Abstract
The traditional rendition of Belgian law does not list disgorgement as a remedy. In reality, however, disgorgement is ordered in certain circumstances, but it is generally not recognized as such. For example, case law on personality rights and intellectual property rights contains examples where courts, under the banner of loss compensation, in fact set damages at a level higher than the actual losses to force the wrongdoer to hand over his profits. Also, non-compliance penalties are set at a level to provide an incentive to obey a court order, requiring the amount to be equal to the profits that can be made by ignoring the order. On the other hand, some instances of primary proprietary rights to profits can alternatively be understood as examples of disgorgement as a remedy for infringements of rights. Examples are the right of an owner to the fruits a male fide possessor realizes from his property and the right of the solvens to the income the bad faith accipiens has earned from an undue payment. In the view of the national reporter, Belgian private law apparently includes a (hidden) general principle that gives the holder of a subjective right a claim for disgorgement of profits realized by another person who in bad faith infringed the exclusive authority of the rightholder. This general principle has not (yet) been explicitly recognized by the courts, but it helps to understand what courts are actually doing in cases that cannot be explained under standard rules of civil liability.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Agent
- Bad faith
- Civil liability
- Compensation
- Compliance penalty
- Confiscation
- Damages
- Duty to account
- Good faith
- Disgorgement
- Fraud
- Fruits
- Infringement of right
- Intellectual property right
- Loss
- Moral damages
- Personality right
- Profit
- Proprietary claim
- Undue payment
- Unjust enrichment
Introduction
While loss compensation is considered to be a “horizontal system” called civil liability, based on general principles applicable to all legal relations independently of their legal qualification,Footnote 1 the standard narrative of Belgian private law does not contain a similar chapter on disgorgement of profits, providing an overview of the conditions under which this remedy is available.Footnote 2 However, if one searches Belgian legal reality for gain-based remedies, they can be discovered here and there, even though they tend to be camouflaged under the (misleading) banner of compensation (civil liability) or as a material rule of law giving the claimant a primary right to the profits, and hence not presented as a remedy (proprietary claims).
Civil Liability
No Disgorgement in Theory
General Rules
Belgian civil liability is based on three constitutive elements: (a) a loss, (b) a fact recognized as a basis for liability – such as negligence or breach of statutory or regulatory dutyFootnote 3 for the fault-based liability of Article 1382 of the Belgian Civil Code (“CC”) – and (c) causation, showing that the loss was caused by the fact that serves as the basis for the liability. A loss is a negatively valued difference between the actual situation the harmed party is in and the hypothetical position it would have been in if the fact would not have occurred.Footnote 4 Establishing the existence of a loss is a necessary condition: without a loss, no claim in civil liability arises.Footnote 5
Civil liability results in an obligation to “undo” the loss.Footnote 6 The injured party is restored into the situation it would have been in if the event would not have occurred.Footnote 7
In principle, the harmed party has a right to specific restoration,Footnote 8 but it is also obliged to accept such restoration if it is offered.Footnote 9 In case of reputational harm, for instance, the imposed remedy often takes the form of apologies or a retraction of the wrongful insult or the unwarranted accusation, or the publication of the court’s decision.Footnote 10
In practice, however, civil liability almost always results in damages. Still, the Belgian standard theory of liability considers damages to be a subsidiary remedy, only available if specific restoration is not possible in fact or would place an extremely unreasonable burden on the person held liable, so that by claiming this remedy, the victim would abuse its right to restoration.Footnote 11 In this view, damages are functionally a substitute for specific restoration and thus must be “equivalent” to restoration, usually referred to as “integral compensation” (restitutio in integrum). The damages compensate the loss and nothing but the loss.Footnote 12
In setting damages, courts are not supposed to take into account other elements such as the seriousness of the wrong, whether a party is insured, or the fact that the tortfeasor obtained a gain.Footnote 13 Belgian law does not know punitive damages.Footnote 14 The idea is that civil liability is not supposed to punish the wrongdoer.Footnote 15 Integral compensation means that the loss is not only the minimum but also the maximum a judge can grant.Footnote 16 So in determining the amount of damages, the court has to deduct the profits the injured party has gained from the loss he suffered.Footnote 17 The idea is that civil liability is not supposed to enrich the injured party.Footnote 18 The combination of these principles seems to leave no room for any gain-based damages.
There is one rule in Belgian private law – which itself is not an element of liability law as such, as it has a much more general application – that when applied in a liability dispute causes the rules of liability law to result in a disgorgement.Footnote 19 Under liability law, if a loss is caused both by a tort committed by a third person and a wrong committed by the victim itself, the burden of the loss is split among them: in such a case, third party liability is limited to part of the loss, which is called “divided liability”.Footnote 20 However, this result is considered inacceptable when the third party committed an intentional wrong taking advantage of the negligence of his victim. In such a case,Footnote 21 the highest court, specifically invoking the general principle fraus omnia corrumpit, ruled that a person that has committed an intentional wrong is precluded from invoking the negligence of the injured party in order to have the damages he owes reduced: one should not be able to profit from one’s fraud or dishonesty with the aim of hurting another or gaining a profit in an illegitimate manner.Footnote 22
No Specific Rules for Violations of Competition Law
Belgian law does not contain specific rules with respect to the private enforcement of competition law.Footnote 23 Therefore, questions relating to the annulment of agreements between companies or decisions of associations of companies that restrict competition, injunctive relief in the form of a cease and desist order against restrictive practices or abuses of a dominant position, or private pecuniary remedies in cases of violations of competition rules are to be answered on the basis of the general principles of private law.Footnote 24 As Belgian law considers any violation of a statutory or regulatory behavioral rule to constitute a wrong in the sense of Article 1382 CC,Footnote 25 the claimant only has to prove the violation of competition law and the fact that he has suffered a loss as a consequence of this violation.Footnote 26 As mentioned, the remedy under these general rules is purely compensatory in nature.Footnote 27
The Belgian general rulesFootnote 28 allow for courts to follow the guidelines that were issued in the Oxera StudyFootnote 29 as well as those included in the Practical Guide the European Commission has published.Footnote 30 In particular, Belgian civil liability allows the so-called passing on defense, reducing the damages owed to the injured party if that party has been able to pass the higher price it paid to its supplier on to its own customers. The principle of integral damages requires the court to take into account not only the loss but also any gains the injured party may have realized because of the loss occurring event,Footnote 31 and in establishing the actual loss, the court has to take into account all developments relating to the loss, even if they took place after the loss occurrence.Footnote 32
Almost no actual court decisions have been reported.Footnote 33 Based on general principles, however, I see no basis under Belgian law for awarding a party injured by an anti-competitive practice anything more than full compensatory damages. I also have not observed any indication that Belgian courts in such cases would be prepared to impose any remedy which in effect would result in a disgorgement of profits.Footnote 34
Hidden Disgorgement Possible in Practice (but Rare)
Deciding on the extent of the loss is a question of fact,Footnote 35 to be answered by the trial court. The Belgian highest court for civil disputes (Cour de Cassation – Hof van Cassatie) has no jurisdiction to establish facts or to review the factual findings of lower courts: it only can reverse and remand judgments of lower courts that contain procedural errors or errors on questions of law.Footnote 36 So while the highest court will reverse a judgment if it awards higher damages than the loss it established,Footnote 37 it cannot intervene if a lower court were to award damages equal to the loss it establishes, but in reality has valued this factual loss at an inflated amount.
In principle, the courts have to establish the loss as it occurred (in concreto). However, if the pecuniary equivalent of this loss cannot be determined, the court is allowed to estimate the damages ex aequo et bono and award a lump sum.Footnote 38 This creates a margin within which a trial court can in reality set damages at a higher level than the actual loss in order to punish the wrongdoerFootnote 39 or to force him to in effect disgorge the whole or part of his illegitimately obtained gains, without presenting it as such.
This is most clearly possible in cases awarding moral damages, compensation for losses that do not consist of a reduction of the pecuniary situation of the victim.Footnote 40 Under Belgian civil liability, moral losses are fully compensated.Footnote 41 The highest court has ruled that moral damages only serve to compensate for pain or any other moral suffering, and in particular cannot be used to punish the wrongdoer.Footnote 42 However, courts can only estimate moral damages ex aequo et bono.Footnote 43 In doing so, they can set the damages at a higher level than the actual loss, by holding the losses to be higher than they are in reality. Such a decision is a finding of fact, which is as such “cassation proof”.
Even though most moral damages awarded by Belgian courts can be characterized as relatively low, one cannot escape the impression that sometimes courts set the amount not merely based on the suffering by the victim, but also on the seriousness of the wrong.Footnote 44 Moral damages aim to compensate for suffering and pain, and it can easily be reconciled with the compensatory nature of civil liability to justify higher damages by pointing out that the intensity of suffering is in fact influenced by the seriousness of the wrong.Footnote 45 Hence, courts can and sometimes do take the type of wrong and the intentions of the wrongdoer into account when setting moral damages.Footnote 46 Most cases involving amounts of damages more probably linked to the profits made by the wrongdoer, involve the infringement of personality rights, and they will be dealt with infra.Footnote 47
Non-Compliance Penalties Can in Fact Disgorge Profits
Some Belgian scholars object to supercompensatory damages because in their view such a remedy would create an “unjust” enrichment of the injured party.Footnote 48 Framing it that way, the descriptively correct statement that civil liability does not give an injured party a right to more than compensation, is turned into a broader normative principle that would exclude an injured party from having any right to anything different or more than compensation on any another basis. By generalizing such a principle outside the realm of civil liability law, the appearance is created that private law in general would never allow an injured party to obtain a “windfall profit” from an occurrence.
This, however, is descriptively not correct, as courts for instance can and do impose a non-compliance penalty, to be paid when the court’s order is not complied with.Footnote 49 Such a penalty has to be paid to the claimant,Footnote 50 and in no way reduces that person’s right to full compensation of losses suffered.Footnote 51
Although such civil penalty is not possible for orders for the payment of a sum of money,Footnote 52 and therefore liability decisions seldom include such penalties,Footnote 53 one can find judgments based on liability including a non-compliance penalty if they award specific restoration. Most such cases involve orders of a person that has infringed a personality right of the victim to refrain from further infringements, or involve the court ordering the publication of the judgment as a form of specific restoration of the loss consisting of reputational harm suffered by the injured party because of the wrongful act of the person held liable.Footnote 54
It is clear that courts in practice tend to set the penalty high enough for it to have a dissuading effect. Although this is almost never specifically stated in the court’s reasoning, this means that the gains the wrongdoer can expect from refusing to comply are taken into account.Footnote 55 Civil non-compliance penalties in this way can and in reality very often do function as a form of disgorgement of profits realized by ignoring a court order, with the aim of providing an incentive to abide by the court’s decision.Footnote 56
Confiscation of Proceeds of a Criminal Offence
Belgian criminal law contains a general system of so-called “special confiscation”.Footnote 57 Traditionally, this sanction was applicable to goods directly resulting from the criminal offence.Footnote 58 In cases involving the more serious types of criminal offences – felonies and misdemeanors, called “crimes” or “misdaden” and “délits” or “wanbedrijven” – such confiscation is always mandatory; in cases involving the least serious types of offences – infractions, called “contraventions” or “overtredingen” – such confiscation is only ordered if specifically provided by statute.Footnote 59
Over the last decades, this system has been extended to all advantages obtained because of the offence,Footnote 60 so that not only the direct product of the crime itself (productum sceleris) but more general any advantage gained because of the offence (lucre sceleris) can be taken from the convicted offender.Footnote 61 Strictly speaking, such a “taking” is really an obligation of the convicted offender to disgorge his profits from the offence. This type of confiscation can be ordered in any criminal conviction, but only if it is claimed by the public prosecutor.Footnote 62
The proceeds of special confiscation go to the Belgian State. However, the confiscated goods can be given to the civil party – a victim of the committed offence – if this person has a proprietary claim on these goods based on civil law.Footnote 63 Criminal special confiscation itself, therefore, does not grant civil parties any claims on illegally gained profits.
