents in the purchase chain, but is of course used here, in accordance with the legal obligation to which the format relates, only as a reference for invoices and documents that make changes to those invoices, such as credit notes in particular.
The second paragraph of this article supplements this basic rule with conditional and guided flexibility: subject to agreement between the parties concerned, a taxable person may issue a structured electronic invoice in a format other than Peppol BIS in the UBL version and, if applicable, send it by any digital means other than over the Peppol transmission network, provided that that format complies with the European standard for electronic invoicing and its syntax list pursuant to Directive 2014/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on electronic invoicing in the case of (‘Directive 2014/55/EU’). Specifically, this is a dynamic reference to the European semantic and syntactic standards EN 16931 (most recent version currently EN 16931-1:2017+A1:2019/AC:2020).
With regard to points 11 and 11.1. of the aforementioned advice 77.769/3 of the Council of State on the publication of these standards, reference is made to the answer given to the Council of State in the context of this advice.
In addition to the basic rules on the format set out in the new Article 13ter of Royal Decree No 1, the new Article 13quater of Royal Decree No 1 expressly provides that a taxable person who, in accordance with Article 53(2bis) of the Code and Article 13ter(2) of Royal Decree No 1, issues structured electronic invoices in a format other than Peppol BIS, which does comply with the aforementioned European standard, must be must have the technical means to issue and receive a structured electronic invoice in the format of Peppol BIS.
With regard to semantics and syntax of structured electronic invoices, the European semantic and syntactic standards are generally decisive and must always be respected, whereby Peppol BIS in the UBL version (basic standard) should be preferred in principle within the formats that meet them, unless the parties involved opt by mutual agreement for an alternative format that also complies with the European standard (subsidiary standard). This implies that a taxable person can use formats other than those that comply with the European standard, but only to the extent that they are converted into one of the formats that comply with the European standard before issuing it in fulfilment of its legal obligation to issue a structured electronic invoice, since the addressee always has the right to receive a structured electronic invoice in a format that complies with the European standard. European standard (which, by the way, is also part of the basic philosophy that will apply from 1 July 2030 by virtue of the amendments made to Directive 2006/12/EC by the ViDA Directive as of that date).
Taxpayers are therefore not allowed to completely cut themselves off from the basic standard on semantics and syntax as regards structured electronic invoices in order to focus exclusively on the subsidiary standard: taxpayers may issue invoices in a different format (if it complies with the aforementioned European standard and subject to agreement between the parties involved), but they must be technically able to issue structured electronic invoices in the format Peppol BIS to be issued and received.
This approach is a logical consequence of the fact that a taxpayer, neither as a provider of a facIn principle, neither as a recipient of an invoice, will be able to unilaterally decide to set aside the basic rule. Conversely, he must therefore be able to issue or receive invoices in accordance with the basic rule, in particular whenever his other contracting party (as the case may be, the addressee of the invoice or the taxable person who issues the invoice to him) insists on a structured electronic invoice in accordance with the basic rule.
Where taxpayers lawfully agree among themselves, in accordance with the second track, to use between them a format departing from the basic rule, it is thus ensured that taxpayers cannot unilaterally oblige their co-contractors to adopt that derogating format. If the latter were possible, the latter would incur additional costs because invoices would have to be issued or received at the same time that meet different standards of semantics and syntax. In that context, it is advisable to avoid a situation in which certain taxpayers could simply force their co-contracts to join the second track and thus effectively undermine the effectiveness of the basic rule.
In principle, the Peppol transmission network must be used for transmission, unless the subsidiary rule is followed regarding semantics and syntax (i.e. an invoice is issued, with the consent of the addressee of the invoice, in a format other than the Peppol BIS format in the UBL version, which does comply with the relevant European standards).
The Peppol network is already used in Belgium for the transmission of B2G invoices. It is also already being used in many other EU Member States and other countries in the context of B2B electronic invoicing or at least being considered as a first option.
In line with this, and in order to ensure maximum consistency in the transmission of structured electronic invoices more generally, it would also be envisaged that this network should be used at a later stage, by analogy with the existing use of B2G, as the transmission network for the transmission of structured electronic invoice data in the context of the future national and European digital ‘near real time’ reporting obligations. Against this background, taxpayers already have every interest in adapting to the technological requirements for the transmission of structured electronic invoices via the Peppol network, precisely because this approach will be “future-proof”: by using the Peppol network, electronic invoicing will be seamlessly integrated with future national digital reporting obligations.
In addition, a connection via Peppol already offers a number of essential advantages:
– the issuing and receipt of structured electronic invoices is considerably simplified by the use of a uniform open multilateral network that ensures full interoperability between the participants;
– it provides reinforced guarantees for the correct application of the required standards (through the use of recognised access points);
– It offers reinforced guarantees in terms of security, which ensures, among other things, the authenticity of the origin and the integrity of the content of structured electronic invoices.
Peppol is therefore first and foremost an open, interoperable and multilateral network, which means that it is automatically connected to all the other participants in the network by means of a one-time connection. The invoices of the participants can be sent correctly through the network via a search mechanism (SML and SMP). The characteristics of the recipient are requested via the Peppol Service Metadata Publisher (SMP) services. An SMP can be compared to an address book that contains the contact details of all participants. The Peppol Service Metadata Locator (SML) is a core service that identifies all Peppol Access Points and SMPs, at least by their company number that provides a common reference for all taxpayers, and is hosted by the European Commission. It thus functions as a form of address book.
As an open network, Peppol uses open standards, which implies that the necessary documentation on those standards is easily available, there are no obstacles in the field of intellectual property rights, stakeholders have sufficient opportunities to participate in the development and further elaboration of the standard and the guarantee of the independence and sustainability of the standardization organization is guaranteed.
Peppol implies the use of standards, whether or not supplemented with its own agreements. The standards relate to, among other things, the format of the invoice and the transport protocols. Within the network, the Peppol BIS format is preferentially used, but structured electronic invoices generated in a format other than Peppol BIS that complies with European semantic and syntactic standards on electronic invoicing can also be sent over the network.
Access to the network is ensured via so-called “Access Points”. An important feature of the Peppol network (based on a decentralized “four corner model”), is the freedom for taxpayers to choose an Access Point provider of their choice to exchange structured electronic documents with any taxpayer registered within the Peppol network via a single source. Anyone can set up such a Peppol Access Point, including the taxpayer who is required to issue structured electronic invoices. No agreement is required between Peppol Access Points and roaming charges are not allowed between Peppol Access Points.
Service providers established in Belgium who provide access to the Peppol network (the Access point providers) obtain the status of approved service provider within the framework of a service agreement concluded with the Federal Public Service Policy & Support, which defines the roles and responsibilities with regard to the management of the transmission network. Since March 2016, FPS BOSA has been acting as the Belgian Peppol authority. In this capacity, FPS BOSA also monitors compliance with the terms of these agreements and the rules, standards and procedures relating to them, facilitates the resolution of any exchange problems and maintains a cooperation between the operators operating the network together.
In this context, the recognition procedure as far as service providers established in Belgium are concerned, is described on the website of the FPS BOSA at the following link: https://bosa.belgium.be/ nl/themas/digitale-overheid/interoperability-en-integration/generalization-of-electronic.
This accreditation procedure, in its current form, includes the following steps:
– contacting the Belgian Peppol authority within the FPS BOSA;
– become a member of the AISBL OpenPeppol;
– sign the Peppol service provider agreement with the Belgian Peppol authority (FPS BOSA);
– pass the conformity tests of the IT application after obtaining a certificate for these tests from the Peppol Service Desk;
– after obtaining a certificate from the Peppol Service Desk.
At the end of this procedure and upon passing the tests, the service provider is certified by the Belgian Peppol Authority (SPF BOSA) and listed as a Peppol service provider on the FPS BOSA website. This service provider will also be included in the list of certified service providers drawn up by OpenPeppol (this list is available at the following link: https://peppol.org/members/peppol-certified-service-providers/).
Service providers not established in Belgium who provide access to the Peppol network in Belgium obtain that status of approved service provider under an equivalent service contract concluded with the competent administration of the place of establishment of that service provider acting as a Peppol authority there.
The approved service provider acting as a Peppol Access Point (including the taxable person himself who is recognized as such – cf. above) validates in this capacity the correct application of the required semantic and syntactic standards before sending that invoice. By allowing access to the network through such approved service providers, guarantees are built in that invoices sent over the network do indeed comply with the required semantic and syntactic standards. This control is not carried out in a centralised manner by the government (e.g. by prior validation of the invoice using a government platform), but in a decentralised manner by specialised service providers recognised for this purpose.
Finally, the Peppol network is secured in such a way as to guarantee the non-repudiation, authenticity of origin, confidentiality and integrity of the content of structured electronic invoices.
Such security thus guarantees to the issuer of the structured electronic invoice that the invoice which it has issued reaches the addressee and that the addressee cannot deny having received the invoice in question. In addition, the sending and receipt of structured electronic invoices may be carried out in a way that provides the parties concerned with guarantees that third parties will not be able to access or manipulate the data in question during transmission.

