This document provides general guidance about what is involved in acting as an attorney under a health and welfare lasting power of attorney (LPA). Your Private Client lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. Acting as an LPA attorney for a relative or friend is an important responsibility that should be fully understood before the role is accepted and taken on. This guide aims to provide an overview of the powers and responsibilities of a health and welfare LPA attorney and explains what is likely to be involved in taking decisions on behalf of your loved one. What is an LPA? An LPA is a legal document that enables an individual (the donor) to appoint one or more trusted people (known as attorneys or donees) to manage their affairs and make decisions on their behalf in the event that they lose mental capacity. Before an LPA can be used, it must be registered with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). There are two types of LPA: an LPA for

This document provides general guidance about what is involved in acting as an attorney under a property and financial affairs lasting power of attorney (LPA). Your Private Client lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. Acting as an LPA attorney for a relative or friend is an important responsibility that should be fully understood before the role is accepted and taken on. This guide aims to provide an overview of the powers and responsibilities of a property and financial affairs LPA attorney and explains what steps you are likely to need to take in managing your loved one’s affairs. What is an LPA? An LPA is a legal document that enables an individual (the donor) to appoint one or more trusted people (known as attorneys or donees) to manage their affairs and make decisions on their behalf in the event that they lose mental capacity. Before an LPA can be used, it must be registered with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). There

1. What is the applicable legislation? Regarding the control of foreign investments, the Republic of Belarus currently lacks a sufficiently unified system. Control measures (or exemptions from such measures) are provided by both certain international agreements (such as the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union, with Appendices 1-33, signed in Astana on 29.05.2014) (EAEU Treaty) and national legislation. The Protocol on Trade in Services, Establishment, Activities, and Investment, established in Appendix 16 to the EAEU Treaty (Protocol 16), holds particular importance. It imposes an obligation to refrain from implementing certain control measures against investors from EAEU member states (Belarus, Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan). Specifically, it imposes a moratorium on the following restrictions: • the number of service providers limited by quotas, economic necessity tests, or any other quantitative restrictions • the number of legal entities, branches, or representative offices that can be established, acquired, or controlled, or the number of registered individual entrepreneurs • the operations of any service provider limited by quotas, economic necessity tests, or any other quantitative restrictions • the operations of established,

Law360: The General Court of the European Union upheld sanctions against a Belarusian airline on 29 May 2024, ruling that the carrier is backed by President Alexander Lukashenko and helped to facilitate the illegal entry of migrants from the Middle East into the bloc.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Belarus and throughout the world are met, see Where to Notify. Note—in some languages, Belarus can be known as 'White Russia'. For example, Belarus can be known as ‘Weißrussland’ in German, although officially it is known as Belarus. Likewise, Belarus is known as 'Wit-Rusland' in Dutch. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Belarusian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Belarus? In May 2026, for the first time, a foreign company was included in the State Register of Business Entities Holding Dominant Position in the Belarusian market. The law does not specifically address whether a foreign entity may be listed in this register, but before this development only Belarusian entities appeared there. Being mentioned in the register implies, inter alia, the following consequences for the relevant company: • the possibility of the regulator applying specific measures of price regulation • the prohibition of practices that may be treated as abuse

The presidency programme for the Belgian presidency of the Council of the EU Programme has been published, setting out its priorities and main direction from 1 January–30 June 2024 under the presidency slogan ‘protect, strengthen, prepare’ and six priorities. The Belgian presidency will work towards better protecting European citizens, strengthening cooperation, and preparing a shared future with particular attention to maintaining support to Ukraine. The presidency has highlighted the new European pact on migration and asylum and socio economic governance legislation governing the Banking Union and the Capital Markets Union among others as areas of legislative focus.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a landmark ruling on 27 March 2025 (available in French here), the Belgian Supreme Court (Cour de cassation/Hof van Cassatie) confirmed that exclusive choice of court agreements designating the courts of the UK, concluded during the Brexit transition period, remain governed by the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (Hague Choice of Court Convention). This case brings judicial clarification to a long-standing uncertainty that had emerged in the wake of Brexit as regards the temporal application of the Hague Choice of Court Convention. The Court expressly held that it is applicable to the UK ‘without any reasonable doubt’ from 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2020 as a State bound via the EU’s approval, and from 1 January 2021 as a Contracting Party. In this article Cedric Berckmans, Adrien Willocx, Victoria Hobbs and Louise Lanzkron of Bird & Bird consider the significance of this case to exclusive jurisdiction agreements concluded during the Brexit transition period and how the enforcement landscape between the EU and the UK has evolved since.