Proprietary Claims for Profits
In traditional Belgian doctrine, some forms of disgorgement are conceptually not understood to be a remedy for certain wrongs, but seen as a proprietary claim of a rightholder under a material rule of law.
Fruits of Property
Belgian property law states that the owner of a good also becomes the owner of its fruits.Footnote 64 This rule does not only apply to natural fruits of plants and in a broader sense the young of animals or increase in livestock, but also to so-called “civil fruits”, such as for instance interest on capital or rental income from an asset. The person contributing the labor that has made it possible to produce these fruits is only to be compensated for his costs.Footnote 65
However, while the owner can always revindicate his good, the same is not true for the fruits. Only a possessor mala fide is obliged to give the fruits he produced to the owner of the good.Footnote 66 A bona fide possessor can keep the fruits he has produced up to the moment he discovered his possession was tainted, at which moment he ceases to be in good faith.Footnote 67 With respect to fruits, the bona fide possessor is thus legally treated in the same way as an usufructuary.Footnote 68
Although the traditional theory or narrative of Belgian law presents this as a rule of material property law, including in the concept of property a ius fruendi, understood as a property right in the fruits, it can also be understood as a remedy: any person who in bad faith uses someone else’s property to produce a gain, can be forced to hand over (disgorge) the “civil fruits” (profits) realized through this illegitimate use.Footnote 69 Apparently, this disgorgement of profits is available to the owner against someone else in bad faith trying to realize gains by using his good and thereby infringing his subjective right of ownership, specifically aimed at preventing such bad faith infringement to be lucrative, and possibly providing the owner with a windfall profit.Footnote 70 Against a possessor in good faith realizing the same profits, the owner has no such claim.
Interest on Undue Payment
One can recognize a similar remedy in the rules relating to undue payments.Footnote 71 According to the basic principle, the accipiens – i.e. the person who has received a payment by error – is bound to make restitution to the solvens – i.e. the person from whom he has unduly received it.Footnote 72 However, the accipiens bona fide does not have to pay interest and can keep the fruits gained from the undue payment.Footnote 73 The accipiens mala fide, on the other hand, is not only required to return the undue payment itself, the capital, but also has to pay interest and hand over the fruits he has gained from the day of payment.Footnote 74 Again, if one looks at it from our analytic perspective, this is an example of a remedy of disgorgement of profits (fruits or interests) imposed when a person in bad faith infringes on the rights of another, to make sure this person does not earn any gains from its bad faith.Footnote 75
Cases on the Border: Civil Liability or Proprietary Claims?
In some circumstances, it is theoretically debatable whether the sum awarded by a court is to be considered a form of compensation based on liability or a proprietary claim to profits based on a subjective right. In these cases, mostly involving infringements of intellectual property rights or personality rights, one can see courts and doctrine struggling with remedies that seem opportune and appropriate in the given circumstances but that do not really fit theoretically into the frame of civil liability. Although most courts and literature continue to treat these cases under the umbrella of civil liability, I have suggested that they can be better understood as examples of bad faith infringements of subjective rights, giving the rightholder not only a claim to compensation based on civil liability but also a remedy consisting of disgorgement of profits based on the infringed right itself.Footnote 76
Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
The Belgian rules on intellectual property contain several remedies against infringements. Apart from injunctive relief,Footnote 77 the rightholder can claim damages, and in case of bad faith infringement,Footnote 78 he can claim civil confiscation or some form of disgorgement of profits.
Compensatory Damages
The statutory provisions on intellectual property rights explicitly state that the rightholder can demand compensation for the losses he has suffered from an infringement,Footnote 79 a claim he under Belgian law also has based on the general principles of civil liability.Footnote 80
An infringement of an intellectual property right can cause different types of losses.Footnote 81 First, there is the lucrum cessans, i.e. the profits the rightholder normally would have gained from the exploitation of his right but that now are no longer available to him because the infringer appropriated opportunities that should have been exclusively enjoyed by the rightholder. Second, there is the damnum emergens, usually consisting of the costs the rightholder had to make in investigating and prosecuting the infringement and potentially also the reputational harm he suffers as a consequence of the infringement.Footnote 82 Third, there can be moral losses.
According to the general principle of liability, the awarded damages have to equal the actual losses (“integral compensation”).Footnote 83 The extent of the loss has to be judged in concreto.Footnote 84 However, in practice it can be very hard to exactly establish the extent of the losses. Therefore, damages in cases of infringement of intellectual property rights are very often set as a lump sum.Footnote 85 Several judgments have awarded damages set at a multiple of the normal or usual license fee, considered necessary to avoid it being lucrative to systematically infringe on intellectual property rights, knowing that one will not always be caught and therefore still be better off if one only risks having to pay the avoided fee.Footnote 86 Some courts have explicitly stated that they set the amount of damages so that the infringer will not be able to keep gains from his infringement.Footnote 87
However, the highest court has recently reaffirmed the general principle that damages cannot be set higher than the actual loss. It ruled that awarding 25 % on top of the avoided licensing fee to finance the global battle against violations of intellectual property or to provide for an incentive to seek the permission of the rightholder, is not consistent with Belgian civil liability law.Footnote 88 But as already pointed out, the trial courts sovereignly establish the facts and thus the extent of the loss.Footnote 89 Therefore, nothing keeps a court from for instance finding that the actual losses of the company whose copyright on professional software that had been illegally copied and used by the employee of another company amounts to much more than the originally avoided license fee,Footnote 90 thereby using the concept of compensation to in effect impose some form of disgorgement of profits.
Civil Confiscation: Optional Disgorgement
The infringer in bad faith can be forced to hand over any goods infringing the intellectual property right (“civil confiscation”). If these goods are no longer in his possession, the court can award the rightholder a payment equivalent to the price the infringer has received in return for these goods.Footnote 91
Civil confiscation is to be distinguished from the possibility courts have to order the transfer of the infringing goods to the rightholder as a form of compensation, in which case the rightholder has to compensate the infringer if these goods have a higher value than his losses.Footnote 92 Under civil confiscation, the value of the confiscated goods is counted towards the damages owed,Footnote 93 but the rightholder never has to compensate the infringer if the value he receives through civil confiscation is higher than the losses he suffered because of the infringement.Footnote 94 The amount the court can award in cases of infringement in bad faith based on the civil confiscation provisions is therefore “noticeably greater” than the amount in damages based on civil liability, applicable in case of infringement in good faith.Footnote 95
The similarity between this civil confiscation and the rule on fruits of general civil law property discussed earlierFootnote 96 is striking: the infringing goods can be considered to be “fruits of the intellectual property”, and only the possessor in bad faith is required to hand them over to the owner, the rightholder. A possessor in good faith has to compensate the rightholder for his losses based on civil liability if he infringed the intellectual property right, but he does not have to hand over the “fruits” he realized.
Disgorgement of Profits (or Is It Loss Compensation?)
In case of bad faith infringement, the statutory provisions on intellectual property rights also provide that the court can order the disgorgement of all or part of the profits realized by the infringer.Footnote 97 The aim of this remedy, which following the example of German law was first introduced in the former Benelux Uniform Trademark Act and subsequently kept in the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs) and then generalized for all intellectual property rights – but unfortunately, as shall be shown, in a distorted manner – is to avoid that the wrongdoer who willingly and knowingly infringes someone else’s intellectual property right would be able to keep his gains even after having been held liable by a civil court.Footnote 98
In the structure of the Belgian statute on intellectual property rights, this specific remedy is placed in a provision that in its first paragraph clarifies how the court can establish the amount of (compensatory) damages in cases where the exact extent of the loss cannot be determined. The statutory provision also explicitly states that the court can order this type of disgorgement “by way of compensation of the losses”, suggesting that this remedy is not really a true disgorgement of profits.Footnote 99
However, if this were the correct understanding of this statutory provision, it is difficult to explain why this remedy is limited to cases of bad faith. Under Belgian law, any infringement of an intellectual property right is a wrongFootnote 100 and therefore under civil liability gives a right to full restoration, which can always take the form best fit for the circumstances. Understood as nothing more than a specific manner of estimating damages for actual losses, this provision is therefore completely superfluous.Footnote 101 The only rational explanation why this particular remedy would be limited to bad faith infringements is that this form of “damages” would possibly be greater than the losses, as it is based on the illegitimate profits made.Footnote 102 This alternative interpretation would also bring the Belgian statute on intellectual property in line with the provision on disgorgement of profits in the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs),Footnote 103 which allows for disgorgement of profits in cases of bad faith infringements as a separate remedy, independent of compensation.Footnote 104
Infringement of Personality Rights
An area where some deviation from general civil liability principles can be observed going into the direction of some form of disgorgement of profits under the guise of damages,Footnote 105 is the field of personality rights.Footnote 106 Although such rights are not statutorily defined or protected in Belgium,Footnote 107 they are recognized by most authors as being part of existing positive law,Footnote 108 as the highest court recognizes them to be based on the general principle of law that prohibits the intrusion into someone else’s personality.Footnote 109
Restoration in case of an infringement of a personality right in Belgium often takes the form of damages.Footnote 110 Analysis of the case law shows that although plenty of judgments continue to apply the general principles of civil liability, requiring the showing of specific losses caused by a wrongful act for liability to attach and imposing an obligation to pay damages equal to losses suffered, some systematic deviation from this pattern can be discerned.
First, in many cases the infringement of the personality right is in itself considered to be a sufficient basis for liability.Footnote 111 Some scholars have defended this, arguing that the infringement of a subjective right is as such a wrongful act.Footnote 112 That this theory correctly reflects practice, is witnessed by the fact that often courts require showing that harming someone’s reputation – which is not a subjective right but a mere legitimate interest, only protected by civil liability – was done in a wrongful way for liability to attach,Footnote 113 but do not require such showing when the privacy of a person is infringed or his name, imageFootnote 114 or voice are exploited without his permission.Footnote 115 As opposed to his reputation or good name, a person’s privacy, name, image and voice are protected by a personality right, and the infringement of this right is in itself a wrong.