Article 4
Royal Decree No. 8 of 12 March 1970 laying down the rounding of value added tax payable, deductible or refundable (‘Royal Decree No 8’) lays down the rounding rules for VAT.
Thus, Article 1 of that decree provides that, where the amount of tax payable contains a fraction of a euro with more than two decimal places, that fraction is to be rounded up to the nearest cent or to the lesser cent, depending on whether or not the third decimal place reaches 5.
In accordance with Article 1(2)(1) of that decree, such rounding of the VAT due on invoices ‘per item’ must be carried out whenever the amount of the tax must be indicated on an invoice. This means that the rounding is only done on the total amount of the VAT due included on the invoice, even if other amounts of VAT due are also included, e.g. per rate or per product group.
Finally, Article 1(3) of Royal Decree No 8 provides for a derogation from the obligation in principle to round only the total amount of VAT due on an invoice: for reasons of the accounting organisation, the amount of VAT due may be rounded off per good or per service, per rate or otherwise, as long as this rounding is done in accordance with the basic rule set out in Article 1, first paragraph, of Royal Decree No. 8.
However, in accordance with the European semantic and syntactic standards on electronic invoicing (see above), for structured electronic invoices that comply with those standards, only the total amount of tax included on those invoices can be rounded off, and not per line (per transaction) of the structured electronic invoice.
For that reason, Article 4 of that decree amends Article 1(3) of Royal Decree No 8 in such a way that the possibility of rounding off the VAT due, other than on the total amount, does not apply to a structured electronic invoice issued in a format that complies with the European semantic and syntactic standards for electronic invoicing (see above).

