A Belgian court has declined to terminate a legal challenge to the European Union's minimum-tax framework, leaving the case "live" and clearing the path to arguments on the merits. The International Comparative Legal Guide reported on its news feed that the "EU minimum-tax challenge remains live"; the brief notice did not name the deciding court, the parties, or a case reference.

The phrase "remains live" carries a specific procedural meaning. In Belgian civil and administrative procedure, a court can dispose of a case at the threshold by holding that the action is inadmissible, that the applicants lack standing, or that the claim raises no serious question of law. By keeping the action alive, the court has signalled that none of these early exits applies and that the substantive arguments will be heard.

Which regime is in dispute?

The "EU minimum tax" subject to challenge refers to Council Directive (EU) 2022/2523, which transposed the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework's Pillar Two Global Anti-Base Erosion rules into Union law. The directive obliges member states to impose a 15% effective minimum tax on multinational enterprise (MNE) groups with consolidated revenues of at least €750 million in two of the four preceding fiscal years, where their profits in a given member state are taxed below that floor. The deadline for national transposition passed on 31 December 2023.

Belgium was among the more assertive implementers. Its domestic top-up tax law took effect on the directive's deadline and applies to accounting periods starting on or after 31 December 2023.

What does the ruling change?

A "remains live" ruling converts a threatened early dismissal into a contested proceeding. The Belgian court will now set a procedural timetable, hear arguments, and at some point deliver a judgment on whether the directive — or the Belgian law transposing it — is invalid. Where a question of EU law is dispositive, the Belgian court can refer that question to the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. A reference would suspend the national proceedings and produce a binding interpretation for the whole union.

The ruling therefore preserves, for the applicants, a realistic route to a merits judgment — and, potentially, to a CJEU ruling that could bind the union's 27 tax administrations.

What does it mean for practitioners?

For tax counsel advising MNEs with Belgian operations, the decision extends a period of legal uncertainty. Compliance obligations under the 2022 directive continue to apply, but the possibility that the regime could be annulled or narrowed remains open. Tax teams should:

• Continue top-up tax filings and payments under existing national law.
• Preserve documentation of positions taken in case retrospective refunds become available.
• Track the Belgian proceedings for any preliminary reference to the CJEU.
• Reassess cross-border structures that rely on directive carve-outs, including the substance-based income exclusion.
• Coordinate with national tax authorities on protective assessments.

What happens next?

The Belgian court is expected to issue a procedural calendar. The next concrete milestone will likely be the filing of the applicant's substantive pleadings, followed by the respondents' written observations and, in due course, a hearing. If the judges consider a question of EU law dispositive, they will frame that question and refer it to the CJEU, marking the moment the dispute becomes a union-wide issue rather than a Belgian one.

The ICLG brief did not publish the date of the ruling, the name of the deciding court, the identity of the parties, or the legal grounds of the challenge. Practitioners awaiting more granular information should monitor the Moniteur belge, the e-Justice portal, and tax trade press for the reasoned order.

The wider stakes are considerable. A successful challenge could destabilise the union's collective implementation of the global minimum tax, expose member states to substantial refund claims, and complicate the EU's alignment with the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework. A defeat for the applicants, by contrast, would close one of the early avenues of resistance and solidify the regime across the union.