While the traditional view remains that the private law protection of personality rights once they are infringed is limited to the remedies offered by civil liability,Footnote 116 some authors have argued that the personality right itself can serve as a basis for a claim of damages.Footnote 117 Under this theory, damages can be awarded without the requirements of civil liability having been met. And indeed, while some courts explicitly state that the infringement of the personality right is a wrong on which civil liability can be based, there are plenty of court decisions that go straight from the establishment of the fact of the infringement to the conclusion that damages are due, without referring to a tort and without even mentioning Article 1382 CC.Footnote 118
An infringement of a personality right can cause pecuniary losses, for instance when the infringement results in a loss of opportunity for the rightholder to earn income from exploiting the aspect or expression of his personality that the wrongdoer used without his permission.Footnote 119 Because in practice many court decisions award a lump sum, they do not give much insight in the elements that in fact determine the height of the damages, so we cannot verify if the profits the wrongdoer realized were taken into account.Footnote 120 Occasionally, however, a court hints that the amount of damages awarded was in fact based on the profits the wrongdoer had been able to realize thanks to the illegitimate use of an aspect or expression of the personality of the rightholder.Footnote 121
An infringement of a personality right can also cause moral losses, such as psychological suffering or discomfort, physical pain or emotional distress.Footnote 122 As was already mentioned, such damages are set as a lump sum, as there is no way to exactly establish the pecuniary equivalent of such losses.Footnote 123 A historically very important author on Belgian civil law has written that the mere fact that a subjective right of a person was infringed or not respected constitutes a moral loss, irrespective of any other interest of the rightholder being hurt.Footnote 124 While nowadays few authors still invoke such a general principle,Footnote 125 it is generally agreed that in case of infringement of personality rights, the rightholder feels his value as a person diminished by the negation or dismissal of his legal power of self-determination.Footnote 126 However, there remain authors that object to this automatism and who protest against this conflation of the concepts of wrong and loss.Footnote 127
Some authors have argued that the claim for damages in case of infringement of a personality right can be based directly on the right itself and does not need to be based on civil liability, so that the requirement under liability of an actual loss is not applicable here, allowing the courts to award damages while the injured party in fact did not suffer a loss.Footnote 128 In effect, the conceptually different constituent elements of civil liability, fault and loss, are “merged” into one single requirement in cases involving personality rights, consisting of the infringement of the right. Based on this sole requirement, some courts impose a remedy of damages.Footnote 129
While up to the seventies, such awards tended to be very low and courts in fact only awarded nominal damages to allow for the principled establishment that a wrong had occurred but did not use the instrument of civil liability to try to create incentives to promote the recognition of personality rights,Footnote 130 analysis has shown that since the eighties and definitely since the mid-nineties,Footnote 131 Belgian courts have been more willing to award higher amounts of moral damages in cases of infringements of personality rights.Footnote 132 Specifically, it must be noted that such moral damages are regularly higher than the amounts Belgian courts award for the loss of a loved one or a next-of-kin. As it is hard to accept that the actual moral loss that a person suffers from the infringement of a personality right is much graver than the grievance and emotional distress one suffers when losing a parent, partner or child, one cannot help but feel that the courts in fact base the amounts of damages in cases of infringement of personality rights also on other elements than the extent of the actual loss.
Most often, commentators have interpreted the high awards as attempts of courts to punish for the wrong, independent of its consequences.Footnote 133 Occasionally, however, one can find court decisions awarding high moral damages not so much as a reaction to the seriousness of the wrong but rather to tackle the profits the wrongdoer has realized by negating the exclusive rights of the injured party.Footnote 134 But even if this is the case, it is clear that Belgian courts are very timid in applying this method. In general, they refrain from imposing high damages, even if this would be necessary to have the wrongdoer disgorge the profits he realized through the negation of a personality right of the injured party.Footnote 135
As a matter of theory, the consensus seems to remain that even if one accepts the theory that the remedy in case of infringement of personality rights is not based on civil liability but can directly be based on the personality right itself, this does not change the character of the remedy available, which in the eyes of most authors and courts remains compensatory and therefore not aimed at disgorging profits as such.Footnote 136
No Disgorgement Based on Unjust Enrichment (Actio de in Rem Verso)
Claims based on unjust enrichment are relatively rare in Belgium.Footnote 137 As opposed to several other legal systems, Belgian law contains no explicit statutory recognition of this action. It is based on case law, going back to a decision of the highest court of 27 May 1909.Footnote 138 Since the eighties, the highest court specifically refers to it as a general principle of law.Footnote 139
As opposed to a claim based on liability, this action is only available if the defendant has been enriched.Footnote 140 On this basis one might expect that the claim would result in a duty to disgorge profits. However, this action just as much requires the claimant to be impoverished.Footnote 141 The mere infringement of a subjective right of the claimant by itself is under the standard rendition of Belgian law not considered to be an impoverishment, so the claimant has to show that he suffered a disadvantage that has pecuniary value.Footnote 142 Without such disadvantage, no action based on unjust enrichment is available, so under Belgian lawFootnote 143 this action cannot truly be considered to be a disgorgement of profits.Footnote 144
The remedy in case of unjust enrichment may at first sight look like disgorgement, as it is usually referred to as restitution. However, the sum awarded can never exceed the loss suffered, so the claimant can receive no more than compensation.Footnote 145 Unjust enrichment is therefore often referred to in Belgian literature as “patrimonial shift without legal cause”, stressing that it is the value that shifted from the defendant to the claimant that has to be restored, not the enrichment as such.Footnote 146 As a result, unjust enrichment under Belgian law is an alternative to civil liability to obtain compensatory relief, damages, in cases where no fault can be established. As it is understood today, it is not a basis for disgorgement of profits without this amount serving to compensate the claimant for an actual loss suffered.Footnote 147
An Agent’s Duty to Account: Disgorgement
Under a contract of agency, the agent is bound to account for his management, and to return to the principal everything he received because of his assignment, even if what he received was not owed to the principal.Footnote 148 This rule represents the basic principle that agency can never become a source of enrichment for the agent in his relations to third parties.Footnote 149 If apart from the agreed remuneration an agent were to obtain any other personal gain because of the way he performs his tasks or uses the power of attorney he has received under the agency agreement, he is not only bound to report this gain but he is also required to hand over these profits to the principal. This means that a principal can force his agent to disgorge his profits if he has used his powers for his personal gain in violation of their agency agreement.
Does Belgian Law Contain a (Hidden) General Rule on Disgorgement of Profits?
Based on an analysis of the examples of disgorgement spread throughout positive law, I have proposed a theory that Belgian private law apparently includes a general principle of law that gives the holder of a subjective right a claim for disgorgement of profits realized by another person because of his bad faith infringement of the exclusive authority the subjective right grants to its holder.Footnote 150 This remedy is clearly available in cases of infringement of property rights to physical goods, as the possessor in bad faith has to turn over the fruits he produced. This remedy can also be recognized in the statutory provisions on intellectual property rights, which allow for civil confiscation of “fruits” of the intellectual property right and thus disgorgement of profits in cases of bad faith infringements. This concept can also help understand what a lot of courts actually are doing in cases of infringement of personality rights that can be economically exploited.
It is too early to tell whether this theory will find any support in Belgium. I hope that this comparative project might shed some light on the question whether the hidden general horizontal principle I think to have recognized in Belgian private law can also be found in other legal systems.Footnote 151
Notes
- 1.
Under Belgian law, a differentiation is recognized between contractual and extracontractual liability. However, practice shows that the historically different principles governing both systems have grown very close together, so that nowadays on most issues contractual and extracontractual liability are governed by the same rules, even though some minor differences remain. See Cornelis (2013), no. 10, p. 993; Van Ommeslaghe (2010), no. 799, p. 1136; Dubuisson (1998), 99; Biquet-Mathieu (2000), 461–464; Wéry (2010), no. 536, p. 472; no. 560, pp. 496–497.
- 2.
For a proposed theory of disgorgement under Belgian private law, see Kruithof (2011). See also infra the text accompanying notes 150–151.
- 3.
In Belgium, breach of statutory or regulatory duty is as such considered to be a wrong under Article 1382 CC. See Cour de Cassation 16 May 2011, no. 320, Pasicrisie Belge 2011, 1339, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2011, 1230; Cour de Cassation 8 November 2002, no. 591, Pasicrisie Belge 2002, 2136, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2002, 2417; Bocken et al. (2014), no. 148–152, pp. 92–95; Vansweevelt and Weyts (2009), no. 190–193, pp. 137–139.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Cour de Cassation 9 April 2003, no. 235, Pasicrisie Belge 2003, 765, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2003, 919; Cour de Cassation 2 May 1974, Pasicrisie Belge 1974, I, 906, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1974, 633; Ronse et al. (1984), no. 220, pp. 163–165.
- 8.
Cour de Cassation 21 April 1994, no. 189, Pasicrisie Belge 1994, I, 388, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1994, 392; Cour de Cassation 26 June 1980, no. 686, Pasicrisie Belge 1980, I, 1341, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1979–1980, 1365; Ronse et al. (1984), no. 278, pp. 211–212.
- 9.
See e.g. Commercial Court Antwerp 22 April 1993, Rechtspraak van de Haven van Antwerpen 1994, 176; Dirix (1984), no. 58, p. 49.
- 10.
- 11.
Schuermans et al. (1994), no. 1.2, pp. 858–859.
- 12.
Ronse et al. (1984), no. 220, pp. 162–164; no. 230–232, pp. 172–174; Dirix (1984), no. 28, p. 33; Simoens (1999), no. 10, pp. 21–23; Nordin (2014), no. 34–35, pp. 19–20; Weyts (2011b), no. 2, p. 174; Weyts (2005–2006), no. 5, p. 1642; see Cour de Cassation 17 January 1929, Pasicrisie Belge 1929, I, 63; Cour de Cassation 15 May 1941, Pasicrisie Belge 1941, I, 195; Cour de Cassation 26 October 2005, no. 542, Pasicrisie Belge 2005, 2044, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2005, 2046; see the case law reported in Schuermans et al. (1984), no. 26, pp. 606–608; Schuermans et al. (1994), no. 1.6, pp. 884–900; Van Oevelen et al. (2007), no. 14, pp. 975–976.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
This principled objection to punitive damages is shared by several authors. See e.g. Simoens (1999), no. 139, pp. 263–264; Cornelis (1989), no. 7, p. 12. Some others do not agree with this objection, and would prefer some form of punitive damages, without however having elaborated under which conditions they would organize such remedies. See e.g. Weyts (2011b), no. 6 and 7, pp. 176–177; Weyts (2005–2006), no. 3, p. 1641; no. 16, p. 1646; Verjans (2013–2014), no. 28, p. 536; Cauffman (2007), no. 28, p. 818; Baeteman et al. (2001), no. 213, p. 1704; Guldix and Wylleman (1999), no. 44, pp. 1653–1655. Recently a PhD dissertation was defended trying to develop a theoretical framework for punitive damages under Belgian civil liability law, basing this remedy on the general principle of fraus omnia corrumpit. See Nordin (2014), no. 113, pp. 85–86.
- 16.
Cauffman (2007), no. 28, p. 818.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
See Nordin (2014), no. 107, p. 80.
- 20.
- 21.
The case in which the principle was stated (Cour de Cassation 6 November 2002, no. 584, Pasicrisie Belge 2002, 2103, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2002, 2383), involved criminal fraud by a manager of a collective investment scheme which had been able to succeed because of the lack of supervision by the bank promoting the scheme. See also Cour de Cassation 9 October 2007, no. 465, Pasicrisie Belge 2007, 1739, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie, 2007, 1883.
- 22.
- 23.
The statutory provisions containing competiton rules, codified in Book IV of the new Economic Law Code, contain no explicit basis for bringing private actions for breaches of competition law and provide no specific private remedies.
- 24.
- 25.
See supra note 3.
- 26.
Waelbroeck et al., 5; contra: Schoors et al. (2011), no. 15, p. 202; for a more nuanced view, see Gilliams and Cornelis (2007/2), 16–17; see also Verougstraete and A. Bossuyt (2009), 18.
- 27.
Weyts (2011b), no. 36, p. 198. However, recently a PhD dissertation has been defended arguing that damages, awarded based on civil liability, not only have an enforcing effect but can be considered as civil sanctions having the function of enforcing certain legal behavioral rules. See Nordin (2014), no. 187, p. 143.
- 28.
For a specific application of the general rules of Belgian civil liability relating to economic losses to the situation of violations of competition law, see Taton (2013), 1051–1056.
- 29.
Quantifying Antitrust Damages: Towards Non-Binding Guidance for Courts, Study prepared for the European Commission, Oxera and a multi-jurisdictional team of lawyers led by Assimakis Komninos, December 2009, <http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/quantification_study.pdf>; see on this conclusion Schoors et al. (2011), no. 18, p. 203.
- 30.
See Practical Guide Quantifying Harm in Actions for Damages Based on Breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union accompanying the Communication from the Commission on Quantifying Harm in Actions for Damages based on Breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2013) 205, C(2013) 3440, 11 June 2013.
- 31.
See supra note 17 and accompanying text.
- 32.