Article 5
The introduction of the obligations with regard to the issuance and receipt of structured electronic invoices not only has an intrinsic value in itself, but will also play a crucial role in the long term as the basis of a system of electronic reporting. It is therefore important that taxpayers correctly fulfil such crucial obligations. It is therefore essential that an adequate sanctioning mechanism is put in place to effectively encourage taxpayers to fulfil those obligations correctly and, if necessary, to sanction them when they do not.
The sanctioning of the obligations relating to the issuing and receipt of structured electronic invoices will be based almost entirely on the already existing provisions on the sanctioning of infringements relating to invoices. After all, structured electronic invoices are a specific form (subgroup) of invoices. Infringements relating to the obligations relating to structured electronic invoices are therefore in that context, subject to the the specific exception explained below, subject to the tax fines and the scales of reduction or determination of those fines already provided for invoices, without the need to make specific adjustments to the existing provisions in this regard.
Thus, for the offences referred to in Article 70(2) of the Code, the proportional tax fine referred to in that article shall apply to the proportional tax fines referred to in that article in the case of structured electronic invoices, taking into account the scales for their reduction provided for in Table C of the Annex to Royal Decree No 41 of 30 January 1987 fixing the amount of the proportional tax fines in respect of the tax on the added value.
Thus, for the offences referred to in Article 70, § 4, of the Code, when they relate to structured electronic invoices, the non-proportional tax penalty referred to in that article applies, taking into account the scales for their determination as provided for in section I (Invoice and document valid as such) of Section 2 (Invoices and other documents provided for by or pursuant to the regulations) of the annex to Royal Decree No 1999. 44 of 9 July 2012 fixing the amount of the non-proportional tax fines for value added tax (hereinafter referred to as “Royal Decree No 44”) and taking into account the amendment to that section provided for in this Decree (addition of a provision under point C), as explained below.
The amended section I of section 2 of the annex to Royal Decree No 44 now includes, as a result of the addition of point C as provided for in this decree, three categories of infringements, which in terms of structure and basic philosophy are in line with section II (Receipt and invoice or receipt) of section 2 (Invoices and other documents provided for by or pursuant to the regulations) of the annex to Royal Decree No 44.
First of all, the new provision under the first paragraph of point C of section I of section 2 of the annex to Royal Decree No 44 penalises the offence consisting in a taxable person not having at all the technical means to issue and receive a structured electronic invoice. This infringement refers to the lack of the technical means necessary but sufficient to effectively implement the actual legal obligation to issue or receive a structured electronic invoice: the absence of such means structurally prevents a taxable person from fulfilling the legally prescribed obligations relating to structured electronic invoices on a transactional basis.
The scale for determining the non-proportional tax fines for this offence is identical to that provided for the offence listed under point A of the aforementioned section II of Section 2 of the Annex to Royal Decree No 44 (“Failure to maintain a cash register system that complies with the Royal Decree of 30 December 2009 determining the definition and conditions that a registered cash register system in the hospitality sector must meet”). This fundamental Infringement is sanctioned by a tax fine that increases according to the degree of the infringement, in accordance with the principles laid down in Article 3 of Royal Decree No. 44, included in a new provision under C of section I (Invoice and document valid as such) of Section 2 (Invoices and other documents provided for by or pursuant to the regulations) of the Annex to Royal Decree No. 44.
A fine of 1,500 euros will therefore be due for a first violation, a fine of 3,000 euros for a second violation and a fine of 5,000 euros for subsequent violations.
On the other hand, it is also important that, following the establishment and sanctioning of such a fundamental infringement, the taxable person is granted a reasonable period of time to enable him to take the necessary steps to comply and thus to ensure, in concrete terms, that he has at his disposal the necessary and sufficient technical means to issue and receive a structured electronic invoice. For this reason, the aforementioned new provision provides in the second paragraph under point C that an infringement can only be considered as a second or subsequent infringement if this infringement has been established by the administration at the earliest three months after the previous infringement that gave rise to an administrative fine has been established by the administration.
This clarification, which appears in the body of the text (and not as a footnote), responds to the observation made by the Conseil d’État in paragraph 12 of its Opinion 77.769/3, cited above.
In addition, in accordance with the current provisions of the section, there are two other offences that are directly linked to the obligation to issue (correct) structured electronic invoices, namely:
– the offences where a structured electronic invoice was not issued within the period provided for by or pursuant to the regulations;
– the offences where a structured electronic invoice does not comply with another obligation provided for by or pursuant to the regulations. For example, for a structured electronic invoice, this concerns not only the non-compliance with the mandatory information (Article 5 of Royal Decree No. 1) but also the non-compliance with the specific technical modalities as included in the new Article 13ter of the Royal Decree No. 1 (requirements regarding semantics, syntax and transmission).
For those two violations, no new scale for the determination of the non-proportional tax fines in question is elaborated in this decision. As indicated above, structured electronic invoices are ultimately a specific manifestation of invoices, so that they are subject to the scales for determining the non-proportional tax pecuniary penalties already provided for invoices as such, without the need for specific adaptations of the existing provisions.
If a structured electronic invoice has not been issued within the period provided for by or pursuant to the regulations, tax fines may be imposed in accordance with the provision under point A of Section I of Section 2 of the Annex to Royal Decree No. 44.<B1101>If a structured electronic invoice does not comply with another obligation provided for by or pursuant to the regulations (except for obligations set out in another section), tax fines may be imposed in accordance with the provision under point B of Section I of Section 2 of the Annex to Royal Decree No. 44. In the case of a structured electronic invoice, this definition will also include, in particular, infringements resulting from failure to comply with the specific technical procedures to be observed when issuing structured electronic invoices in accordance with the new Article 13ter of Royal Decree No 1 as inserted by this Decree (requirements relating to semantics, syntax and transmission).

Article 6
The provisions of this Decree shall enter into force on 1 January 2026, in accordance with the date of entry into force of the provisions of the aforementioned Law of 6 February 2024 of which they are the implementation.
I have the honour to be,Sire,Your

Majesty,the
most respectful and very faithful servant,The
Minister of Finance,J
. JAMBON

