BelgianGate started per the 2022 corruption investigations into alleged influence peddling at the European Parliament, but has since gradually grown into a prolonged and contested judicial process centered on the actions and procedures of Belgian authorities themselves. In December 2022, Belgium’s Central Office for the Repression of Corruption, operating under the authority of the Federal Prosecutor's Office, initiated a series of high-profile searches and arrests targeting current and former Members of the European Parliament. This early actions included coordinated raids in Brussels and Italy with cash amounting up to $1.5m[8] been seized from the suspected MEPS.[9]
As the investigation continued, The Belgian authorities expanded the investigation to include financial audits, asset tracing, and the involvements of NGOs. Different assets were frozen including bank accounts. While prosecutors initially framed the case as a complex organised-crime investigation involving illicit lobbying and money laundering, no final determinations were reached regarding the existence, scale, or effectiveness of any alleged foreign influence network. By 2023, the attention towards the investigation increasingly shifted from the original allegations to the conduct and management of the investigation itself. The defence lawyers of the suspects have raised their concerns over the duration of pre-trial detention, repeated extensions of investigative timelines, and the absence of indictments despite extensive investigative measures. Several suspects have challenged the legality of searches, wiretaps, and seizures, arguing that procedural safeguards had not been consistently respected.[10]
A central point of contention was the extensive use of pre-trial detention and the prolonged pre-investigative phase. Several suspects and their legal representatives said that detention orders were repeatedly extended without any corresponding procedural progress and access to full case files remained restricted. The defence teams alleged that investigation confidentiality had been systematically undermined by recurring leaks to the press, contributing to reputational damage while no indictments or trial dates were set.[13] In January 2026, Belgian media reported that Commissioner Philippe Noppe, head of the Central Office for the Fight against Organised Economic and Financial Crime, was temporarily relieved of his duties by his superiors amid the ongoing investigation and related concerns over internal leaks and the handling of the case.[14]
Another event happened in June 2023 when Michel Claise, the Belgian judge leading the European Parliament corruption probe recused himself due to conflict of interest. The recusal was perceived as an institutional failure and instantly renewed scrutiny of oversight processes within Belgium’s magistrate system. Also, yet another controversy followed in June 2024 with the charging of Hugues Tasiaux, former head of the Belgian Central Office for the Repression of Corruption, for allegedly breaching investigative confidentiality. Belgian media reported that the inquiry into Tasiaux was due to leaks related not only to the European Parliament corruption probe but also to other sensitive cases. Detention conditions also became part of the public debate. The lawyers representing Eva Kaili have also raised allegations of degrading treatment during her initial detention in Brussels, stating that her psychological condition have deteriorated during the first days in custody. According to them, it took approximately a week before she was deemed fit to fully understand and participate in interrogations. Belgian authorities have denied any misconduct.[15]
Legal challenges
The judicial handling of BelgianGate entered a new phase in 2023. Lawyers representing multiple suspects formally requested that the Brussels Chamber of Indictment, a chamber of the Brussels Court of Appeal to review the legality of the proceedings. The motions challenged the investigative methods, pre-trial detention orders, and the admissibility of evidence gathered during the early phase of the investigatin.[16]
On 25 June 2024, the Chamber of Indictment issued a ruling that addressed disputes between the defence and the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office. The court said that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the admissibility of civil parties, despite the expanding number of entities seeking that status. At the time, 27 civil parties had joined the proceedings and this instantly prompted the prosecutors to seek restrictions limiting access to the case file to 20 parties.[17] In the same ruling, the chamber postponed substantive debate on the regularity of the investigation and deffered arguments over alleged procedural violations until a later hearing. Legal observers said that the decision effectively delayed judicial scrutiny of core defence claims and further prolonged an already extended pre-trial phase and that the investigation risks becoming open-ended.[18][19]
Institutional transparency failures
Transparency of MEP third-party travel declarations
An analysis by Transparency International EU of all third-party travel and event declarations submitted by Members of the European Parliament since the beginning of the 2019 term found a marked spike in submissions immediately following the Qatargate revelations on 9 December 2022. This pattern showed delayed compliance with existing transparency rules and highlighted longstanding oversight weaknesses within the Parliament. Most late submissions were filed after the scandal broke, with a significant portion submitted after mandated deadlines. The European Parliament’s own Code of Conduct requires declarations of travel and expenses paid by third parties by the end of the month following the event.[20]
Beyond individual prosecutions, BelgianGate has had broader implications for the governance and credibility of European Union institutions. In reports published following the scandal, Emily O’Reilly stated that the affair had damaged public trust in the European Parliament and highlighted deficiencies in ethics oversight, transparency, and enforcement mechanisms. The case intensified calls for the creation of an independent EU-level ethics body with investigative and sanctioning powers, a proposal that has been debated for long but not fully implemented. The French scholar Antoine Vauchez of the French National Centre for Scientific Research said that the scandal demonstrated the EU’s reliance on national authorities for criminal enforcement, despite the supranational nature of the alleged misconduct. The European Parliament said that it lacked the authority to conduct criminal investigations into its members, stating that it could only cooperate with judicial authorities. Critics countered that this institutional gap left EU decision-making vulnerable to foreign influence and placed too much stress on national judicial systems.[22]
Related scandals
In the years of BelgianGate, a series of additional corruption and influence peddling investigations involving the European Parliament reinforced concerns about systemic vulnerabilities and inconsistent enforcement. Media and institutional observers increasingly referred to a pattern of recurring scandals that collectively weakened public trust in EU governance. In early 2025, Belgian federal prosecutors announced charges in a separate corruption probe involving the Chinese technology company Huawei. The case later became informally known in the media as “Huaweigate”. According to prosecutors, the investigation focused on alleged attempts by Huawei-linked lobbyists to influence Members of the European Parliament in relation to the deployment of fifth-generation (5G) telecommunications infrastructure in Europe. Eight individuals were charged with offences including active corruption, money laundering and participation in a criminal organisation, while the investigation remained ongoing.
