COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Belgium, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 300 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report    Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report      The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Belgian  justice  system  has  been  undergoing  reforms  relating  to  digitalisation  and  the 
management of resources by the judiciary for several years, but full implementation remains 
outstanding.  Various  initiatives  to  foster  the  quality  and  independence  of  justice  have  been 
implemented,  notably  relating  to  court  fees,  the  system  of  substitute  judges,  and  the 
investigative  powers  of  the  High  Council  for  Justice.  A  reform  of  the  complaint  procedure 
regarding  the  functioning  of  justice  is  ongoing,  as  well  as  an  initiative  to  foster  the  use  of 
clear  language  in  judicial  decisions.  The  availability  of  sufficient  human  and  financial 
resources poses a challenge for the justice system, and there remains a need to improve the 
level of digitalisation. In this context, a long-standing shortcoming is the lack of reliable and 
consistent data on efficiency.  

Belgium has the legal and institutional framework for combatting corruption broadly in place. 
While  there  is  no  strategy  or  institution  that  coordinates  the  fight  against  corruption  at  all 
levels  of  government,  a  dedicated  anti-corruption  body  oversees  the  investigations  of 
corruption  and  a  Federal  Ethics  Committee  advises  public  officials  on  integrity  issues.  An 
array of legislative measures to prevent corruption exist, including declarations systems and 
codes  of  conducts  for  public  officials,  but  these  have  resulted  in  a  fragmented  framework 
across  different  levels  of  government.  Whilst  certain  rules  are  in  place  for  members  of 
Parliament and top executive functions, shortcomings remain. There is  currently no general 
whistle-blower protection regulation in Belgium. 

Belgium  has  a  strong  legal  and  institutional  framework  regarding  media  pluralism.  The 
independent  Audiovisual Media Regulators play  an important  role in  ensuring transparency 
of media ownership, and the Media Councils are very active in their respective Communities. 
The  independence  of  the  media  is  respected  and  the  journalistic  profession  is  adequately 
protected,  in  particular  by  the  law  on  the  protection  of  journalistic  sources.  Cases  of 
intimidation,  threats  or  attacks  against  journalists  are  relatively  rare.  There  is  room  to 
improve access to information held by public authorities. Also, the adequacy of the resources 
available to the regulatory authorities of the French and German-speaking Communities is a 
source of concern.  

The  process  for  enacting  laws  includes  a  well-established  practice  of  conducting  impact 
assessments and consulting stakeholders at multiple levels of government. The Constitutional 
Court and other independent institutions, including Ombudsmen offices at different levels of 
government, play an important role in upholding fundamental rights. A new Federal Human 
Rights  Institution  is  in  the  process  of  being  established  and  is  expected  to  further  enhance 
fundamental rights protection. The Council of State contributes to safeguarding the quality of 
legislation, although it faces some challenges in its work. Following the adoption of a 2019 
law,  civil  society  organisations  have  increased  possibilities  to  litigate  on  the  interests  they 
defend.  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The  justice  system  consists  of  13  first-instance  courts  of  general  jurisdiction,1  a  number  of 
specialised first instance courts,2 five appeal courts and a Supreme Court. The judicial branch 
of the Council of State3 acts as the highest administrative court.4 The Constitutional Court is 
competent  to  scrutinise  the  constitutionality  of  legislation.  Most  competences  related  to 
justice remain at the federal level. The independence of the judiciary and of the prosecution 
service is  enshrined in  the constitution.5 An independent  High Council  of Justice6 is  tasked 
with  recruitment  for  the  judiciary  and  with  fostering  the  quality  of  justice  through  control 
mechanisms such as audits, as well as by giving advice. Candidate judges are selected by the 
High Council, and are appointed for life by the Government7 on the proposal of the Minister 
of Justice.8 The College of Courts and Tribunals, which consists of court presidents elected 
by  their  peers,  is  responsible  for  the  general  functioning  of  the  courts.  The  Flemish  bar 
association  and  the  French-  and  German-speaking  bar  association  represent  lawyers  from 
different parts of the country.  