OPINION 77.769/3 OF 19 JUNE 2025 ON A DRAFT ROYAL DECREE ‘AMENDING ROYAL DECREES NOS 1, 8 AND 44 ON VALUE ADDED TAX AS REGARDS STRUCTURED ELECTRONIC INVOICES SUBJECT: ‘
On 21 May 2025, the Council of State, Legislation Section, was requested by the Minister of Finance to provide an opinion within a period of thirty days on a draft Royal Decree ‘amending Royal Decrees Nos 1, 8 and 44 with regard to value added tax as regards structured electronic invoices’.
The draft was examined by the Third Chamber on 10 June 2025. The chamber was composed of Jeroen Van Nieuwenhove, president of the chamber, Koen Muylle and Elly Van de Velde, state councillors, Jan Velaers and Bruno Peeters, assessors, and Yves Depoorter
. The report was presented by Dries Van Eeckhoutte, first auditor head of department.
The correspondence between the French and Dutch texts of the advice has been checked under the supervision of Elly Van de Velde, State Councillor.
The advice, the text of which is given below, was given on 19 June 2025.
1. Pursuant to Article 84, § 3, first paragraph, of the Laws on the Council of State, coordinated on 12 January 1973, the Legislation Division has focused on examining the competence of the author of the act, the legal basis, and the question whether the formal requirements to be fulfilled have been met.
Scope of the draft
2. The draft Royal Decree submitted for an opinion is intended to repeal Royal Decree No 1 of 29 December 1992 “on the arrangements for the payment of value added tax” (Articles 2 and 3 of the draft), Royal Decree No 8 of 12 March 1970 “laying down the method of rounding off the amount due, deductible or refundable value added tax’ (Article 4) and Royal Decree No 44 of 9 July 2012 ‘establishing the Bamount of non-proportional tax fines in terms of value added tax’ (Article 5), in order to give further effect to the Act of 6 February 2024 ‘amending the Value Added Tax Code and the Income Tax Code 1992 as regards the introduction of the obligation to electronic invoicing’.
According to Article 1 of the draft, the present draft provides for the partial transposition of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 “on the common system of value added tax” (hereinafter: the VAT Directive).

Article 6 provides that the decision to be taken will enter into force on 1 January 2026.
Legal basis
3.1. It is apparent from the preamble that the legal basis for the draft is sought in Articles 53, § 2bis, second paragraph, 54, first paragraph, 57, § 7, first paragraph, and 70, § 4, first paragraph, of the Value Added Tax Code (hereinafter: the VAT Code).
3.2. When questioned in this regard, the authorised representative provided the following table of legal grounds:

This table can be approved, subject to the following.
3.3. The legal basis for Article 3 of the draft is sought in Article 53(2bis)(2) of the VAT Code, as inserted by Article 3(2) of the Law of 6 February 2024. The entry into force of this provision is scheduled for 1 January 2026, subject to the following condition (Article 6, first and second paragraphs, of the Law of 6 February 2024):
“The entry into force of this Law is subject to the Kingdom of Belgium obtaining the authorisation of the Council of the European Union, on the basis of Article 395 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of tax on added value, to introduce the obligation to issue structured electronic invoices under the conditions laid down in this Law.’
In view of the current state of European law, as explained in Note 5, such authorisation from the Council of the European Union has now become superfluous.
When questioned about this, the representative stated that the abolition of the second paragraph of Article 6 of the Law of 6 February 2024 is the subject of a preliminary draft law containing various provisions on value added tax, and that “[c]ette loi en projet sera adoptée et publiée au Moniteur belge avant la fin de l’année 2025”.
Under that condition, Article 3 of the draft can go ahead.
Form requirements
4. When questioned about this, the representative clarified that the advice of the Data Protection Authority was requested on 20 May 2025.
If the text submitted to the Council of State is subject to further amendments as a result of the fulfilment of this above-mentioned formal requirement,(1) the amended or added provisions must be submitted to the Legislation Division in compliance with the provision of Article 3, § 1, first paragraph, of the laws on the Council of State.
General remark
5. When questioned on this point, the representative clarified that the draft (and in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof) has its basis under European law in the second paragraph of Article 218 of the VAT Directive, as inserted by Article 1(2) of Council Directive (EU) 2025/516 of 11 March 2025 ‘amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards VAT rules for the digital age’. (2)
Under Article 6(1) of Directive (EU) 2025/516, Member States may apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to Article 1(2) and (3) of that directive from 14 April 2025. They should inform the Commission immediately.
Since the report to the King makes no mention of Directive (EU) 2025/516 and otherwise refers to a European legislative process that has now ended with the adoption of the aforementioned directive,(3) it is advisable to bring the explanatory notes in the report to the King into line with the current state of European law.
Examination of the text
Preamble
6.1. The preamble must be adapted to the provisions stated in the table of legal grounds (note 3.2). This means that the first paragraph of the preamble must refer to Article 53, § 2, fifth paragraph, of the VAT Code and that the phrase “Article 57, § 7, first paragraph, must be replaced by the Law v23 November 2023” should be omitted.
6.2. In addition, in the Dutch text of the first paragraph, the opening words “17 December” are replaced by “17 December 2012”.
6.3. The fourth paragraph of the preamble refers to ‘Royal Decree No 22 of 29 December 1992 on the arrangements for the payment of value added tax’. Since there is no Royal Decree No 22 with that title (but there is Royal Decree No 1 referred to in the second paragraph of the introductory paragraph), the fourth paragraph of the introductory part must be omitted.

Article 2
7. In the introductory sentence of Article 2 of the draft, the legislative history of the amended provision should be supplemented as follows: “replaced by Royal Decree of 19 December 2012 and amended by Royal Decree of 18 December 2015”.
8. When questioned on this point, the delegate explained Article 2 of the draft and his relationship with Article 53(2) of the VAT Code as follows:
‘Cette paraphrase est nécessaire dans le cas présent afin de déterminer avec précision le champ d’application de cette obligation de facturation. Concrètement, l’obligation de facturation qui est prévue à l’article 1^er of Royal Decree No. 1 concerns transactions carried out by taxable persons for the benefit of customers who are natural persons who intend the goods or services for their private use.
The invoicing obligation laid down in Article 53(2) of the Code, on the other hand, applies to transactions, other than those exempted under Article 44 and other than those referred to in points (a) to (g) of Article 135(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC, carried out by taxable persons essentially for the benefit of other taxable persons (except in respect of certain specific transactions listed in that provision).
These are therefore two autonomous obligations which are formally distinguished above all by their personal scope, as indicated above, thereby justifying the maintenance of the draft provision.
The differences in terminology in the description of the material scope are otherwise minimal. They concern, on the one hand, the concept of ‘exempt’ transactions, which is more in line with that used in Article 44 of the Code (as opposed to ‘exempt’ more commonly used in Directive 2006/112/EC) and, on the other hand, the addition of necessary specific clarifications to the rule put in place by this provision (the fact that this only concerns transactions located in Belgium and the fact that an invoice must be issued as soon as the tax is due, regardless of the event triggering this exigibility).”
Het verdient aanbeveling deze toelichting op te nemen in het verslag aan de Koning.

