Blog
Mandatory for public bodies, not for most companies.
When an accessibility statement actually is required, and what it needs to contain in practice.
An accessibility statement is mandatory for public sector bodies in Belgium and the Netherlands, and not for most private websites.
Since the European Accessibility Act came into force, many businesses assume they need such a statement too.
The requirements apply to a broader group, the statement obligation does not.
I'm writing this as a developer, not a lawyer, so read it as practical explanation rather than legal advice.
Who is required to publish an accessibility statement?
Public sector bodies, at every level of government.
The obligation comes from Directive (EU) 2016/2102, the Web Accessibility Directive.
In Belgium it was transposed through the act of 19 July 2018 for the federal level, and through separate regulation from the communities and regions, for Flanders the Bestuursdecreet of 7 December 2018.
In the Netherlands it runs through the Besluit digitale toegankelijkheid overheid, anchored since 1 July 2023 in the Wet digitale overheid.
Both tracks impose two things.
The first is making and keeping your site accessible under EN 301 549, which in its current version (V3.2.1 from March 2021) refers to WCAG 2.1 level AA.
Version 4.1.1 of EN 301 549 was published in September 2026 and moves to WCAG 2.2 level AA, but only applies once it's cited in the Official Journal of the EU, expected for December 2026.
If you're building today, stick to WCAG 2.2 AA: it covers 2.1 in full and gets ahead of the next reference.
What that standard actually asks of you is explained in the four principles of WCAG in plain language.
The second is publishing and keeping current a statement per site and per app.
The deadlines are behind us: new public sector sites from 23 September 2019, existing ones from 23 September 2020, apps from 23 June 2021.
If you're building for a public sector body as a supplier, the statement isn't your duty but it is your work: without results per success criterion, no status holds up.
Does the statement obligation also apply under the European Accessibility Act?
Not in the same form, and that difference is bigger than it looks.
The EAA, Directive 2019/882, has applied since 28 June 2025 and requires service providers under Article 13 to explain, following Annex V, how their service meets the accessibility requirements.
That information must stay public for as long as the service runs.
The word accessibility statement doesn't appear in it, and for services there's no European template and no register.
Most businesses still put that information on their site as a statement, because that's the simplest place to comply.
Micro-enterprises that provide services are exempt: fewer than ten employees and an annual turnover or balance sheet total of at most two million euros.
Whether your service falls under it depends on what you offer, so have that checked legally.
Which sectors are covered is explained in when the European Accessibility Act applies to your website.
If you fall under neither regime, you don't need to publish a statement.
It's then a choice, and it only makes sense with an audit behind it.
Belgium and the Netherlands: same goal, different procedure
The standard is identical, the burden of proof isn't.
The Netherlands puts the statement in a central register with a public status letter, Belgium leaves it on your own site.
That makes the Dutch statements more visible and more detailed.
The European template from Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1523 applies in both countries: the difference is in the procedure, not in the template.
| Aspect | Belgium (public sector) | Netherlands (public sector) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | Act of 19 July 2018, plus regulation from the communities and regions | Besluit digitale toegankelijkheid overheid, anchored since 1 July 2023 in the Wet digitale overheid |
| Template | European template from Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1523 | European template from Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1523, filled in via the assistant at toegankelijkheidsverklaring.nl |
| Publishing | On your own site, in an accessible format | In the central register, with a link from the site |
| Status | In text: fully, partially or not compliant | Status letter A to D, and E for no statement |
| Updating | Regularly, in practice annually | Annually, the review stays valid for three years |
| Oversight | Per level of government: FOD BOSA for the federal level, with a complaint to the federal Ombudsman. For the federated entities Inter Vlaanderen, ETNIC, Equal Brussels, Agence du Numerique and the Ministry of the German-speaking Community, each with its own oversight body, complaints procedure and ombudsman service |
Per layer of government, with horizontal accountability |
For the EAA, Belgium organises it differently.
The FOD Economie oversees most products and services, but oversight is split by sector: BIPT is responsible for electronic communications, and separate regulators apply for banking and payment services and for passenger transport.
Which authority is responsible for your service is best checked legally.
Enforcement practice is still developing, but waiting makes little sense, since the requirements have applied since 28 June 2025.
What needs to be in an accessibility statement?
Eight elements that make your statement complete.
Six of them are mandatory under the European template from Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1523: compliance status, non-accessible content, preparation and method used, feedback mechanism, contact details and enforcement procedure.
The assessment per success criterion and a signing-off responsible person come from the Dutch assistant tool and from practice.
- Scope: which website, subdomains or app the statement covers.
- Compliance status: fully, partially or not compliant with EN 301 549, in the currently applicable version V3.2.1, so against WCAG 2.1 level AA.
- Basis: how you established that, with an external audit or your own evaluation.