Arbitration analysis: The Belgian Supreme Court held that Article 1717, § 3, b), ii of the Belgian Judicial Code (pursuant to which an award arbitral may be set aside for violation of public policy) does not imply that the annulment judge may conduct a de novo review of the dispute in view of the provisions of public policy applied by the arbitral tribunal. Rather, the annulment court must control whether the award itself violates public policy. To show a violation of (substantive) public policy, it is therefore not sufficient to argue that an arbitral tribunal would have misapplied a rule of public policy. Rather, the requesting party must show that the outcome given to the dispute in the arbitral award has the effect of violating public policy. Written by Maarten Draye, partner, Hanotiau & van den Berg (Brussels).

Arbitration analysis: The issue before the Belgian Supreme Court concerned the question of whether a judge hearing an application for interim relief can suspend ongoing arbitration proceedings. The court answered this question in the negative, holding in general terms that Belgian state courts lack jurisdiction to order the suspension or termination of ongoing arbitration proceedings. Written by Maarten Draye, Member of the Brussels Bar, Guest Lecturer International Arbitration (KU Leuven).

1. What is the applicable legislation? At national level On 1 July 2023, the screening mechanism for foreign direct investments (FDI), provided for by the cooperation agreement between the Federal State and the various Belgian Regions and Communities came into force (Cooperation Agreement 2022). Non-European investors have to notify an inter-federal screening committee of their investment projects in a Belgian company active in a highly sensitive sector or one likely to affect national security, public order or the strategic interests of the Federal State, Regions and Communities. At regional level The Flemish Parliament adopted on 7 December 2018 the Administrative Decree (Bestuursdecreet) (Decree 2018) which regulates the screening of foreign investment in Flanders’ strategic (semi-) public assets. The Decree 2018 entered into force on 1 January 2019 but has not yet been applied. Articles III.59 and III.60 of the Decree 2018 introduce an emergency brake mechanism to ‘safeguard the strategic interests of the Flemish Region’. However, this is an individual ex post mechanism and not an ex ante screening of anticipated legal

This table summarises all completed investigations by Belgium’s competition authority (the Belgian Competition Authority—BCA) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only decisions that have been made public are included in this table. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article IV.1 of the Code of Economic Law Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Newspaper distribution•bpost•DPG media•Mediahuis•PPP Restrictive agreements—bid rigging • Infringement decision announced—13/02/20256; fines totalling €11,898,483 imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article IV.2 of the Code of Economic Law The BCA has not yet issued any decisions under Article 102/Article IV.2 in 2026. 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article IV.1 of the Code of Economic Law Case name, companies under investigation and industry Issues Developments Electricity trading• Nord Pool AS• EPEX SPOT SE Restrictive agreements—allocating markets • Infringement decision announced—26/06/2025; fines totalling €79,810 imposed Pharmaceuticals• Johnson & Johnson Consumer• Boehringer Ingelheim• Haleon Belgium Restrictive agreements • Infringement decision announced—24/04/2025; fines totalling €11.2m imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article IV.2 of the

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Belgium and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been recent developments regarding the Belgian merger control regime? What are the main points of interest and are any further updates/developments expected? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Belgium? In Belgium, merger control rules were first introduced by the Act on the Protection of Economic Competition on 5 August 1991 (the 1991 Act). At that time, the Belgian thresholds included both a turnover and a market share threshold. The 1991 Act was subsequently replaced by further legislation in 1999, which was in turn replaced by the 2006 Act on the Protection of Economic Competition (the 2006 Act). The 2006 Act introduced a number of important changes in the area of merger control, mainly due to the fact that the substantive test for reviewing mergers was aligned with the test introduced at the EU level by the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). On 3 April 2013, new legislation inserted the competition law regime into Book IV of