Artikel 3
9. In de inleidende zin van artikel 3 van het ontwerp moet de datum “11 december 2019” worden vervangen door de datum “15 december 2024”.
10. In het ontworpen artikel 13ter, tweede lid, van het koninklijk besluit nr. 1 dient te worden verduidelijkt dat dat lid een parafrase is van een wetsbepaling door de zinsnede “overeenkomstig artikel 53, § 2bis, tweede lid, van het Wetboek” in te lassen na de woorden “In afwijking van het eerste lid mag”.
11. In de artikelen 3 en 4 van het ontwerp worden de Europese semantische en syntactische normen EN 16931-1 en CEN/TS 16931-2 door verwijzing verbindend gemaakt.
Gevraagd naar de bekendmaking van deze normen overeenkomstig artikel 190 van de Grondwet, antwoordde de gemachtigde het volgende:
“The standards in question will be published on the website of the NBN (Bureau of Standardisation, https://www.nbn.be/), which is responsible for the registration of EN standards drawn up by the European Committee for Standardisation (see also the answer to question 2). As already indicated in the email exchange with your documentalist, the translation of the standard into Dutch and the finalisation of the translation of the standard into French are currently underway with a view to publication in these languages before the end of the year.
Access to these versions will indeed be free and open.”
11.1. In het verleden heeft de Raad van State al herhaaldelijk gewezen op het probleem dat technische normen waarnaar wordt verwezen in wet- en regelgeving niet in het Belgisch Staatsblad worden bekendgemaakt, dat ze niet in het Nederlands en in het Frans zijn gesteld of vertaald, en dat ze in de regel enkel beschikbaar zouden zijn tegen een bepaalde vergoeding. (4)
Aan artikel VIII.2 van het Wetboek van economisch recht ligt de bedoeling tea basis for addressing the bottleneck of the lack of publication of technical standards referred to in Belgian legal rules. According to the second paragraph of that article, the State and any other person governed by public law may require the application of a standard or part of a standard published by the Bureau for Standardisation. They shall inform the Bureau for Standardization of this in advance. The specifically Belgian standards that are made mandatory are made available on the website of the Bureau for Standardisation in accordance with the detailed rules laid down by the King, without the possibility of downloading or printing them. The other standards that are made mandatory are made available free of charge by the author of the regulations in such a way that the copyrights on those standards are respected. If a translation is required, the Bureau for Standardization may invoice the regulatory authority for the cost of translating this standard by a third party.
To the extent that the standards referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of the draft can be regarded as a standard published by the Bureau for Standardisation, the requirements laid down in the aforementioned provision of the Code of Economic Law with regard to the consultation and making available of the standard in question must be complied with. However, to the extent that Articles 3 and 4 of the draft law refer to a technical standard for which Article VIII.2 of the Code of Economic Law does not provide for the same guarantees as regards its consultation and making available on the website of the Bureau for Standardisation, (5) the question remains relevant whether that standard has been published in a manner which meets the essential framework conditions in terms of accessibility and recognisability of a standard. Official announcement. (6) If that is not the case, reference is still made, as regards the relevant technical standards, to standards which have not been published in accordance with Article 190 of the Constitution and which are therefore, in principle, unenforceable. (7)
11.2. It should also be noted that the Court of Justice has held that the principle of legal certainty requires that EU legislation enables those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations imposed on them. (8) Individuals must be able to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and to take steps accordingly. (9) On that basis, the Court has held that an annex to a regulation which has not been published in the Official Journal does not have binding force in so far as it is intended to impose obligations on individuals. (10) The Court has also precluded the imposition of obligations contained in Community legislation which has not been published in the language of a Member State, even though that language is an official language of the European Union, on individuals in that State, even if those persons could have become aware of that legislation by other means. (11) Consequently, the problem of references to unpublished technical standards which are not available in Dutch and French appears to arise in European Union law in terms similar to those in the domestic legal order.
In Case C-588/21, P, the Court ruled on 5 March 2024 that, although compliance with it is not mandatory, it gives rise to a presumption of conformity with the essential requirements laid down in the relevant Union harmonisation legislation in respect of those products, it is part of EU law. That is a fortiori the case in the present case, where a European rule is made binding in a European law. (12) According to the Court of Justice, the fact that the provision forms part of EU law has the following effect: ‘(…), as the Advocate General observed in point 52 of her Opinion, Article 2 TEU provides that the Union is founded on the principle of the rule of law, which requires that all natural and legal persons of the Union have free access to EU law and that individuals may ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are (judgment of 22 February 2022, Stichting Rookpreventie Jeugd and Others, C-160/20, EU:C:2022:101, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). In particular, that freedom of access must enable any person to benefit from the protection afforded by a law to verify, within the limits imposed by law, that the addressees of the rules laid down by that law are actually complying with those rules.’ (13) In paragraph 52, paraphrased by the Court of Justice, Advocate General Medina concluded that ‘EU law should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union’.
It is for the institutions of the European Union to comply with the aforementioned case-law of the Court of Justice. In the meantime, the authors of the draft would do well to prepare the Dutch and French translations of the European standard in consultation with the author of the standard, the Union institutions and the other Member States concerned, even if these translations are already made available through the publication on the website of the Bureau for Standardisation (see note 11.1).
11.3. When asked which version of standards EN 16931-1 and CEN/TS 16931-2 is meant, the Delegate agreed that the envisaged European standards are those in their 2017 version(14) and suggested that the Delegate refer to them as follows:
‘”the European Standard for electronic invoicing and its list of syntaxes under Directive 2014/55/EU” (see Article 5, 5) and 9) of the ViDA Directive, amending Articles 218(3) and 232(1) of the VAT Directive respectively). Moreover, for reasons of conformity, that amendment would in any event also be made to the legal basis of the obligation in question, namely Article 53(2bis) of the VAT Code, by means of a law containing various provisions that would enter into force by 31 December 2025 at the latest.’
This method can be approved. (15)