Independence 

The  perceived  level  of  independence  of  the  judiciary  is  above  average  and  efforts  to 
further foster independence continue.  The level  of perceived independence of  courts and 
judges is above the EU average among the general population (63% consider it to be fairly or 
very  good) and among companies (59% fairly or very  good).9 A recent  reform  may further 
strengthen judicial independence by reinforcing  the quality  of the selection process  and the 
integrity  framework  of  substitute  judges.  The  court  system  allows  for  the  nomination  of 
substitute judges to  ensure the full composition  of a court bench.10 The conditions  for their 
appointment have been revised, following certain concerns voiced by the Council of Europe 
relating  to  the  appointment  procedure  and  integrity  framework  for  substitute  judges,  and 
possible  consequences  for  the  image  and  the  integrity  of  the  justice  system.11  Whereas 
substitute judges were previously only required to fulfil conditions relating to education and 

1   These courts also hear appeal cases against decisions by the justices of the peace and by the police courts.  
2   Including  162  justices  of  the  peace,  15  police  courts,  nine  commercial  courts,  nine  labour  courts  and  five 

administrative courts.  

3   The Council of State also has an advisory branch, which renders opinions on draft legislation. 
4   A  non-permanent  court  of  assizes  composed  of  three  judges  and  a  jury  of  twelve  citizens  treats  the  most 

serious criminal cases. 
5   Art. 151 of the Constitution.  
6   The High Council of Justice comprises 22 members of the judiciary, eight lawyers, six professors and eight 

members from civil society. Half of its members are French-speaking and half are Dutch-speaking.  

7   Formally by the King.  
8   The executive can only refuse to appoint the candidate nominated by the High Council for Justice on explicit 
grounds  (for  example  an  irregularity  or  illegitimacy)  and  cannot  decide  to  appoint  a  different  candidate. 
Instead, the executive must refer the appointment file back to the High Council and ask for a new proposal. 
The decision of the executive not to appoint a candidate judge can be challenged before the Council of State. 
The  unlawfulness  of  the  proposal  of  the  High  Council  can  also  be  invoked  in  the  context  of  such  legal 
action.  

9   While 9% of the general population and 12% of companies indicate that they perceive the level of judicial 
independence  to  be  ‘very  good’  and  54%  of  the  general  population  and  47%  of  companies  perceive  it  as 
‘fairly  good’,  26%  of  the  general  population  and  24%  of  companies  perceive  the  level  of  judicial 
independence to be ‘fairly or very bad’. Figures 44 & 46, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard 2020; Eurobarometer 
survey.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  categorised  as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of 
respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); low (between 30-39%), average 
(between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

10   Judicial Code, Book I, Title VI, Chapter Vter, Section 1.  
11   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, p. 32.  

2 

 
                                                 
experience,12 a law of March 2019 introduces the requirement that candidates must also pass 
an exam in order to become a substitute judge.13 Furthermore, the law introduces compulsory 
training  for  substitute  judges  including  a  module  on  ethics,  and  abolishes  the  possibility  of 
appointing substitute prosecutors. The law appears to address to a large extent the concerns 
raised  as  regards  substitute  judges,14  including  by  making  the  selection  procedure  more 
objective  and  by  strengthening  the  applicable  integrity  framework.  Additionally,  the  law 
reinforces  the  investigative  powers  of  the  High  Council  of  Justice.  The  High  Council  of 
Justice  is  taking  an  active  role,  for  example,  by  launching  on  3  September  2020  a  special 
investigation into the (on-going) judicial investigation on the circumstances surrounding the 
death  of  Jozef  Chovanec,  a  Slovak  national,  following  a  police  intervention  at  Charleroi 
Airport in February 2018. The law provides that the High Council can obtain any document 
and information from the judicial authorities that it considers necessary for the fulfilment of 
its tasks, which include conducting audits of courts. 

