Thales achieves landmark competition law ruling against Belgium's National Chamber of Bailiffs

On 28 January 2026, the French-speaking Commercial Court of Brussels ruled that a measure implemented by the National Chamber of Bailiffs (hereafter referred as the “NCB”) had to cease.

This decision followed an action launched by a group of bailiffs represented by Thales law firm against the NCB’s decision to implement a correction system regarding the price of a fee charged by bailiffs when they serve legal documents to the public. The price of this fee is set out in law and must be paid by the party that is ordered to pay the legal costs. However, the NCB took the view that once this amount has been paid by the debtor, an internal recalculation mechanism within the profession must then take place. The NCB considers that, depending on the district, the distances travelled by bailiffs vary and that judicial officers from different districts should therefore receive different amounts for these travel expenses.

The decision rendered by the Commercial Court of Brussels mainly addresses the two following findings.

First, it acknowledges that, in certain situations, the NCB, acting as a professional order, must be considered as an association of undertakings within the meaning of competition law. The Court stresses that competition law should apply to undertakings and associations of undertakings in this kind of situation. It also states that decisions of professional associations should be subject to judicial review, if they affect the market or regulate economic behaviour, even if those associations have public powers. On this basis, the Court declares the action admissible and asserts its jurisdiction to review and, if necessary, prohibit the NCB’s decision.
More largely, this key finding grants the Commercial Court jurisdiction over a large number of decisions and measures taken by the NCB, which can therefore be reviewed by the Commercial Court ex post.

According to the Court the redistribution mechanism decided by the NCB constitutes a restriction of competition. Since the NCB’s decision aims to redistribute part of the travel allowance for bailiffs serving a document the Court ruled that “By this decision, the Chamber intends to influence the setting of rates applicable to all its members, which constitutes conduct equivalent to the harmonisation and coordination of part of the price for their activities.”. The Court concludes that this mechanism this restriction of competition violates rules of competition law. 

The judgment ultimately ordered the NCB to cease this practice which operates a mechanism for redistributing travel expenses amongst bailiffs, and whereby the NCB retains a portion of the sums collected through this measure, representing an annual amount of €3.600.000. 

This case is a textbook example of private enforcement in the field of competition law and draws an important boundary between powers of a public-law nature (which fall outside the scope of competition law) and economic measures adopted by a professional body (which are subject to it).