Article 5
12. Article 5 of the draft provides for disproportionate tax fines for not having the technical means to issue or receive a structured electronic invoice. It sets a fine for the first (EUR 1 500), the second (EUR 3 000) and the following offences (EUR 5 000), with a footnote to the draft provision C in section I of Section 2 of the Annex to Royal Decree No 44 stating that ‘[t]f the 2^of and the following offences, but tax fines may be imposed following the administration’s finding of the offence at the earliest three months after the previous offence giving rise to an administrative fine was established by the administration’.
When questioned about this, the delegate gave the following explanation:
“Le fait, comme le prévoit la note sous l’amende prévue à l’article 5 du projet, que la 2^Th offence and subsequent offences, may not be subject to the fine provided for in the event of the commission of this offence.^Th (or next) offence only after the establishment of this offence by the administration, at the earliest three months after the previous offence giving rise to an administrative fine has been established by the administration, is a method of the graduation of non-proportional tax fines, in accordance with the authorisation granted to the King under Article 70, § 4, subparagraph 1^er, the Code.
This provision provides that ‘Infringements of this Code and the decrees adopted for its implementation, other than those referred to in §§ 1^er, 2 and 3, are punishable by a non-proportional tax fine of 50 to 5,000 euros per offence. The amount of this fine shall be fixed according to the nature and gravity of the offence according to a scale the scales of which shall be determined by the King.
That condition is a measure intended to warn the taxable person who has committed a first infringement of his unlawful conduct in order, precisely, to enable him to avoid falling under the (higher) scales of non-proportionate fines laid down in the event of the commission of identical subsequent infringements.
The commission of a second (or more) identical offence is an aggravating factor in this offence, justifying a more severe sanction (cf.: The amount of this fine is set according to the nature and seriousness of the offence…).
In addition, in the event of a finding of an identical offence before the expiry of the aforementioned 3 months, this measure does not prohibit the imposition of a new non-proportional tax fine. It simply prevents the administration from applying the higher level scale. In order to clarify the scope of this provision as much as possible, it is proposed to amend the introductory sentence of the disputed wording as follows:
‘The offence may be regarded as a second or subsequent offence only after the establishment of that offence by the administration, at the earliest three months after the previous offence giving rise to an administrative fine has been established by the administration’.”
De tekst van artikel 5 van het ontwerp is niet duidelijk.
Indien het de bedoeling is van de stellers van het ontwerp om de belastingplichtige gedurende een periode van drie maanden na de eerste overtreding de mogelijkheid te geven om aanpassingen te doen om alsnog te “beschikken over de technische middelen die het mogelijk maken om een gestructureerde elektronische factuur uit te reiken en te ontvangen”, moet uit de tekst van het ontwerp zelf duidelijk blijken dat elke overtreding in die periode van drie maanden na De eerste overtreding nog steeds onder de categorie van de “1^ste offence”.
To that end, a second paragraph could be added to the draft provision under C, defining what constitutes a ‘1^ste offence’. (16) The representative’s proposal for a text may be used for this purpose, provided that the words ‘L’infraction’ are replaced by the words ‘Une infraction’ – in view of the possibility that several infringements could be detected during those three months after the first infringement. In this way, Article 5 of the draft is also consistent with the legal basis contained in Article 70(4) of the VAT Code, which provides that the amount of the fine is to be determined, according to the nature and seriousness of the offence, according to a scale the steps of which are determined by the King.
The Registrar,
Y. Depoorter
The Chairman,
J. Van Nieuwenhove
_______
Notes
(1) Namely, changes other than those mentioned in this opinion or those intended to meet the requirements of this opinion.
(2) Article 218 of the VAT Directive provides: ‘For the purposes of this Directive, Member States shall accept as an invoice any document or message, whether in paper or electronic format, which satisfies the conditions laid down in this Chapter. By way of derogation from the first subparagraph of this Article, Member States may, in accordance with the conditions which they shall lay down, require taxable persons established in their territory to issue electronic invoices for supplies of goods or services in their territory other than those referred to in Article 262.’
(3) For example, the report to the King still mentions “a proposal” from the European Commission, or a “compromise text with regard to that proposal (…), pending its final adoption at the beginning of 2025 after the European Parliament has issued an additional opinion on that compromise text”.
(4) See also Jenart C., Outsourcing rulemaking powers. Constitutional limits and national safeguards, Oxford University Press, 2022, 320 p.
(5) Since these are different standards than the specific Belgian standards that are made mandatory and about which it is stipulated in Article VIII.2, second paragraph, of the Code of Economic Law, that they are made available free of charge by the author of the regulations in such a way that the copyrights on those standards are respected and that, If a translation is required, the Bureau for Standardization can invoice the regulatory authority for the cost of translating these standards by a third party.
(6) The principle in question was recalled by the Constitutional Court, albeit in a different matter, as follows: ‘However, where the competent legislature considers it necessary, in exceptional circumstances, to derogate from [the centralised publication of all texts having legislative or regulatory force which have binding force in the Belgian legal order] by referring to texts adopted by a public authority which have not been published in the Belgian Official Gazette and to draw binding consequences from them with regard to a generality of citizens, it is at least required that he specify in the relevant legislative provision the location and manner of publication of those texts. In addition, that method of publication must offer guarantees of foreseeability and clarity similar to those of the a publication in the Belgian Official Gazette, which presupposes, among other things, that the text is easily accessible to everyone, that there is certainty about the times of publication and entry into force, and that not only the current text version can be consulted, but also the text versions that have been in force in the past” (GwH 16 February 2023, No 26/2023, B.54.4, as regards the establishment of red zones in the context of the COVID pandemic). See also, as regards the language of the notice, GwH 14 July 1994, No 59/94, B.4.
(7) The Conseil d’État notes that the litigant must first log in before being able to consult the relevant standards on the website of the Bureau for Standardisation. The Council of State hereby recalls that in opinion 77.035/1 of 7 October 2024, it was pointed out that the publication of a standard in accordance with Article 190 of the Constitution requires that this standard must be freely available at all times (adv. Council of State 77.035/1 of 7 October 2024 on a draft Royal Decree ‘on the modalities for the consultation of Belgian national standards made mandatory by a technical regulation’, note 11.2). The practice whereby a standard can only be consulted after having to log in is at odds with the principles of accessibility and the principle of minimum processing of personal data (Article 5(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the protection of personal data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)’). In principle, the request to hand over personal data may not be a condition for access to government information (a fortiori for an official publication) and only essential cookies may be placed for which legally valid consent has been obtained: see decision of the GBA Dispute Chamber 82/2020 of 23 December 2020, https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/ publications/beslissing-ten-gronde-nr.-82-2020.pdf. See also DPA Recommendation No 1/2019 of 6 February 2019, https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/ publications/aanbeveling-nr.-01-2019.pdf, 8.
(8) See, inter alia, ECJ 20 May 2003, C-469/00, Ravil SARL, Bellon import SARL and Biraghi SpA, ECLI:EU:C:2003:295, paragraph 93; ECJ 11 December 2007, C-161/06, Skoma-Lux sro t. Celn¤ [00c5][0099]editelstv¤ Olomouc, ECLI:EU:C:2007:773, paragraph 38.
(9) CJEU 21 June 2007, C-58/06, Stichting ROM-projecten v. State Secretary for Economic Affairs, ECLI:EU:C:2007:370, paragraph 25.
(10) ECJ of 10 March 2009, C-345/06, Gottfriet Heinrich, ECLI:EU:C:2009:140, paragraph 63.
(11) ECJ 11 December 2007, C-161/06, Skoma-Lux sro t. Celn¤ [00c5][0099]editelstv¤ Olomouc, ECLI:EU:C:2007:773, paragraph 51. See also CJEU 22 February 2022, C-160/20, Youth Smoking Prevention Foundation, ECLI:EU:C:2022:101, paragraphs 40-52.
(12) Article 218 of the VAT Directive, as replaced by Article 5(5) of Directive (EU) 2025/516, provides in paragraph 2 that, for the purposes of the Directive, invoices are to be issued in the form of electronic invoices. Its paragraph 3 provides that these electronic invoices “shall comply with the European standard for electronic’.
(13) CJEU of 5 March 2024, C-588/21 P, Public.Resource.Org and Others v COM, ECLI:EU:C:2024:201, paragraph 81.
(14) Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1870 of 16 October 2017 ‘on the publication of the reference of the European standard for electronic invoicing and the list of syntaxes pursuant to Directive 2014/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council’ defines the reference of the European standard for electronic invoicing as ‘EN 16931-1:2017, Electronic invoicing – Part 1: Semantic data model for the core elements of an electronic invoice’ and of the list of syntaxes as ‘CEN/TS 16931-2:2017, Electronic invoicing – Part 2: List of syntaxes complying with EN 16931-1’.
(15) Moreover, the Conseil d’État (Council of State) states on the website of the Bureau for Standardisation that European standard EN 16931-1:2017 is described by its author as ‘withdrawn’. Consultation of this text version is subject to a fee. The updated and corrected text versions EN 16931-1:2017+A1:2019 and the correction EN 16931-1:2017+A1:2019/AC:2020 are available free of charge, but the references of these standards have not been published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Articles 3(2), 4(1) or 5(1) of Directive 2014/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 ‘on electronic invoicing in public procurement’. They therefore do not qualify as a European standard. Pointing this out, the representative seemed to suggest that the reference should be understood dynamically under European law. However, such a dynamic interpretation is at odds with the clear text of Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1870 and with the procedures provided for in Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 2014/55/EU. A dynamic reference, in other words a reference to possible future versions, is an unauthorised delegation of regulatory power to a private standard-setting body, since the future content of those technical standards is determined by that body (see adv. Council of State 71.335/1 of 18 May 2022 on a preliminary draft that led to the Act of 25 September 2022 ‘containing various provisions on the economy’, Parl.St. Chamber 2021-22, no. 55-2742/1, 134-135, remark 12.4 and adv. RvS 71.447/3 of 2 June 2022 on a draft that led to the decision of the Flemish Government of 15 July 2022 ‘amending the Royal Decree of 15 March 1968 laying down general regulations on the technical requirements that cars, their trailers, their parts and their safety accessories must meet, including for the technical inspection of old-timer vehicles’, Note 10.3.3). Nor can discretion at European level be taken away from the institutions that have political responsibility under the Treaties. This would undermine the institutional balance on which the European Union is based (ECJ 13 June 1958, case 9-56, Meroni v High Authority, ECLI:EU:C:1958:7, 45-46 and ECJ 14 May 1981, case 98/80, Romano, ECLI:EU:C:1981:104, § 20; CJEU 22 January 2014, C-270/12, UK/EP and Council, ECLI:EU:C:2014:18, § 41 et seq.). If the text versions updated and corrected in 2019 and 2020 are intended to qualify as European standards, an appropriate procedure should be followed if theprovided for in Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 2014/55/EU.
(16) Recommendation 86 of the Legislative Technique Manual provides that footnotes are not to be included in the operative part because the meaning of such information is uncertain: Principles of legislative technique – Manual for the drafting of legislative and regulatory texts, Council of State, 2008, recommendation 86, available on the website of the Council of State (www.raadvst-consetat.be).