Schoors et al. (2011), no. 25, p. 205. On this principle in general, see Bocken et al. (2014), no. 346–347, pp. 209–210. On this basis, the highest court has for instance ruled that the court has to take into account that the injured party who claims damages for the loss caused to his house in fact has been able to sell that house without any depreciation: Cour de Cassation 3 December 1981, Pasicrisie Belge 1982, I, 460, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1981–1982, no. 224, 465.
- 33.
Taton et al. (2013), no. 52, p. 27; see also Waelbroeck et al., 1.
- 34.
Cf. Waelbroeck et al., 11, who answer the question whether damages are assessed on the basis of the profit made by the defendant or on the basis of injury suffered by the plaintiff by only referring to the general principle of integral damages, including material and moral losses.
- 35.
Cour de Cassation 20 February 2006, no. 100, Pasicrisie Belge 2006, 413, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2006, 414; Van Oevelen et al. (2007), no. 21, p. 1003.
- 36.
Article 608 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- 37.
Such a decision violates the legal principle of the compensatory nature of liability. See Van Oevelen et al. (2007), no. 21, p. 1004.
- 38.
Cour de Cassation 3 March 2008, no. 149, Pasicrisie Belge 2008, 597, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2008, 623; Cour de Cassation 9 October 1997, no. 395, Pasicrisie Belge 1997, I, 995, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1997, 948; Schuermans (1969), no. 10, p. 81; Schuermans et al. (1977), no. 14, p. 463; Schuermans et al. (1984), no. 18, p. 555; Schuermans et al. (1994), no. 18.1, pp. 1019–1020; Van Oevelen et al. (2007), no. 17, p. 979; Ronse et al. (1984), no. 356–365, pp. 255–261.
- 39.
See also Nordin (2014), no. 294, p. 221; no. 298, pp. 223–224.
- 40.
Dirix (1984), no. 86, p. 62.
- 41.
- 42.
Cour de Cassation 20 February 2006, no. 100, Pasicrisie Belge 2006, 413, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2006, 414; Cour de Cassation 10 October 1972, Pasicrisie Belge 1973, I, 147, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1973, 146; e.g. Court of First Instance Hasselt 14 June 2010, Auteurs & Media 2011, 250; Court of First Instance Brussels 7 April 2009, Auteurs & Media 2010, 99; Weyts (2005–2006), no. 13, p. 1644.
- 43.
- 44.
See e.g. Court of First Instance Brussels 16 November 1999, Auteurs & Media 2000, 132.
- 45.
Jocqué (2007), no. 75, p. 79; Cauffman (2007), no. 33, p. 820. See e.g. Court of Appeal Liège 16 January 1962, Revue Générale des Assurances et des Responsabilités 1964, no. 7204; Court of First Instance Antwerp 14 January 1960, Revue Générale des Assurances et des Responsabilités 1963, no. 7084; see also Schuermans (1969), no. 51, p. 126; see also Schuermans et al. (1977), no. 31, p. 506; no. 32, p. 509.
- 46.
A clear example is the decision of the Ghent Assize Court in the case of Kim De Gelder, who was convicted for his “Dendermonde nursery attack”, killing three and wounding twelve more, ordering him to pay moral damages to the victim’s next-of-kin far exceeding the usual amounts, stating that his atrocious attack was not comparable to traffic violations and more middle of the road delicts. See “De Gelder moet slachtoffers hogere schadevergoeding betalen”, De Standaard Online, 30 September 2013; “Zaak De Gelder: Eén miljoen euro schadevergoeding”, De Standaard 1 October 2013, 12.
- 47.
See infra text accompanying notes 105–136.
- 48.
- 49.
Article 1385bis-nonies, Code of Civil Procedure, introduced by Act of 21 January 1980 ratifying the Benelux-Convention holding a Uniform Statute on a Non-Compliance Penalty, Moniteur belge 20 February 1980.
- 50.
Article 1385quater, Code of Civil Procedure.
- 51.
Article 1385bis, Code of Civil Procedure; see Cour de Cassation 28 April 1987, no. 502, Pasicrisie Belge 1987, I, 1002, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1986–1987, 1135.
- 52.
Article 1385bis, Code of Civil Procedure.
- 53.
Schuermans et al. (1994), no. 24, p. 1055.
- 54.
Civil liability does not impose a duty to abstain from committing a wrong. Liability is therefore no basis to order a person to refrain from committing a wrong. See Cornelis (2001), no. 2, p. 22; Cour de Cassation 4 January 1984, no. 227, Pasicrisie Belge 1984, 468, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1983–1984, 493 (holding that an order not to repeat a wrong cannot constitute compensation for losses already suffered); see also Schuermans et al. (1994), no. 24, p. 1055. As a right based on civil liability only arises if all constituent elements are present and the existence of a loss is such an element, declaring somebody liable for “future infringements” – which per se cannot have caused any losses yet – is in my view not possible. A right, however, can provide the basis for the rightholder to ask for injunctive relief, confirmed by Article 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a claim does not require the presence of any loss: the infringement of a right or the threat of such an infringement suffices. This explains why judgments in cases where the wrong consisted of the infringement of a right (e.g. a personality right) can impose injunctive relief while judgments in cases where the wrong did not consist of the infringement of a right because only an interest of the victim was hurt can only impose restoratory or compensatory remedies. Belgian courts, however, do not always specify the exact legal basis for their orders, which explains why some authors have considered such orders a remedy based on civil liability. See e.g. Bocken (1986).
- 55.
See e.g. Court of First Instance Ghent 19 November 2003, Auteurs & Media 2004, 384 (penalty of €12,400 for Omega Pharma if it reuses Kim Clijsters’ name in publicity, but granting Kim only €1 damages for the infringement that had already taken place); Court of First Instance Brussels 17 May 2002, Auteurs & Media 2003, 138 (€300 in damages for unauthorized use of photographs of girls by Christian Dior, but setting a non-compliance penalty of €2,480 per violation of the order prohibiting further use); Court of First Instance Brussels 19 May 2000, Auteurs & Media 2000, 338 (702,000 BEF in damages for unauthorized broadcasting of secretly filmed private conversation, adding a penalty of 5,000,000 BEF for each instance violating an order to refrain from reusing the footage).
- 56.
While most authors recognize that non-compliance penalties create incentives, they still tend to see them more as civil penalties for wrongdoing, much akin to punitive damages, and they do not explicitly recognize the disgorgment function these penalties in fact perform and have. See e.g. Nordin (2014), no. 291, pp. 218–219. In my opinion, this is the result of Belgian scholars being familiar with the concept of punitive damages but much less so with the concept of disgorgement.
- 57.
- 58.
See Article 42, 2°, Belgian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “PC”), providing confiscation of “choses qui ont été produites par l’infraction”.
- 59.
Article 43, PC.
- 60.
See Article 42, 3°, PC, providing confiscation of “avantages patrimoniaux tirés directement de l’infraction, aux biens et valeurs qui leur ont été substitués et aux revenus de ces avantages investis”, inserted in the PC in 1990. See Deruyck (1998). In the context of fighting money laundering, the text was again adapted in 2002 and now special confiscation is even possible for advantages for which there are serious indications that they result from the offence or from identical acts for which the defendant does not supply a credible alternative explanation. See Article 43quater, §2, PC. See De Samblanx et al. (2004).
- 61.
See Van Den Wyngaert (1999), 362.
- 62.
Article 43bis, first paragraph, PC.
- 63.
Article 43bis, third paragraph, PC.
- 64.
Article 547 CC.
- 65.
Article 548 CC.
- 66.
- 67.
Article 549–550 CC.
- 68.
Article 585–586 CC.
- 69.
See e.g. Cour de Cassation 2 October 2008, no. 521, Pasicrisie Belge 2008, 2119, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2008, 2125.
- 70.
See Kruithof (2011), no. 17–18, pp. 32–36.
- 71.
Cf. Van Oevelen (1990), no. 17, p. 1109, who notes the similarity of the relevance of good and bad faith in both the rules on undue payment and on proprietary claims on fruits.
- 72.
Article 1376 CC. See Sagaert (2007), 79–88.
- 73.
Cour de Cassation 20 June 1996, no. 247, Pasicrisie Belge 1996, 673, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1996, 625; Cour de Cassation 18 May 1995, no. 245, Pasicrisie Belge 1995, 1044, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1995, 495; see e.g. Court of Appeal Mons 17 March 1995, Journal des Tribunaux 1995, 684; Court of Appeal Brussels 19 November 1971, Jurisprudence Commerciale de Belgique 1972, 22, Pasicrisie Belge 1972, II, 23, Revue de la Banque 1972, 357.
- 74.
Article 1378 CC. Court of Appeal Brussels 13 December 2007, Tijdschrift voor Fiscaal Recht 2008, 445; Court of First Instance Mons 10 September 2003, Courrier Fiscal 2003, 684; Court of Appeal Brussels 20 June 2003, Jurisprudence Fiscale 2004, 705. Recently, the highest court has ruled that the accipiens has to pay interest from the moment he was asked to return the unduly paid sum, and cannot be ordered to pay interest for the period between the moment of the undue payment and the moment he was summoned to restitution unless the court establishes that he accepted the payment in bad faith: Cour de Cassation 12 November 2012, no. 609, Pasicrisie Belge 2012, 2192, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2012, 2504.
- 75.
See Kruithof (2011), no. 35, p. 52.
- 76.
There is no rational reason why the principle should be restricted to infringements of the right of property. If the holder of a property right has a claim of disgorgement of the profits realized by another person that has realized these gains through his bad faith infringement of the property right (Article 549 CC), such a remedy should also be available to the holder of a personality right or the holder of an intellectual property right or the holder of any kind of subjective right that has been infringed in bad faith in order to realize a profit. Whether one calls this a primary right or a remedy is not the main concern here, the point is that the principle should not (and in my view, in the light of constitutional equal treatment requirements, cannot) be limited to property rights alone.
- 77.
- 78.
Bad faith means that the infringer knew or had to know that the idea was protected by an intellectual property right and that his use without permission boiled down to an infringement of that right. See Court of Appeal Brussels 4 April 2007, Auteurs & Media 2007, 466. However, all relevant circumstances have to be taken into account, including the attitude of the right holder after he learns of the infringement which creates doubt about the extent of his right. See Cour de Cassation 25 February 2010, no. 131, Pasicrisie Belge 2010, 574, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2010, 555.
- 79.
Article XI.335, §1 and 2, second paragraph, Code of Economic Law; Article 2.21.1 and 3.17.1 of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs) of 25 February 2005.
- 80.
Michaux and De Gryse (2007), no. 40, pp. 640–641; Buydens (1995); Janssens (2007–2008), no. 21, p. 938; Keustermans and De Maere (2009), 388–389. Although there has been some discord in Belgian case law and doctrine, the majority position has traditionally held that any infringement of an intellectual property right is as such a sufficient basis for liability: based on the principle that any breach of a statutory or regulatory duty constitutes a wrong (see supra note 3), the infringement of an intellectual property right is a fault, irrespective of whether it was committed in good or in bad faith. Court of Appeal Antwerp 23 January 2012, Intellectuele Rechten – Droits Intellectuels 2012, 374; Court of First Instance Ghent 10 January 2007, Intellectuele Rechten – Droits Intellectuels 2007, 13; see Ronse (2008), no. 8–11, pp. 228–231; Aelbrecht (2005), 380–382.
- 81.
- 82.
Reputational harm can also be considered to be lucrum cessans, as the pecuniary value of reputation in a business context is a present value of potential future earnings. A decrease in the present value of an intellectual property right can be seen as damnum emergens as it lowered the actual market price of this right, but this lower price is nothing but a reflection of the diminished prospect earnings from this right, a lucrum cessans.
- 83.
- 84.