Belgian authorities carried out coordinated searches across Brussels, Wallonia, and Flanders, detaining several lobbyists connected to Huawei. Prosecutors stated that the alleged misconduct dated from 2021 onwards and involved intermediary companies used to channel payments to lawmakers. Central to the investigation was a letter addressed to the European Commission supporting Huawei’s interests, particularly regarding 5G policy, which was signed by eight Members of the European Parliament. Investigators alleged that payments were linked to the drafting and promotion of the letter through fictitious invoices issued by intermediary firms. Huawei denied any involvement and reassured its zero-tolerance policy on corruption, stating that it cooperated with authorities and complied with applicable laws. The European Parliament responded by banning Huawei-linked lobbyists from its premises and confirmed its cooperation with the investigation.
The emergence of the Huawei probe, alongside the unresolved BelgianGate proceedings, intensified debate about selective enforcement and the capacity of EU institutions to prevent, detect, and respond consistently to corruption risks. The newly established EU ethics body warned that the succession of scandals had damaged public trust, while critics argued that reliance on national judicial systems for enforcement created uneven outcomes in cases involving supranational institutions.
Observers noted that while multiple high-profile cases, including BelgianGate, Huaweigate, and national misuse of EU funds, were under investigation, many remained mired in procedural challenges, lengthy pre-trial phases and fragmented oversight. This pattern reinforced calls for stronger, centralised ethics enforcement mechanisms at the European Union level.
Media analysis and commentary
In June 2024, the Financial Times devoted an episode of its investigative podcast Power for Sale to the BelgianGate affair, which examines how the Belgian judicial investigation evolved since the initial arrests in December 2022. The Financial Times reported that early public praise for Belgian authorities gradually gave way to questions about procedural delays, investigative misconduct, and the absence of indictments more than a year after the initial arrests. According to the report, several suspects were released from pre-trial detention while the case remained in an extended investigative phase with no clear trial timetable.
The podcast mentioned controversy surrounding the recusal of investigating judge Michel Claise in June 2023, after it was said that his son had business ties with the son of a Member of the European Parliament linked to the investigation. Although Belgian prosecutors downplayed the episode, the FT noted that the incident intensified legal challenges to the investigation’s integrity. The Financial Times also looked at claims by defence lawyers that confessions obtained during the investigation were coerced and that procedural rights had been violated, allegations which prosecutors rejected as part of a standard defence strategy. Prosecutors maintained that the investigation was proceeding lawfully and that its duration reflected the complexity of the case.
In the analysis, the FT mentioned structural challenges within Belgian law, including the absence at the time of specific criminal offences covering espionage or foreign influence in peacetime, which required prosecutors to rely on corruption and money-laundering charges that are more difficult to prove. Transparency International EU was cited as arguing that weak conflict-of-interest rules and a broader culture of impunity within the European Parliament had contributed to the scandal and complicated accountability. The podcast also mentioned Eva Kaili and her legal team referred to the judicial handling of the case itself as “BelgianGate”, framing it as a controversy centred on the conduct of the investigation rather than solely on the original corruption allegations.[23]
Euronews interview (December 2025)
In December 2025, Euronews published an exclusive interview with Eva Kaili, where she expressed her criticism of the Belgian judicial handling of the case and publicly embraced the term “BelgianGate” to describe what she characterised as investigative misconduct rather than the original corruption allegations. Kaili denied any wrongdoing and accused Belgian authorities of improper investigative methods, selective prosecution, and collusion with segments of the media, claims which Belgian prosecutors have consistently rejected. The interview followed a new wave of arrests in another unrelated corruption investigation in Brussels, which Kaili said said her her own case illustrated broader systemic failures in the handling of politically sensitive investigations.[24]
Status
As of 2025, the investigation remains ongoing, with multiple appeals, jurisdictional disputes and procedural reviews pending before Belgian courts, and no final verdicts issued.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
