Sharp increase, few interventions

The ISC received 191 filings in the reporting period. Of these, 162 were cleared, 2 were cleared subject to mitigating measures and 27 were still pending at the time of publication. No investment was refused and no filing was withdrawn. A screening phase was opened in only 4% of the files (8 procedures): 3 ended in unconditional clearance, 2 in clearance with mitigating measures and 3 are ongoing. The initial review took 32 days on average, against a statutory period of 30 days, which the ISC explains by suspensions for information requests (made in 45 files) and end dates falling on a non-working day.

The first refusal came after the reporting period. According to press reports and a statement issued by the target on 5 August 2026, the ISC blocked the acquisition of a Belgian offshore helicopter services provider by a group ultimately controlled by a China-based company. The decision itself has not been made public, so the grounds are not known. The case shows that a very low refusal rate does not exclude a negative outcome for investors with links to third countries in sensitive activities.

The ISC links the increase to more active detection of non-notified transactions (27 information requests were sent), awareness-raising and growing familiarity with the mechanism. Missed filings are therefore more likely to be picked up.

Profile of the filings

  • Origin: US investors were involved in 48% of the filings, followed by the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland and China.
  • Sectors: sensitive information and personal data (43 filings), energy (28), digital infrastructure (13), health (13) and dual-use (12).
  • Type of deal: in 92% of the filings the investor acquired control, and 71% concerned a full takeover. Only 27% had one or more Belgian entities as main target, which points to international deals in which a Belgian subsidiary is caught.
  • Internal restructurings: 25 filings, roughly one in eight.

The new EU Regulation

Regulation (EU) 2026/1386 entered into force on 16 July 2026 and applies from 17 January 2028. According to the report, the preparations to amend the Cooperation Agreement have started, among other things to align the procedural timelines with the Regulation, which requires an initial review within 45 calendar days of a complete filing. Two figures in the report stand out against the Regulation:

  • Internal restructurings. The Regulation excludes them, unless a new third-country entity is introduced in the upstream ownership chain of the target. Belgium currently has no such exclusion, and one in eight filings concerned such a transaction. Belgium could therefore consider anticipating this exclusion before 2028.
  • Personal data. The most frequent Belgian sector is not part of the Regulation's minimum scope, which covers defence and dual-use, semiconductors, quantum, certain AI technologies, strategic raw materials, and critical entities in energy, transport and digital infrastructure and financial market infrastructure. The Regulation treats sensitive information and personal data as an assessment criterion instead. As a minimum harmonisation instrument, it leaves Belgium free to keep its wider sector list, but it raises the question of how far that sector should reach.

The report also refers to the Commission's economic security doctrine of December 2025, which identifies six high-risk domains (strategic dependencies, sensitive technologies, critical infrastructure, strategic data, actors posing a systemic risk and critical raw materials) as a reference for national assessments.

What to expect?

The report confirms that the mechanism is firmly established, and the rise in filings and the more active detection of unfiled deals point to further intensification. Unlike the previous report, it no longer gives the estimated value of the notified investments (over EUR 131 billion), but it does provide aggregated data on outcomes, investor origin and sectors, as the Regulation will require of all Member States.

In practice, investors should plan the Belgian filing timelines early in their global transactions, check past internal reorganisations and sector triggers for possible missed filings, and expect the ISC to be more proactive in its questioning of investors, both in the framework of notifications and ex officio investigations.

Should you have any questions in relation to the above, please contact one of the members of our team below.