This means, for instance, that a court is not bound by tariffs unilaterally set by collecting societies, even if these tariffs have been communicated to the government in accordance to author rights legislation. Van Oevelen et al. (2007), no. 14, p. 977; see also Puttemans (2004), no. 40, pp. 38–39; no. 96–97, pp. 72–74.
- 85.
- 86.
See e.g. Court of First Instance Louvain 2 May 2006, Auteurs & Media 2006, 457; Court of First Instance Brussels 20 April 2006, Auteurs & Media 2006, 335; Court of First Instance Kortrijk 20 April 2004, Auteurs & Media 2005, 57; Court of Appeal Brussels 23 March 2001, Auteurs & Media 2001, 373; Court of Appeal Brussels 23 March 2001, Auteurs & Media 2001, 373; see Ronse (2008), no. 12, pp. 231–232; Aelbrecht (2005), 373–374; Weyts (2011b), no. 26, pp. 190–191; Keustermans and De Maere (2009), 390.
- 87.
Court of Appeal Brussels 4 April 2007, Auteurs & Media 2007, 466; Court of Appeal Antwerp 21 December 2009, Auteurs & Media 2011, 182.
- 88.
Cour de Cassation 13 May 2009, no. 314, Pasicrisie Belge 2009, 1167, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2009, 1254.
- 89.
See supra text accompanying note 35–37.
- 90.
- 91.
Article XI.335, §3, Code of Economic Law. Before the amendment of this provision by the Act of 9 May 2007 on the Private Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, which has adjusted Belgian law to Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, the statutes imposed mandatory civil confiscation in case of bad faith infringement. However, courts were reluctant to establish bad faith because this would force them to impose this remedy. See the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Draft Statute on Private Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, Documents Parlementaires Chambre 2006–2007, no. 51 K2943/001, 26 February 2007, 31; Michaux and De Gryse (2007), no. 46, p. 642; Ronse (2008), no. 28, pp. 247–248. Now, the statute leaves it up to the court to decide whether it is appropriate to impose this remedy.
- 92.
- 93.
- 94.
See Janssens (2007–2008), no. 29, p. 940.
- 95.
Court of First Instance Brussels 8 December 2004, Auteurs & Media 2005, 249.
- 96.
See supra text accompanying notes 64–70.
- 97.
Article XI.335, §2, third paragraph, Code of Economic Law. In calculating this profit, only the costs directly related to the infringing production activity will be deducted from the returns earned by the infringor. Ronse (2008), no. 23, p. 243.
- 98.
See the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Protocol of 2 December 1992 that introduced this remedy in Article 13, A, paragraph 5, of the Benelux Uniform Trademark Act, that preceeded the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs) of 25 February 2005; Benelux Court of Justice 11 February 2008, Revue de Droit Commercial Belge 2008, 413; Cauffman (2007), no. 18–19, pp. 812–813.
- 99.
See Ronse (2008), no. 23, p. 244; Weyts (2011b), no. 30, p. 193; Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Draft Statute on Private Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, Documents Parlementaires Stukken Chambre 2006–2007, no. 51 K2943/001, 26 February 2007, 30; Nordin (2014), no. 449, p. 352. For an example, see Commercial Court Antwerp 2 July 2010, reported in: Deene (2011), no. 50, p. 449.
- 100.
See supra note 80.
- 101.
Cf. Ronse (2008), no. 23, pp. 244–245, who does subscribe to the view that this remedy is a type of compensation only, but then realizes that this means this remedy in reality will never be invoked, as it does not offer anything extra over what the rightholder can already obtain by way of restoration based on Article 1382 CC.
- 102.
For an example, see Commercial Court Liège 18 October 2000, Revue de Droit Commercial Belge 2000, 386.
- 103.
Article 2.21.4 of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs) of 25 February 2005: “In addition to or instead of the action for compensation, the holder of a trademark may institute proceedings for transfer of the profits made following the use referred to in Article 2.20 (1), and for the provision of accounts in this regard. The court shall reject the application if it considers that this use is not in bad faith or the circumstances of the case do not justify such an order.” See also Article 3.17.4. of this Convention. Cf. Ronse (2008), no. 25, p. 246, who suggests that the interpretation which reduces the disgorgement of profits remedy in other statutes on intellectual property to a form of compensation leads to a different protection of brand names and designs on the one hand versus the other intellectual property rights on the other, which might not pass the constitutional equal treatment test.
- 104.
See for a recent application Court of Appeal Brussels 12 June 2012, BMM Bulletin, Beneluxvereniging van Merken- en Modellengemachtigden 2012, 174; see also Puttemans (2004), no. 40, pp. 38–39; no. 44, pp. 41–42.
- 105.
One author has called it “un certain utilitarisme dans l’application faite des règles de la responsabilité civile: le résultat recherché semble parfois commander la solution retenue.” Langenaken (2011), no.28, p. 436.
- 106.
- 107.
Belgian law does not know a provision like the one found in Article 9 of the French Civil Code, protecting the privacy of persons. There is, however, an indirect recognition of the portrait right in Article XI.174, Code of Economic Law, which limits the intellectual property right of a photographer with respect to portraits, by stating that the author or owner of a portrait or any other person possessing a portrait does not have the right to reproduce it or to make it public without the permission of the portrayed person or, during 20 years after his death, without permission of his heirs.
- 108.
There are, however, some authors that dispute this characterization and that qualify them not as rights but as mere liberties. See e.g. Langenaken (2011), no. 16, pp. 430–431; see also Rigaux (1990), no. 660 et seq., pp. 734 et seq.; Rigaux (1992), no. 133 et seq., pp. 134 et seq.; Gutwirth (1993), 647 et seq.; Gutwirth (1998).
- 109.
Cour de Cassation 17 December 1998, no. 525–526, Pasicrisie Belge 1998, 1233, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1998, 1141. The first court decisions mentioning such rights date from the seventies, the first doctrinal studies of personality rights date from the eighties. See Guldix and Wylleman (1999), no. 2, p. 1592.
- 110.
de Callataÿ and Estienne (2009), 481.
- 111.
I write “in many cases”, as this is not always the case. For the continuing line of Belgian court decisions requiring the finding of a wrong separate from the infringement of the personality right itself, for liability to attach, see Langenaken (2011), 426.
- 112.
As opposed to under Dutch law (see Article 6:162(2) New Dutch Civil Code), infringement of a right is in the traditional rendering of Belgian law not recognized as a separate type of wrong. However, Hubert Bocken has shown that an infringement of a subjective right is also a wrong under Belgian law, as the negation of a subjective right in itself implies the violation of a specific behavioral rule existing in objective law that requires respect for the rights of others. An infringement of a subjectif right is therefore a violation of a specific behavioral rule, and as such a wrong in the sense of Article 1382 CC. See Bocken (2000); Vandenberghe (1984), no. 2, p. 130; see also Verjans (2013–2014), no. 9, pp. 525–526.
- 113.
See Court of First Instance Tournai 22 November 2010, Auteurs & Media 2011, 109 (court distinguishes harming somebody’s reputation, only resulting in liability if it was done in a wrongful way, and violating somebody’s right to privacy, which in itself is sufficient for liability); Court of First Instance Brussels 20 September 2001, Auteurs & Media 2002, 77 (explicitly recognizing the right to one’s portrait as a subjective right but holding the interest one has in one’s good name and reputation not to be a subjective right, so compensation in case of reputational harm is only due when the good name or reputation was harmed in a wrongful way).
- 114.
As portrait rights are explicitly recognized in Article XI.174, Code of Economic Law, infringing such right is a violation of a statutory rule and as such generally recognized as a wrong under Belgian law. See Verjans (2013–2014), no. 10, p. 526.
- 115.
See e.g. Court of First Instance Brussels 28 September 2010, Auteurs & Media 2011, 334 (use of portrait without permission is an infringement and in itself wrong, even if person was acting in good faith); Court of Appeal Ghent 21 February 2008, Auteurs & Media 2008, 318 (use of pictures of Kim Clijsters for commercial purposes without permission); Court of Appeal Ghent 5 January 2009, Auteurs & Media 2009, 413; Court of Appeal Brussels 16 May 2007, no. 2005/AR/2710 (use of picture of celebrity for promotion of travel products marketed by television is wrong even when picture was taken with permission to use for promoting television show), reported in: Deene (2008), 523; Court of First Instance Ghent 19 November 2003, Auteurs & Media 2004, 384 and Court of First Instance Hasselt 19 December 2003, Auteurs & Media 2004, 388 (use of Kim Clijsters’ name for commercial purposes without her permission is in itself a wrong warranting civil liability); Court of First Instance Dendermonde 26 October 2001, Rechtskundig Weekblad 2002–2003, 1068 (use of a nobel family name for a restaurant without permission of family is wrong); Court of First Instance Brussels 19 January 2001, Auteurs & Media 2002, 450, Rechtskundig Weekblad 2001–2002, 207 (immitation of voice of singer Rocco Granata in commercial is violation of his personality right and serves as a basis for awarding damages). For other examples, see Guldix et al. (2009), no. 104, pp. 872–873; Dubuisson et al. (2009), no. 36, p. 47.
- 116.
See e.g. Weyts (2011b), no. 10, p. 179. This author explains the fact that courts very easily conclude that an infringement of a personality right in itself constitutes a wrong on which liability can be based by pointing out that personality rights are “special” rights or “important” rights that need extra sensitive protection. See also Weyts (2011b), no. 12, p. 180; Vansweevelt and Weyts (2009), no. 195, p. 140. However, no criteria are given allowing to decide which rights are special and why, nor is shown what the link would be between this special character and the different remedy available in case of infringement. For other authors taking this position, see Milquet (1989), 46–47; Cornelis (1989), 150–151; Langenaken (2011), no. 12, p. 429; Verjans (2013–2014), no. 4, pp. 523–524.
- 117.
Guldix and Wylleman (1999), no. 9, p. 1607; no. 22, pp. 1629–1630; see e.g. Court of First Instance Ghent 24 June 2002, Auteurs & Media 2003, 143 (exploiting somebody’s picture without permission is a violation of a personality right, giving the right holder a claim for compensation independent of any civil liability so also without requirement of a fault established).
- 118.
Guldix and Wylleman (1999), no. 43, p. 1652.
- 119.
Although historically the Belgian courts considered the personality right to one’s image to be aimed at protecting the moral, psychological or emotional interests of a person, since the eighties the courts have come to recognize that the portrait right also serves to protect economic interests of the portrayed person. See Voorhoof (2009), 152. See e.g. Court of First Instance Brussels 19 January 2001, Auteurs & Media 2002, 450, Rechtskundig Weekblad 2001–2002, 207 (awarding the singer Rocco Granata 500,000 BEF as compensation for lost income when his voice was immitated in a recording of a commercial, explicitly based on an estimation of the fee he could have charged for singing the song, which he had refused); for a much older case, see Court of First Instance Brussels 29 June 1981, Rechtskundig Weekblad 1981–1982, 2616 (awarding 20,000 BEF to an amateur whose picture taken dressed up in a clown character was used without permission in a published calendar and in publicity for such calendars, specifically referring to the income he could have earned when asked to pose for that picture).
- 120.
Guldix and Wylleman (1999), no. 39, p. 1650.
- 121.
See e.g. Court of Appeal Ghent 21 February 2008, Auteurs & Media 2008, 318 (Court awarded Kim Clijsters damages set at €790 or 10 % of the return – i.e. price times number of circulation – the publisher of a poster-magazine had realized through the sale of an issue of the magazine including a poster with Kim together with Justine Henin, after noting that this was the only picture of Kim in the magazine, while all other pictures and posters showed Justine Henin. Kim had asked €25,000 in damages, but the court refused that amount as it was more than the total return of the magazine, which was circulated at 2,000 copies and sold at €3.95 per copy).
- 122.
Cour de Cassation 3 February 1987, no. 322, Pasicrisie Belge 1987, I, 646, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1986–1987, 724.