- Non-accessible content: what the issues are and why.
The European template asks for a description in non-technical terms, the Dutch assistant tool additionally asks for a judgement per success criterion. - Grounds for exemption: outside the scope, disproportionate burden or third-party content.
- Alternatives: how someone gets that content another way, by phone or in person.
- Feedback mechanism: a reporting channel for visitors, plus the complaints procedure.
- Date and responsible person: when it was drawn up and revised and who is responsible and serves as the contact point.
What doesn't belong in it is a plan without a deadline.
That costs you your status in the Netherlands and your evidence in Belgium.
What do you do if you don't fully comply yet?
You publish a statement anyway, with a status that's accurate.
Publishing nothing is the worst option, because then there's no status, no reporting channel and no plan.
In the Netherlands that's literally status E.
An honest partial status with concrete measures and dates is stronger than a claim that won't survive an audit.
Two things need attention.
A partial status is a step along the way, not an end point, because in the Netherlands you have to show in the statement every year which measures you've taken and when the remaining issues will be resolved.
And disproportionate burden isn't an exemption you write down once: you justify per element why the effort is out of proportion, and that argument weakens as soon as you renew that element anyway.
The order that works: measure first, then write, then fix, ranked by impact.
What a statement doesn't do
A statement doesn't make your site more accessible.
It records where you stand, and that's where its value lies: it makes your situation verifiable from the outside.
Overlay tools that promise a conformity claim with one line of JavaScript fix nothing in the code, and so provide no evidence.
That evidence needs manual work.
Lighthouse and axe DevTools only find part of the problems, because focus order, alternative text, form error messages and screen reader operability need to be tested manually.
How you approach that step by step is explained in how to test your website for accessibility.
That's what I do in digital accessibility: measuring, fixing it in the code and recording it per success criterion.
This article isn't legal advice.
Whether an obligation applies to you is a question for a lawyer.
What needs to happen technically is my part. Tell me about your situation and I'll give you an honest picture within 24 hours.
Frequently asked questions
Is an accessibility statement mandatory for a website?
For government bodies in Belgium and the Netherlands it's mandatory, for private websites usually not.
The requirement comes from directive (EU) 2016/2102, transposed in Belgium in the law of 19 July 2018, in the Netherlands in the Digital Government Accessibility Decree, anchored since 1 July 2023 in the Digital Government Act.
Under the European Accessibility Act there is an information obligation about the accessibility of your service, but no statement in a fixed format, so publishing one there is a choice.
Is accessibility a legal requirement?
Yes, for a growing group of websites and apps.
Government bodies fall under EN 301 549.
The version the directive refers to (V3.2.1) sets WCAG 2.1 level AA, the newer version 4.1.1 from September 2026 aligns with WCAG 2.2 level AA but hasn't been cited in the EU Official Journal yet.
If you're building today, stick to WCAG 2.2 AA: it covers 2.1 completely and gets ahead of the next reference.
Since 28 June 2025 the European Accessibility Act applies to a defined group of products and services: among others e-commerce, consumer banking services, electronic communications, passenger transport and e-books.
Outside that it's not a legal requirement, but often a contractual one in government contracts.
Which website is required to be made accessible under the Accessibility Act?
Websites and apps of government bodies at all levels of government, with limited exceptions such as for public broadcasters, plus websites through which you offer a service that falls under the European Accessibility Act.
For private parties it depends on the type of service, not the size of the site, with an exception for micro-enterprises under ten employees and two million euros.
What are the legal obligations regarding digital accessibility in the Netherlands?
The Digital Government Accessibility Decree, anchored since 1 July 2023 in the Digital Government Act, imposes two obligations: making and keeping websites and apps accessible according to EN 301 549, in the currently applicable version V3.2.1 so at WCAG 2.1 level AA, and publishing an accessibility statement for every website and app.
You create that with the assistant at toegankelijkheidsverklaring.nl, and it goes into a central register, with a compliance status from A to D.
It must be updated at least annually, and the underlying research remains valid for three years.
How often does an accessibility statement need to be updated?
In the Netherlands at least annually, and the underlying research remains valid for three years.
In Belgium there's no fixed term in the regulation, but in practice it comes down to annually.
Outside that rhythm you revise it as soon as something changes: a new audit, resolved issues or a new version of your site should go into the statement right away.
A status that's no longer accurate is just as useless as no status at all.
What happens if you don't publish an accessibility statement?
For a government body, that's the worst option.
In the Netherlands it results in status E, since there's then no compliance status, no reporting channel and no plan.
In Belgium, the supervisory body lacks the document that oversight and the complaints procedure rely on.
An honest partial status with concrete measures and dates is always stronger than publishing nothing.
A question about this topic?
Briefly describe your situation, and I'll let you know what's going on and what it would cost. No sales pitch.