8 JULY 2025. – Royal Decree amending Royal Decrees Nos 1, 8 and 44 on value added tax as regards
structured electronic invoices FILIP, King of the Belgians,
To all who are now and will be hereafter, Our greetings.
Having regard to the Value Added Tax Code, Article 53, § 2, fifth paragraph, replaced by the Law of 17 December 2012, Article 53, § 2bis, second paragraph, inserted by the Law of 6 February 2024, Article 54, first paragraph, replaced by the Law of 17 December 2012 and amended by the Law of 30 July 2018 and Article 70, Paragraph 4, first paragraph, replaced by the Programme Law of 22 June 2012;
Having regard to Royal Decree No 1 of 29 December 1992 on the arrangements for payment of value added tax;
Having regard to Royal Decree No 8 of 12 March 1970 laying down the method of rounding off the value added tax due, deductible or refundable;
Having regard to Royal Decree No 44 of 9 July 2012 fixing the amount of the non-proportional tax fines for value added tax;
Having regard to the opinion of the Inspector of Finance, given on 1 May 2025;
Having regard to the approval of the Minister of the Budget, dated 19 May 2025;
Having regard to Opinion No. 77.769/3 of the Council of State, given on 19 June 2025 in application of Article 84, § 1, first paragraph, 2°, of the laws on the Council of State, coordinated on 12 January 1973;
Having regard to the opinion No 46/2025 of the Data Protection Authority (reference: CO-A-2025-056), given on 23 June 2025;
Having regard to the regulatory impact analysis, carried out in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of the Act of 15 December 2013 on various provisions on administrative simplification;