- 123.
Guldix and Wylleman (1999), no. 41, p. 1651.
- 124.
- 125.
The highest court has ruled that the infringement of a subjective right in itself does not necessarily constitute a loss under Article 1382 CC, so that no liability attaches if the claimant does not show that his interests were violated, separately from the violation of his right. See Cour de Cassation 21 June 1990, no. 615, Pasicrisie Belge 1990, 1204, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1989–1990, 1358; Cour de Cassation 19 March 1991, no. 376, Pasicrisie Belge 1991, 670, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1990–1991, 755; Simoens (1999), no. 8, pp. 18–20.
- 126.
Guldix and Wylleman (1999), no. 41, p. 1651; Guldix (1986), no. 312; Baeteman et al. (2001), no. 210, p. 1700; de Callataÿ and Estienne (2009), 495, criticizing a judgment by the Court of First Instance Brussels 20 February 1996, Auteurs & Media 1998, 259, that found the right to one’s portrait infringed but refused to award any damages as in the eyes of the Court no loss had been caused, because according to these authors the absence of prior approval by a person for the publication of their nude picture in itself is moral loss. See e.g. Court of Appeal Ghent 20 September 2006, Auteurs & Media 2007, 386; Court of Appeal Antwerp 11 October 2005, Auteurs & Media 2006, 202; Court of First Instance Antwerp 12 June 2008, Auteurs & Media 2008, 321, Rechtspraak Antwerpen Brussel Gent 2008, 1267; Court of First Instance Liège 12 December 1997, Revue de Jurisprudence de Liège, Mons et Bruxelles 1998, 819.
- 127.
See e.g. Langenaken (2011), no. 23, p. 434; Cornelis (1989), 150; see e.g. Court of First Instance Brussels 17 April 2004, Auteurs & Media 2005, 81; Court of Appeal Antwerp 5 May 2003, Rechtskundig Weekblad 2004–2005, 1145, Auteurs & Media 2004, 67, Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad 2003, 1193; Court of First Instance Kortrijk 17 November 1989, Tijdschrift voor Gentse Rechtspraak 1990, 116; Court of First Instance Brussels 20 February 1996, Auteurs & Media 1998, 259.
- 128.
Guldix and Wylleman (1999), no. 22, pp. 1629–1630.
- 129.
Guldix and Wylleman (1999), no. 25, pp. 1632–1633. For a very explicit example, see Court of First Instance Antwerp 24 June 1985, Rechtskundig Weekblad 1985–1986, 2645; see also Court of First Instance Brussels 28 September 2010, Auteurs & Media 2011, 334 (use of a portrait without permission gives person right to moral damages without specific loss to be shown); Court of First Instance Dendermonde 26 October 2001, Rechtskundig Weekblad 2002–2003, 1068 (family members have a moral interest to protest against the illegitimate use of their name).
- 130.
- 131.
Some have remarked that the change was triggered by the Dutroux-case, involving the kidnapping and murder of several children, that as a side effect brought several high profile cases of people involved with the criminal investigation that were wrongly accused of improprieties in a hysteric media atmosphere. See de Callataÿ and Estienne (2009), 484–485; see also Verjans (2013–2014), no. 27, p. 535.
- 132.
See e.g. Court of First Instance Brussels 11 January 2011, Auteurs & Media 2013, 263 (€2,000 for publishing nude photograph of celebrity on vacation); Court of First Instance Antwerp 12 June 2008, Auteurs & Media 2008, 321, Rechtspraak Antwerpen Brussel Gent 2008, 1267 (€9,000 for publishing picture taken for purposes of book about breast cancer above review of the book in a magazine traditionally having a scarcely dressed woman on its cover); Court of First Instance Brussels 30 April 2006, Auteurs & Media 2007, 390 (€2,500 for infringement of right of privacy of a private person mentionned by name and address as probably having an affair with a politician); Court of Appeal Antwerp 5 May 2003, Rechtskundig Weekblad 2004–2005, 1145, Auteurs & Media 2004, 67, Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad 2003, 1193 (€2,500 for commercial use without permission of nude photograph taken with permission); see for older cases Schuermans et al. (1984), 517.
- 133.
See e.g. Langenaken (2011), no. 26, p. 435, and sources cited there.
- 134.
See e.g. the decision by the Court of First Instance Brussels in the case of the wife of the singer Helmut Lotti, which was described in “‘Dag Allemaal’ en ‘Het Laatste Nieuws’ veroordeeld voor publicatie naaktfoto van ‘Mevrouw Lotti’”, Knack 11 September 2013, 44–45. The case involved a nude photograph taken with permission to be published in a poetry book, but shown without permission in a very popular humoristic television quiz, and afterwards several printed media reported about that incident, again publishing the photograph without permission. The court reportedly awarded moral damages of no less than €25,000. The amount is so high compared to other decisions involving nude photographs published without permission (see supra note 132), and the wrong committed by the newspaper and magazine was comparably light, as they in fact were reporting on a row after a television show and therefore could be argued to have been bringing “news”, that the only plausible justification for such an amount is to assume that the court was in fact reacting to tabloid style newspapers and gossip magazines earning money on the back of people whose right to privacy and right to their portrait they knowingly violate, and that by setting the damages so high, the court in a way was trying to create incentives so this segment of the press will have less reason to behave in this way. The only fact the court mentioned in its judgment that can be understood as an element helping to set the amount of damages owed to the woman whose personality right was infringed, is the fact that photograph was being published in a newspaper and magazine with (according to Flemish standards) a very high circulation.
For another example, see Court of First Instance Brussels 19 May 2000, Auteurs & Media 2000, 338, awarding 702,000 BEF to a woman who had participated in the audience of a television show and whose private conversation in a bar after the apparent ending of the recording of the show had been secretly filmed and included in the show as it was broadcasted, an amount the court explicitly based on the number of viewers of the show, remarking this was appropriate “given the great importance apparently attached to television ratings nowadays”. This judgment has been criticized for being punitive, which is considered to be inconsistent with general principles of Belgian civil liability law, by de Callataÿ and Estienne (2009), 500. See also Weyts (2011a), no. 11, 272.
- 135.
The cases involving Kim Clijsters show this very well. I already referred to one decision supra in note 121 estimating her lost earning opportunity because of the use of her name or picture without her permission as a fraction of the return the wrongdoer realized in sales. In Court of First Instance Hasselt 19 December 2003, Auteurs & Media 2004, 388, she was awarded €2,000 in moral damages for a telecommunications company having placed an add in newspapers congratulating her with her reaching her first grand slam final, in fact trying to attract attention to their brand name using Kim’s fame. The court holds that Kim had not convinced them that she had potentially lost earnings because of this infringement. In these circumstances, the awarded amount can hardly be understood to only reflect the moral or psychological distress Kim actually must have felt because her personality was not recognized by the outside world and therefore more likely is an attempt by the court to order the company to at least partially disgorge her profits. However, if one looks at the decision in Court of First Instance Ghent 19 November 2003, Auteurs & Media 2004, 384, involving exactly the same infringement of Kim’s personality rights by Omega Pharma, Kim was only awarded €1 in moral damages, as the Court found that apart from the infringement of her personality right, she had not shown any additional losses. In fact, the moral or psychological distress Kim has felt from both infringements must have been exactly the same, and the difference in awards can only be attributed to the willingness of the Hasselt court to take the illegitimately gained profits of the wrongdoer into account and the unwillingness of the Ghent court to do the same.
- 136.
Guldix and Wylleman (1999), no. 38, p. 1650; see also Court of First Instance Brussels 20 September 2001, Auteurs & Media 2002, 77; Court of First Instance Tournai 22 November 2010, Auteurs & Media 2011, 109.
- 137.
Baeck (2012), no. 1, p. 199.
- 138.
Cour de Cassation 27 May 1909, Pasicrisie Belge 1909, I, 272.
- 139.
Cour de Cassation 17 November 1983, no. 149, Pasicrisie Belge 1984, 295, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1983–1984, 315; more recently, Cour de Cassation 19 January 2009, no. 43, Pasicrisie Belge 2009, 153, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2009, 176.
- 140.
- 141.
- 142.
Sagaert (2007), no. 28, p. 89. So an action based on unjustified enrichment is under Belgian law as it is generally understood in the literature today not available under the conditions that it would be under German law (see Dannemann (2009)) or the Draft Common Frame of Reference, which only requires the enrichment to have been attributable to another’s disadvantage, which includes another’s use of that person’s assets (see Articles VII.–1:101 and VII.–3:102(1)(c) DCFR).
- 143.
This difference between the Belgian understanding of this action and the content of such action in other legal systems has to be stressed. See Zimmermann (1995), 418–421.
- 144.
Baeck (2012), no. 13, p. 207.
- 145.
De Page (1967), no. 47, 60–62, who links this to the reticence of the courts to allow for this remedy based on equitable principles; Baeck (2012), no. 67, p. 232; Van Gerven and Covemaeker (2006), 291; Maes (2010), no. 23, p. 210; Van Ommeslaghe (2010), no. 792, pp. 1127–1129; Cauffman (2007), no. 101, pp. 859–860; Sagaert (2007), no. 34, p. 93.
- 146.
The highest court referred to the general principle of law according to which no one is allowed to enrich himself at the expense of another: Cour de Cassation 27 September 2012, no. 493, Pasicrisie Belge 2012, 1746, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2012, 2040.
- 147.
Ronse et al. (1984), no. 275, p. 208, pointing out that the claimant who has been compensated for his loss no longer is impoverished.
- 148.
- 149.
- 150.
Kruithof (2011), no. 37–42, pp. 54–60.
- 151.
In my Ph.D. dissertation on conflicts of interest in financial institutions offering investment services I have tried to show that this principle, as I found it hidden in Belgian civil law, can also help to explain the concept of fiduciary duties as it is understood in the United States. See Kruithof (2009), no. 238–243, pp. 251–257.
Bibliography
Aelbrecht, G. 2005. Auteursrechtelijke inbreuk en schadevergoeding. Een herinnering der principes en blik op de toekomst. Auteurs & Media 373–387.
Baeck, J. 2012. Multi-inzetbaar in het Belgische privaatrecht: de vordering uit ongerechtvaardigde verrijking. In Preadviezen 2012, ed. Vereniging voor de Vergelijkende Studie van het Recht van België en Nederland, 199–243. Hague: Boom Juridische uitgevers.
Baeteman, G., J. Gerlo, E. Guldix, A. Wylleman, G. Verschelden, and S. Brouwers. 2001. Overzicht van rechtspraak. Personen- en familierecht (1995–2000). Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 38: 1551–2093.
Biquet-Mathieu, C. 2000. Aspects de la réparation du dommage en matière contractuelle. In Les obligations contractuelles, 461–523. Brussels: Jeune Barreau.
Bocken, H. 1986. Herstel in natura en gerechtelijk bevel of verbod. (Nog) enkele bedenkingen bij het cassatie-arrest van 26 juni 1980. In Liber Amicorum Jan Ronse, 493–511. Brussels: Story-Scientia.
Bocken, H. 2000. Nog iets over inbreuk op recht. In Liber amicorum Walter Van Gerven, 183–202. Deurne: Kluwer.
Bocken, H., I. Boone, and M. Kruithof. 2014. Inleiding tot het schadevergoedingsrecht. Bruges: Die Keure.
Buydens, M. 1995. La réparation du dommage en droit de la propriété industrielle. Revue de Droit Commercial Belge 101: 448–463.
Cauffman, C. 2007. Naar een punitief Europees verbintenissenrecht? Een rechtsvergelijkende studie naar de draagwijdte, de grondwettigheid en de wenselijkheid van het bestraffend karakter van het verbintenissenrecht. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 44: 799–865.
