Antwerp Court Reverts to Paper Submissions, Lawyers Object

The Antwerp Court of First Instance will require lawyers to submit all documents and conclusions for criminal case files on paper at the registry starting September 1, 2026, reversing a policy that allowed digital submissions. The decision, announced by Court President Annelies Laureyssens, has drawn sharp criticism from the legal profession, with lawyers calling it a significant step backward for the Belgian justice system.

A Costly Paper Burden

“You may as well know: half of my budget, of the Antwerp Court of First Instance, goes to paper,” Laureyssens told VRT NWS. The court had previously accepted digital submissions and printed the documents itself, but that arrangement has become unsustainable.

“We wanted to make it easier for people and also accepted digital documents, which we printed ourselves,” she explained. “But it has become too much work and too expensive.”

The shift stems from a legal requirement that criminal case files in Belgium must still be fully created on paper. Most courts in the country require paper submissions because of this framework. The Antwerp court had been an exception by accepting digital filings and handling the printing internally.

Laureyssens pointed to practical challenges that compounded the problem: “Conclusions are getting longer and longer and more and more documents are being added. Because files are often too large, we also have to retrieve them via links and that has become too dangerous. We have to reverse that decision and I’m not happy about it either.”

The court president stressed that the institution remains committed to digitalization in other areas. “We will continue to invest in digitalization and scan everything in, so that files can still be viewed digitally,” she said. The court will continue scanning paper files for digital viewing—it is only ending its printing function.

Lawyers Cry Foul

The legal community has reacted with frustration and disbelief. Criminal defense lawyer Walter Damen was blunt: “20 years back in time, this says everything about the current functioning of Justice.”

“We have to make a trip again, by car, by cart or on foot to the courthouse,” Damen told VRT NWS. “At the moment when they say everything must be done via computers and everything must be digitized, we now have to go back to paper.”

Tim Smet, another criminal defense lawyer, highlighted the operational impact: “It creates additional time pressure for our people, who otherwise had until midnight to file a conclusion with one press of a button. Now they have to go to the registry during a narrow afternoon window. Those are extra trips and extra costs for our clients.”

Brandon Saeyvoet, who has practiced at the bar for 15 years, described the move as “a serious digital regression. I’ve worked at the bar for 15 years and feel like we’re back to square one. Submitting a file digitally is easier for everyone.”

Lawyer Simon Boons captured the broader sentiment: “We live in the 21st century. Millions have been invested in Justice, yet we are catapulted 50 years back in time.”

A Digitalization Paradox

The decision comes amid ongoing efforts to modernize Belgian justice. In June 2022, the Justice Ministry launched JustConsult, a digital access tool for criminal files, and by March 2023 nearly 50,000 files—about 75% of all available for inspection—had been scanned and made available online, according to the Belgian Justice Ministry. The Orde van Vlaamse Balies had championed digital access for over two decades.

The Antwerp court’s reversal highlights the gap between ambition and reality. Nicolaas Vinckier, board member of the OVB Study Service, noted: “Digitalization is a cost in the short term and a saving in the long term; it’s a pity that policy doesn’t seem to realize this when it comes to justice.”

Lawyers argue the real issue is chronic underfunding. “If justice continues to be underfunded and not built up as a modern apparatus, that is a very regrettable thing,” Damen said. “Because that is what your rule of law stands or falls on. It is now constantly undermined by insufficient resources.”

Davina Simons, a lawyer who criticized the decision on Instagram, was careful to direct frustration at the system rather than the court itself: “This is absolutely not their responsibility. It’s just a shame that we’re in 2026 and that apparently a lot of budget goes to things that could be digital, instead of to people and resources at the registry.”

What’s Next

The Justice Ministry has signaled that a legal framework for digital files is in the works. Nick Gyselinck, spokesperson for Justice Minister Annelies Verlinden, confirmed that a royal decree on the matter will be published this autumn. “Work has definitely been done on it,” he said. “We will communicate about it in due time.”

Until then, lawyers in Antwerp must adapt to the paper requirement, with submissions accepted at the registry only during a limited afternoon window. Alex Buelens, a lawyer at the Antwerp Bar and elected OVB board member, expressed hope that the controversy would spur action: “Hopefully the minister picks up the signal of this enormous step backwards and the digitalization of Justice across the country is finally taken seriously and thoroughly pursued. The bar proves it can do it; now justice still needs to.”

For a justice system that has spent years digitizing its files, the Antwerp court’s decision represents a stark reminder of the gap between digital ambition and institutional capacity—and of the costs borne by those caught in between.