On the recommendation of the Minister of Finance,

We have decided and decree :

Article 1. This Royal Decree provides for the partial transposition of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

Art. 2. Article 1(1), introductory sentence, of Royal Decree No 1 of 29 December 1992 on the arrangements for payment of value added tax, replaced by Royal Decree of 19 December 2012 and amended by Royal Decree of 18 December 2015, is replaced by the following:
“A taxable person who has the following supplies of goods or services which are not exempt under Article 44 of the Code and which are not referred to in Article 135(1)(a) to (g) of Regulation (EC)Directive 2006/112/EC, carried out for natural persons who use it for their private use, issues an invoice where these transactions take place in Belgium in accordance with Articles 14, 14bis, 15 and 21bis of the Code, or where, before the transaction, the tax becomes chargeable on all or part of the price of the transaction, pursuant to Articles 17, § 1, third paragraph and 22bis, § 1, third paragraph, of the Code: “.

Art. 3. In Chapter I of the same Decree, as last amended by the Royal Decree of 15 December 2024, a Section 6 containing Articles 13ter and 13quater is inserted, as follows:
‘Section 6. – Structured electronic invoices

Art. 13ter. The taxable person who is required to issue a structured electronic invoice in accordance with Article 53, § 2bis, first paragraph, of the Code, shall issue that invoice:
1° in accordance with the European standard for electronic invoicing and its list of syntaxes pursuant to Directive 2014/55/EU as concretised in the format Peppol BIS in the UBL version;
2° via the Peppol transmission network.
Contrary to the first paragraph and in accordance with Article 53, § 2bis, second paragraph, of the Code, the taxpayer referred to in the first paragraph may, subject to agreement between the parties involved, issue a structured electronic invoice in a format other than Peppol BIS in the UBL version and, if necessary, in any other digital manner than via a digital means referred to in the first paragraph, (2) referred to in the transmission network, provided that that format complies with the European standard for electronic invoicing and its list of syntaxes pursuant to Directive 2014/55/EU.

Art. 13quater. The taxable person referred to in Article 13b, paragraph 2, shall have the technical means to issue and receive a structured electronic invoice in accordance with Article 13b, paragraph 1.’;

Art. 4. In Article 1 of Royal Decree No 8 of 12 March 1970 laying down the method of rounding off the value added tax due, deductible or refundable, the third paragraph, as last amended by the Royal Decree of 20 July 2000, is replaced by the following:
“However, for reasons of accounting organisation, rounding may be done per good or service, by tariff or otherwise, provided that it is done in accordance with the first paragraph, except in the context of a structured electronic invoice issued in a format that complies with the European standard for electronic invoicing and its syntax list pursuant to Directive 2014/55/EU.’;

Art. 5. Section I of Section 2 of the Annex to Royal Decree No 44 of 9 July 2012 fixing the amount of the non-proportional tax pecuniary fines for value added tax is supplemented by subparagraph C, which provides:

For the purposes of the first paragraph, an infringement may only be regarded as a second or subsequent infringement if this infringement has been established by the administration at the earliest three months after the previous infringement giving rise to an administrative fine has been established by the administration.”

Art. 6. This Decree shall enter into force on 1 January 2026.

Art. 7. The Minister responsible for Finance is responsible for the implementation of this Decree.

Given at Brussels, 8 July 2025.
FILIP
Van Koningswege :
The Minister of Finance,J
. JAMBON
_______
Notes
(1) References to the Belgian Official Gazette:
Law of 3 July 1969, Belgian Official Gazette of 17 July 1969;
Programme Law of 22 June 2012, Belgian Official Gazette of 28 June 2012;
Law of 17 December 2012, Belgian Official Gazette of 21 December 2012, ed. 2;
Law of 15 December 2013, Belgian Official Gazette of 31 December 2013, ed. 1;
Law of 30 July 2018, Belgian Official Gazette of 10 August 2018;
Law of 6 February 2024, Belgian Official Gazette of 20 February 2024;
Royal Decree No 1 of 29 December 1992 on the arrangements for the payment of value added tax, Moniteur belge of 31 December 1992, ed. 4;
Royal Decree No 8 of 12 March 1970 laying down the method of rounding off the value added tax due, deductible or refundable, Moniteur belge of 18 March 1970;
Royal Decree No 44 of 9 July 2012 fixing the amount of the non-proportional tax fines in terms of value added tax, Moniteur belge of 17 July 2012;
Royal Decree of 20 July 2000, Moniteur belge of 30 August 2000, ed. 1;
Royal Decree of 19 December 2012, Moniteur belge of 31 December 2012, ed. 1;
Royal Decree of 18 December 2015, Belgian Official Gazette of 28 December 2015, ed. 2;
Royal Decree of 15 December 2024, Belgian Official Gazette of 24 December 2024;
Coordinated laws on the Council of State, Royal Decree of 12 January 1973, Belgian Official Gazette of 21 March 1973.