Cornelis, L. 1989. Beginselen van het Belgische buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheidsrecht, vol. 1, De onrechtmatige daad. Antwerp: Maklu Uitgevers.
Cornelis, L. 2001. Werkelijkheids- en zekerheidsgehalte van schade en schadeherstel. In De indicatieve tabel. Een praktisch werkinstrument voor de evaluatie van menselijke schade, ed. M. Van Den Bossche. Brussels: Larcier.
Cornelis, L. 2013. Over samenloop, schade en overbodig causaal verband: roemloos aansprakelijkheidsrecht (partim). Revue de Droit Commercial Belge 119: 989–1003.
Dannemann, G. 2009. The German Law of Unjustified Enrichment and Restitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Callataÿ, D., and N. Estienne. 2009. Responsibilité civile. Chronique de jurisprudence 1996–2007, vol.2, Le dommage, Les dossiers du Journal des Tribunaux 75, vol. 2. Brussels: Larcier.
De Meyer, C. 2008. Het bevel tot staking naar Belgisch recht. In Sanctions et procédures en droits intellectuels, ed. F. Brison, 193–220. Brussels: Larcier.
De Page, H. 1942. Traité élémentaire de droit civil belge, vol. VI. Brussels: Bruylant.
De Page, H. 1952. Traité élémentaire de droit civil belge, vol. V. Brussels: Bruylant.
De Page, H. 1964. Traité élémentaire de droit civil belge, vol. II. Brussels: Bruylant.
De Page, H. 1967. Traité élémentaire de droit civil belge, vol. III. Brussels: Bruylant.
De Page, H., and J. Masson. 1990. Traité élémentaire de droit civil belge, II, Les personnes. Brussels: Bruylant.
De Samblanx, M., B. De Bie, and P. Waeterinckx (eds.). 2004. De wet van 19 december 2002 tot uitbreiding van de mogelijkheden tot inbeslagneming en verbeurdverklaring in strafzaken. Kaalpluk: haarpluk? Antwerp: Intersentia.
Deene, J. 2008. Intellectuele rechten kroniek 2007. Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad 6: 514–546.
Deene, J. 2011. Intellectuele rechten kroniek 2010. Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad 9: 442–449.
Deene, J., and L. De Cort. 2012. Intellectuele rechten kroniek 2011. Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad 10: 438–452.
Dejemeppe, B. 2004. De verbeurdverklaring. De stand van het recht in 2004. In Beslag en verbeurdverklaring van criminele voordelen, 93–142. Antwerp: Maklu.
Dekkers, R., and E. Dirix. 2005. Handboek burgerlijk recht, vol II: Zakenrecht – Zekerheden – Verjaring. Antwerp-Oxford: Intersentia.
Deruyck, F. 1998. Over de voordeelsontneming. In Wie is er bang van het strafrecht?, 415–431. Ghent: Mys & Breesch.
Desterbeck, F. 2007. De inbeslagneming en verbeurdverklaring in strafzaken in België. Mechelen: Kluwer.
Dirix, E. 1984. Het begrip schade. Brussels: Larcier.
Dubuisson, B. 1998. Questions choisies en droit de la responsabilité contractuelle. In La théorie générale des obligations, ed. P. Wery, 93–166. Liège: CUP.
Dubuisson, B., V. Callewaert, B. De Coninck, and G. Gathem. 2009. La responsabilité civile. Chronique de jurisprudence 1996–2007, vol. 1: Le fait générateur et le lien causal, Les dossiers du Journal des Tribunaux 74. Brussels: Larcier.
Foriers, P.A. 1990. Le droit commun des intermédiaires commerciaux: courtiers, commissionaires, agents. In Les intermédiaires commerciaux, ed. F. Glansdorff, 29–142. Brussels: Jeune Barreau.
Foriers, P.A. 1994. Le contrat de prestation de services: obligations des parties et responsabilité contractuelle. In Les contrats de service, ed. F. Glansdorff, 121–207. Brussels: Jeune Barreau.
Fossoul, V. 2007. De afdracht van de winst gerealiseerd door de namaker als herstelmaatregel. Rechtspraak Antwerpen Brussel Gent 5: 954–959.
Fredericq, L. 1976. Handboek van Belgisch handelsrecht, vol. I. Brussels: Bruylant.
Gilliams, H., and L. Cornelis. 2007. Private enforcement of the competition rules in Belgium. Tijdschrift voor Belgische Mededinging – Revue de la Concurrence Belge 2: 11–33.
Guldix, E. 1986. De persoonlijkheidsrechten, de persoonlijke levenssfeer en het privéleven in hun onderling verband, PhD thesis. Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Guldix, E., and A. Wylleman. 1999. De positie en de handhaving van persoonlijkheidsrechten in het Belgisch privaatrecht. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 36: 1589–1657.
Guldix, E., P. De Hert, A. Wylleman, K. Swerts, C. Declerck, F. De Bock, M-A. Masschelein, and R. Saelens. 2009. Overzicht van rechtspraak. Personenrecht (2001–2008). Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 46: 769–1027.
Gutwirth, S. 1993. Waarheidsaanspraken in recht en wetenschap. Antwerp: Maklu and Brussels: VUB Press.
Gutwirth, S. 1998. Privacyvrijheid! De vrijheid om zichzelf te zijn. The Hague: Rathenàu Instituut.
Janssens, M.C. 2007–2008. Drie wetten inzake handhaving van intellectuele rechten openen nieuwe horizonten in de strijd tegen namaak en piraterij. Rechtskundig Weekblad 71: 930–944.
Jocqué, G. 2007. Bewustzijn en subjectieve verwijtbaarheid. In Aansprakelijkheid, aansprakelijkheidsverzekering en andere schadevergoedingssystemen, 1–101. Mechelen: Kluwer.
Keustermans, J., and T. De Maere. 2009. Foutbegrip en schadevergoeding in het auteursrecht: double damage?. Auteurs & Media 388–391.
Kruithof, M. 2009. Belangenconflicten in financiële instellingen. Conceptueel juridisch onderzoek van het fenomeen en analyse van de financieelrechtelijke regulering, Ph.D. thesis. Ghent University.
Kruithof, M. 2011. De vordering tot voordeeloverdracht. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 48: 13–74.
Langenaken, E. 2011. L’indemnisation des atteintes aux droits de la personnalité et son implication quant à la nature de ces droits. Revue Générale de Droit Civil Belge 25: 422–444.
Leleu, Y.-H. 2010. Droit des personnes et des familles. Brussels: Larcier.
Lenaerts, A. 2013–2014. Fraus omnia corrumpit: autonome rechtsfiguur of miskend correctiemechanisme?. Rechtskundig Weekblad 77: 362–380.
Lenaerts, A. 2014. Le principe général du droit fraus omnia corrumpit: une analyse de sa portée et de sa fonction en droit privé belge. Revue Générale de Droit Civil Belge 28(3): 98–115.
Maes, P. 2010. Ongegronde vermogensverschuivingen en driepartijenverhoudingen. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 47: 187–273.
Michaux, B., and E. De Gryse. 2007. De handhaving van intellectuele rechten gereorganiseerd. Revue de Droit Commercial Belge 113: 623–648.
Milquet, J. 1989. La responsabilité aquilienne de la presse. Annales de Droit de Louvain 49: 33–104.
Nordin, E. 2014. De schadevergoeding in het aansprakelijkheidsrecht: tussen compensatie en handhaving, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Antwerp.
Paulus, C., and R. Boes. 1978. Lastgeving, A.P.R., Ghent-Louvain: Story-Scientia
Practical guide quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of article 101 or 102 of the treaty on the functioning of the European union accompanying the communication from the commission on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of article 101 or 102 of the treaty on the functioning of the European union, Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2013) 205, C(2013) 3440, 11 June 2013.
Puttemans, A. 2004. Les droits intellectuels en action(s). In Les droits intellectuels: développements récents, ed. P. Jadoul and A. Strowel, 7–78. Brussels: Larcier.
Quantifying antitrust damages: towards non-binding guidance for courts, study prepared for the European commission, Oxera and a multi-jurisdictional team of lawyers led by Dr Assimakis Komninos, December 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/quantification_study.pdf.
Rigaux, F. 1990. La protection de la vie privée et des autres biens de la personnalité. Brussels: Bruylant.
Rigaux, F. 1992. La vie privée. Une liberté parmi les autres? Brussels: Larcier.
Ronse, C. 2008. De andere herstelmaatregelen en in het bijzonder de schadevergoeding. In Sanctions et procédures en droits intellectuels, ed. F. Brison, 221–257. Brussels: Larcier.
Ronse, J., L. De Wilde, A. Claeys, and I. Mallens. 1984. Schade en schadeloosstelling, vol. I, 2nd ed., A.P.R. Ghent: Story Scientia.
Rozie, J. 2005. Voordeelsontneming: de wisselwerking tussen de toepassingsvoorwaarden en het rechtskarakter van de verbeurdverklaring van illegale vermogensvoordelen. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Sagaert, V. 2007. Wat als het vermogen gaat schuiven? Casuïstiek rond zaakwaarneming, onverschuldigde betaling en ongerechtvaardigde verrijking. In Verbintenissenrecht, ed. S. Stijns, 71–93. Bruges: die Keure. Themis.
Schoors, T., T. Baeyens, and W. Devroe. 2011. Schadevergoedingsacties na kartelinbreuken. Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad 10: 198–213.
Schuermans, L. 1969. Overzicht van rechtspraak (1961–1968) Onrechtmatige daad (schade en schadeloosstelling). Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 6: 73–141.
Schuermans, L., J. Schrijvers, D. Simoens, A. Van Oevelen, and M. Debonnaire. 1977. Overzicht van rechtspraak. Onrechtmatige daad. Schade en schadeloosstelling (1969–1976). Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 14: 433–604.
Schuermans, L., J. Schrijvers, D. Simoens, A. Van Oevelen, and H. Schamp. 1984. Overzicht van rechtspraak. Onrechtmatige daad. Schade en schadeloosstelling (1977–1982). Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 21: 511–878.
Schuermans, L., A. Van Oevelen, C. Persyn, P. Ernst, and J-L. Schuermans. 1994. Overzicht van rechtspraak. Onrechtmatige daad. Schade en schadeloosstelling (1983–1992). Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 31: 851–1430.
Simoens, D. 1999. Buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheid, vol. II, Schade en schadeloosstelling. In Beginselen van Belgisch privaatrecht, XI, ed. R. Dillemans and W. Van Gerven. Antwerp: Kluwer.
Simoens, D. 2005. Beschouwingen over de voordeelstoerekening bij de begroting van schade, geleden door de onrechtmatige daad. Revue Générale de Droit Civil Belge 19: 389–393.
Taton, X. 2013. Quelle méthode pour l’évaluation concrète du dommage économique? L’exemple des infractions au droit de la concurrence. Revue de Droit Commercial Belge 119: 1051–1056.
Taton, X., T. Franchoo, N. Baeten, and I. Rooms. 2013. Chronique de jurisprudence (2004–1010). 1ère partie. Les actions civiles pour infraction au droit de la concurrence. Revue de Droit Commercial Belge 119: 5–31.
Van Den Wyngaert, C. 1999. Strafrecht en strafprocesrecht in hoofdlijnen. Antwerp-Apeldoorn: Maklu.
Van Gerven, W., and S. Covemaeker. 2006. Verbintenissenrecht. Louvain: Acco.
Van Neste, F. 1990. Zakenrecht: goederen, bezit en eigendom. In Beginselen van Belgisch privaatrecht, ed. R. Dillemans and W. Van Gerven. Brussels: Story-Scientia.
Van Oevelen, A. 1982. Schade en schadeloosstelling bij de schending van grondrechten door private personen. In De toepasselijkheid van grondrechten in private verhoudingen, ed. K. Rimanque, 421–461. Antwerp: Kluwer.