The power of the Minister of Justice to instruct the prosecution service to prosecute a 
specific case is accompanied by safeguards and is not used in practice. The Minister of 
Justice  may  lay  down  general  guidelines  for  the  prosecution  service  as  well  as  order  it  to 
prosecute an individual case, but may not give an instruction to refrain from prosecution.15 If 
the Minister orders the prosecution of a specific  case, that instruction must be added to  the 
case file, and the Belgian authorities report that the power to issue specific instructions is not 
used  in  practice.  This  practice,  combined  with  the  legal  safeguards  in  place,  appears  to 
mitigate the risk to the autonomy of the prosecution service.16 

Quality 

Developments are ongoing as regards digitalisation of the justice system. There remains a 
need  to  improve  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system,  in  particular  as  regards  the  online 
accessibility of court judgments, and the possibilities to submit a case, to transmit summons 
and to  monitor the stages of a proceeding online.17 As regards the online  access  to  judicial 
decisions,  a  law  of  May  2019  provides  for  the  publication  of  all  judgments  online  from 
September  2021  onward.18  The  process  of  creating  a  database  for  this  purpose  has 
commenced,  but  has  been  delayed  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  As  regards  the 
digitalisation of business processes in the justice system, the implementation of a unified case 

12   Certain nominations include age requirements as well.  
13   Law of 23 March 2019 modifying the Judicial Code in order to improve the functioning of the judicial order 
and of the High Council of Justice. Candidates have the possibility to complete a judicial traineeship instead.  

14   See also in that regard: GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round –Second Interim Compliance Report, p. 12. 
15   Art. 151 of the Constitution.  
16   See  also:  Committee  of  Ministers  Recommendation  Rec(2000)19,  13(d).  “where  the  government  has  the 
power  to  give  instructions  to  prosecute  a  specific  case,  such  instructions  must  carry  with  them  adequate 
guarantees  that  transparency  and  equity  are  respected  in  accordance  with  national  law”.  As  regards  the 
safeguards, see para. 13 (points d and e); see also Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 December 2019, 
Openbaar Ministerie (Procureur du Roi de Bruxelles), C-627/19 PPU, in which the Court held, in relation to 
a  European  Arrest  Warrant  for  the  purpose  of  executing  a  custodial  sentence,  issued  by  a  Belgian  public 
prosecutor’s  office,  that  national  legislation  conferring  the  power  to  issue  such  a  warrant  on  an  authority 
which is not itself a judicial authority is not precluded. See also the Report by the European Commission on 
the implementation of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and 
the surrender procedures between Member States. 

17   Figure 27, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
18   Law of 5 May 2019 modifying the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Judicial Code. The law originally 
provided for the publication of all judgments online from September 2020 onward but was recently amended 
by the Law of 31 July 2020 containing diverse urgent provisions in the field of justice.  

3 

 
                                                 
management system for courts has been underway since 2007. The system called MaCH19 is 
currently deployed for a large number of courts, although inter alia the first instance courts of 
general  jurisdiction  and  appeal  courts  still  need  to  follow.  Addressing  the  lack  of 
digitalisation of the justice system would be beneficial for the quality of justice as well as for 
the effective gathering of consistent and reliable court data.  

New measures relating to the justice system have recently been adopted in light of the 
COVID-19  pandemic.  Legislation  recently  adopted  by  Parliament  introduces  wider  use  of 
written  procedures  and  videoconferences  in  court  proceedings.  It  introduces  temporary 
provisions  in  light  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  as  well  as  permanent  changes  to  the 
functioning  of  court  procedures.20  This  new  legislation  has  been  criticised  for  its  potential 
impact  on  the  right  to  a  fair  trial.21  The  Council  of  State  and  the  High  Council  for  Justice 
further  criticised  the  urgency  with  which  the  proposals  were  introduced,  emphasising  the 
need for thorough reflections on permanent changes to judicial procedures.22  

A  process  is  under  way  to  achieve  autonomous  management  of  resources  by  the 
judiciary. In 2014, a process was set in motion to establish the autonomous management of 
resources by the judiciary. This process has been stagnating in part due to a lack of a reliable 
workload  measurement  tool,  which  is  necessary  for  the  optimal  allocation  of  resources 
between  courts.23  Stakeholders  emphasise  the  importance  of  completing  the  process  of 
transferring  the  management  of  resources  to  the  judiciary  itself.24  The  lack  of  sufficient 
resources also poses a challenge for the justice system, as highlighted in a joint memorandum 
of  the  three  highest  courts.25  Moreover,  a  recent  judgment  condemned  the  State  for  not 
providing to the judiciary the amount of human resources foreseen in the law.26 As noted by 
the Consultative Council of European Judges, the shortage in human resources may also have 
a negative impact on the efficiency of the justice system.27 An ongoing initiative of the High 
Council of Justice on making a career in the judiciary more attractive could prove beneficial 
for increasing the number of candidate-judges.28 

Several  other  reforms  relating  to  the  quality  of  the  justice  system  are  also  ongoing.  A 
reform of the complaint procedure regarding the functioning of justice  has started, with the 
aim  of  rendering  it  more  efficient  and  more  accessible  for  citizens.  The  reform  would 
modernise the procedure and improve the overview of the quantity and nature of complaints. 

19   Mammouth @ Central Hosting.  
20   Law  introducing  Urgent  Provisions  in  the  Field  of  Justice  in  the  Context  of  the  Coronavirus  Pandemic 

(COVID-19).  

21   See for example: President of the High Council for Justice (2020), Letter to the President of the House of 
Representatives  on  the  law  containing  various  provisions  on  justice  in  the  context  of  the  fight  against  the 
spread of the coronavirus. 

22   Advisory  Opinion  67.516/1-2  of  the  Council  of  State  of  22  June  2020;  President  of  the  High  Council  for 
Justice  (2020),  Letter  to  the  President  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  law  containing  various 
provisions on justice in the context of the fight against the spread of the coronavirus. 
23   High Council for Justice (2019), Memorandum for a better functioning of justice, pp. 3-4. 
24   Associations  of  lawyers  and  judges  (2020),  I  believe  in  the  rule  of  law!;  High  Council  for  Justice  (2019), 
Memorandum for a better functioning of justice; Information received in the context of the country visit.  
25   Constitutional  Court,  Court  of  Cassation  and  the  Council  of  State  (2019),  Joint  memorandum  of  the 
Constitutional  Court,  the  Court  of  Cassation  and  the  Council  of  State;  High  Council  for  Justice  (2019), 
Memorandum for a better functioning of justice. 

26   Brussels French-speaking First Instance Court, judgment of 13 March 2020. 
27   CCJE-BU (2020), Rapport sur l'indépendance et l'impartialité du pouvoir judiciaire dans les Etats membres 

du Conseil de l'Europe (édition 2019). 

28   This  initiative  is  receiving  support  through  the  European  Commission’s  Structural  Reform  Support 

Programme. 

4 

 
                                                 
Furthermore, an initiative to foster the use of clear language in judicial decisions is ongoing.29 
As regards the cost of court proceedings, a legislative reform increased the fees for bringing a 
case to court whilst amending the payment modalities; court fees are now only due at the end 
of  proceedings  by  the  succumbing  party.30  The  reform  aims  to  make  it  less  burdensome  to 
bring  a  case  to  court,  although  the  increased  amounts  of  fees  may  limit  this  effect.  The 
income  thresholds  for  full  and  partial  legal  aid  remain  low,  which  may  have  an  adverse 
impact  on  citizens’  access  to  justice.  In  that  regard,  the  recent  raising  of  the  income 
thresholds is a positive development and further gradual raises are planned over the coming 
years.  