Van Oevelen, A. 1990. De zgn. ‘subjectieve’ goede trouw in het Belgische materiële privaatrecht. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 27: 1093–1156.
Van Oevelen, A., G. Jocqué, C. Persyn, B., and De Temmerman. 2007. Overzicht van rechtspraak. Onrechtmatige daad: schade en schadeloosstelling (1993–2006). Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 44: 933–1529.
Van Ommeslaghe, P. 2010. Droit des obligations. Brussels: Bruylant.
Van Ryn, J., and J. Heenen. 1988. Principes de droit commercial, vol. IV, 2nd ed. Brussels: Bruylant.
Vandenberghe, H. 1984. De grondslag van de contractuele en extra-contractuele aansprakelijkheid voor eigen daad. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 21: 127–154.
Vansweevelt, T., and B. Weyts. 2009. Handboek buitencontractueel aansprakelijkheidsrecht. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Verjans, E. 2013–2014. Buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheid voor schending van persoonlijkheidsrechten. Rechtskundig Weekblad 77: 522–536.
Verougstraete, I., and A. Bossuyt. 2009. Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules. Tijdschrift voor Belgische Mededinging – Revue de la Concurrence Belge 4: 17–26.
Voorhoof, D. 2009. Commercieel portretrecht in België. In Commercieel Portretrecht, ed. D.J.G. Visser, 147–167. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij deLex.
Waelbroeck, D., K. Cherretté, A. Gerth, Belgium, National report to the European Commission on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/study.html
Wéry, P. 2010. Droit des obligations. Brussels: Larcier.
Weyts, B. 2005–2006. Lucratieve fouten in het aansprakelijkheids- en verzekeringsrecht. The winner takes it all. Rechtskundig Weekblad 69: 1641–1652.
Weyts, B. 2011a. Opzet in het aansprakelijkheids- en verzekeringsrecht: the story continues. In Springlevend aansprakelijkheidsrecht, ed. H. Vuye and Y. Lemense, 265–292. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Weyts, B. 2011b. Punitieve elementen in het buitencontractueel aansprakelijkheidsrecht. In Toetsing van sancties door de rechter, ed. J. Rozie, A. Van Oevelen, and S. Rutten, 173–203. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Zimmermann, R. 1995. Unjustified Enrichment. The Modern Civilian Approach. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 15: 403–429.
List of Cases
Belgian Court of Cassation.
Cour de Cassation 12 November 2012, no. 609, Pasicrisie Belge 2012, 2192, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2012, 2504
Cour de Cassation 27 September 2012, no. 493, Pasicrisie Belge 2012, 1746, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2012, 2040
Cour de Cassation 16 May 2011, no. 320, Pasicrisie Belge 2011, 1339, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2011, 1230
Cour de Cassation 25 February 2010, no. 131, Pasicrisie Belge 2010, 574, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2010, 555
Cour de Cassation 13 May 2009, no. 314, Pasicrisie Belge 2009, 1167, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2009, 1254
Cour de Cassation 19 January 2009, no. 43, Pasicrisie Belge 2009, 153, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2009, 176
Cour de Cassation 2 October 2008, no. 521, Pasicrisie Belge 2008, 2119, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2008, 2125
Cour de Cassation 3 March 2008, no. 149, Pasicrisie Belge 2008, 597, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2008, 623
Cour de Cassation 9 October 2007, no. 465, Pasicrisie Belge 2007, 1739, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie, 2007, 1883
Cour de Cassation 20 February 2006, no. 100, Pasicrisie Belge 2006, 413, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2006, 414
Cour de Cassation 26 October 2005, no. 542, Pasicrisie Belge 2005, 2044, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2005, 2046
Cour de Cassation 9 April 2003, no. 235, Pasicrisie Belge 2003, 765, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2003, 919
Cour de Cassation 8 November 2002, no. 591, Pasicrisie Belge 2002, 2136, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2002, 2417
Cour de Cassation 6 November 2002, no. 584, Pasicrisie Belge 2002, 2103, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 2002, 2383
Cour de Cassation 17 December 1998, no. 525–526, Pasicrisie Belge 1998, 1233, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1998, 1141
Cour de Cassation 9 October 1997, no. 395, Pasicrisie Belge 1997, I, 995, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1997, 948
Cour de Cassation 20 June 1996, no. 247, Pasicrisie Belge 1996, 673, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1996, 625
Cour de Cassation 18 May 1995, no. 245, Pasicrisie Belge 1995, 1044, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1995, 495
Cour de Cassation 21 April 1994, no. 189, Pasicrisie Belge 1994, I, 388, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1994, 392
Cour de Cassation 19 March 1991, no. 376, Pasicrisie Belge 1991, 670, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1990–1991, 755
Cour de Cassation 21 June 1990, no. 615, Pasicrisie Belge 1990, 1204, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1989–1990, 1358
Cour de Cassation 28 April 1987, no. 502, Pasicrisie Belge 1987, I, 1002, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1986–1987, 1135
Cour de Cassation 3 February 1987, no. 322, Pasicrisie Belge 1987, I, 646, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1986–1987, 724
Cour de Cassation 4 January 1984, no. 227, Pasicrisie Belge 1984, 468, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1983–1984, 493
Cour de Cassation 17 November 1983, no. 149, Pasicrisie Belge 1984, 295, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1983–1984, 315
Cour de Cassation 3 December 1981, Pasicrisie Belge 1982, I, 460, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1981–1982, no. 224, 465
Cour de Cassation 26 June 1980, no. 686, Pasicrisie Belge 1980, I, 1341, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1979–1980, 1365
Cour de Cassation 2 May 1974, Pasicrisie Belge 1974, I, 906, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1974, 633
Cour de Cassation 10 October 1972, Pasicrisie Belge 1973, I, 147, Arresten van het Hof van Cassatie 1973, 146
Cour de Cassation 15 May 1941, Pasicrisie Belge 1941, I, 195
Cour de Cassation 17 January 1929, Pasicrisie Belge 1929, I, 63
Cour de Cassation 27 May 1909, Pasicrisie Belge 1909, I, 272
Cour de Cassation 17 March 1881, Pasicrisie Belge 1881, I, 163
Other Belgian Courts
Court of Appeal Brussels 12 June 2012, BMM Bulletin, Beneluxvereniging van Merken- en Modellengemachtigden 2012, 174
Court of Appeal Antwerp 23 January 2012, Intellectuele Rechten – Droits Intellectuels 2012, vol. 17, 374
Court of First Instance Brussels 11 January 2011, Auteurs & Media 2013, 263
Court of First Instance Tournai 22 November 2010, Auteurs & Media 2011, 109
Court of First Instance Brussels 28 September 2010, Auteurs & Media 2011, 334
Commercial Court Antwerp 2 July 2010, reported in: J. Deene, Intellectuele rechten kroniek 2010, Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad 2011, vol. 10, 442–449, no. 50, p. 449
Court of First Instance Hasselt 14 June 2010, Auteurs & Media 2011, 250
Court of Appeal Antwerp 21 December 2009, Auteurs & Media 2011, 182
Court of First Instance Brussels 7 April 2009, Auteurs & Media 2010, 99
Court of Appeal Ghent 19 January 2009, Auteurs & Media 2009, 384
Court of Appeal Ghent 5 January 2009, Auteurs & Media 2009, 413
Court of Appeal Antwerp 13 October 2008, Auteurs & Media 2009, 391
Court of First Instance Antwerp 12 June 2008, Auteurs & Media 2008, 321, Rechtspraak Antwerpen Brussel Gent 2008, vol. 6, 1267
Court of Appeal Ghent 21 February 2008, Auteurs & Media 2008, 318
Court of Appeal Brussels 13 December 2007, Tijdschrift voor Fiscaal Recht 2008, vol. 340, 445
Court of Appeal Brussels 16 May 2007, no. 2005/AR/2710, reported in: J. Deene, Intellectuele rechten kroniek 2007, Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad 2008, vol. 7, 514–546, no. 60, p. 523
Court of Appeal Brussels 4 April 2007, Auteurs & Media 2007, 466
Court of First Instance Ghent 10 January 2007, Intellectuele Rechten - Droits Intellectuels 2007, vol.12, 13
Court of Appeal Ghent 20 September 2006, Auteurs & Media 2007, 386
Court of First Instance Louvain 2 May 2006, Auteurs & Media 2006, 457
Court of First Instance Brussels 30 April 2006, Auteurs & Media 2007, 390
Court of First Instance Brussels 20 April 2006, Auteurs & Media 2006, 335
Court of Appeal Antwerp 11 October 2005, Auteurs & Media 2006, 202
Court of Appeal Brussels 3 May 2005, Auteurs & Media 2005, 419
Court of First Instance Brussels 8 December 2004, Auteurs & Media 2005, 249
Court of First Instance Kortrijk 20 April 2004, Auteurs & Media 2005, 57
Court of First Instance Brussels 17 April 2004, Auteurs & Media 2005, 81
Court of First Instance Hasselt 19 December 2003, Auteurs & Media 2004, 388
Court of First Instance Ghent 19 November 2003, Auteurs & Media 2004, 384
Court of First Instance Mons 10 September 2003, Courrier Fiscal 2003, 684
Court of Appeal Brussels 20 June 2003, Jurisprudence Fiscale 2004, vol. 23, 705
Court of Appeal Antwerp 5 May 2003, Rechtskundig Weekblad 2004–2005, vol. 68, 1145, Auteurs & Media 2004, 67, Nieuw Juridisch Weekblad 2003, vol. 2, 1193
Court of First Instance Brussels 17 May 2002, Auteurs & Media 2003, 138
Court of First Instance Dendermonde 26 October 2001, Rechtskundig Weekblad 2002–2003, vol. 66, 1068
Court of First Instance Brussels 20 September 2001, Auteurs & Media 2002, 77
Court of Appeal Brussels 23 March 2001, Auteurs & Media 2001, 373
Court of First Instance Brussels 19 January 2001, Auteurs & Media 2002, 450, Rechtskundig Weekblad 2001–2002, vol. 65, 207
Commercial Court Liège 18 October 2000, Revue de Droit Commercial Belge 2000, vol. 106, 386
Court of First Instance Brussels 19 May 2000, Auteurs & Media 2000, 338
Court of First Instance Brussels 16 November 1999, Auteurs & Media 2000, 132
Court of First Instance Liège 12 December 1997, Revue de Jurisprudence de Liège, Mons et Bruxelles 1998, vol. 105, 819
Court of First Instance Brussels 20 February 1996, Auteurs & Media 1998, 259
Court of Appeal Mons 17 March 1995, Journal des Tribunaux 1995, vol. 114, 684
Commercial Court Antwerp 22 April 1993, Rechtspraak van de Haven van Antwerpen 1994, vol. 132, 176
Court of First Instance Kortrijk 17 November 1989, Tijdschrift voor Gentse Rechtspraak 1990, vol. 6, 116
Court of First Instance Antwerp 24 June 1985, Rechtskundig Weekblad 1985–1986, vol. 49, 2645
Court of Appeal Brussels 19 November 1971, Jurisprudence Commerciale de Belgique 1972, vol. 5, 22, Pasicrisie Belge 1972, II, 23, Revue de la Banque 1972, vol. 36, 357
Court of Appeal Liège 16 January 1962, Revue Générale des Assurances et des Responsabilités 1964, vol. 37, no. 7204
Court of First Instance Antwerp 14 January 1960, Revue Générale des Assurances et des Responsabilités 1963, vol. 36, no. 7084
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kruithof, M. (2015). Disgorgement of Profits in Belgian Private Law. In: Hondius, E., Janssen, A. (eds) Disgorgement of Profits. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18759-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18759-4_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18758-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18759-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)