Efficiency 

No full overview of the efficiency of the justice system is available due to a lack of data. 
While  certain  data  are  available,  gaps  in  the  dataset  make  it  impossible  to  obtain  a  full 
overview of the efficiency of the justice system.31 The clearance rate for civil and commercial 
cases  has  increased  over  the  past  few  years,32  but  data  gaps  exist  as  regards  the  length  of 
proceedings of cases. Belgium is subject to enhanced supervision by the Council of Europe’s 
Committee of Ministers concerning the excessive length of proceedings of civil cases at first 
instance.  As  for  administrative  justice,  the  clearance  rate  has  been  above  100%  in  recent 
years  although  procedures  remain  lengthy  on  average.33  Collecting  and  making  available 
reliable  data  is  crucial  for  fostering  the  efficiency  of  the  justice  system.  Completing 
digitalisation processes can help to reach this objective.  

II. ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

Legislative  measures  to  prevent  corruption,  including  declarations  systems  and  codes  of 
conducts for public officials, and certain ethics rules are in place for members of Parliament 
and  top  executive  functions.  The  Central  Office  for  the  Repression  of  Corruption  (CDBC-
OCRC)  is  the  specialised  central  service  within  the  federal  police  with  competences  to 
investigate  and  support  the  investigation  of  corruption.  Several  national  public  bodies  have 
key  roles  in  fighting  corruption  and  promoting  ethics  and  integrity.  The  Court  of  Audit 
exercises  external  scrutiny  of  the  budgetary,  accounting  and  financial  operations  of  the 
federal state, whilst the Interfederal Corps of the Inspectorate of Finance  is a public service 
performing  controls  related  to  the  legality,  feasibility  and  appropriateness  of  public 
expenditure.  The  Financial  Information  Processing  Unit  processes  suspicious  financial 
transactions  linked  to  money  laundering  and  serious  crime.  The  Bureau  of  Administrative 
Ethics and Deontology develops rules on integrity and assists federal administrations to put in 
place integrity measures. 

Belgium  scores  75/100  in  the  2019  Transparency  International  Corruption  Perception 
Index and is among the higher ranked EU Member States, ranking 7th in the European 
Union and 17th globally. The 2020 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 68% of 
respondents consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 71%) and 19% of 
respondents feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 26%). As 
regards  businesses,  48%  of  companies  consider  that  corruption  is  widespread  (EU  average 

29   See previous note.  
30   The  judge  condemns  the  losing  party  to  pay  the  costs,  fully  or  partially  depending  on  the  outcome  of  the 

case.  

31   Figures 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
32   2020 EU Justice Scoreboard; CEPEJ (2018), Evaluation of the judicial systems (2016-2018 cycle): Belgium.  
33   See previous note.  

5 

 
                                                 
63%) and 26% consider that that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 
37%).34 Furthermore, 40% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions 
to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average 36%),35 while 40% of companies believe 
that people and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU 
average 31%).  

The  criminal  legal  framework  to  combat  corruption  is  largely  in  place.  The  Criminal 
Code criminalises both public and private bribery, passive and active bribery, and bribery of 
national and foreign public officials.36 Any civil servant who, in the exercise of his functions, 
becomes  aware  of  a  crime  or  an  offence  (in  particular  corruption),  must  inform  the  public 
prosecutor  and  transmit  all  related  information.  Courts  have  wide  jurisdiction  in  corruption 
cases, including offences committed abroad by Belgian nationals and companies. The OECD 
has highlighted the need to prioritise the fight against foreign bribery, as well as to increase 
the  level  of  sanctions  applicable  to  natural  persons  and  the  amount  of  applicable  fines  for 
legal persons.37 In order to facilitate the detection of foreign bribery, Belgium has a dedicated 
mechanism for officials  and private companies to  report suspected foreign bribery in  place, 
which is transmitted to the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. The latter decides whether to open an 
investigation, based on the principle of the expediency of prosecution.  

The Central Office for the Repression of Corruption (CDBC-OCRC) is the specialised 
central  service  within  the  federal  police.  It  investigates  and  supports  the  investigation  of 
offences committed against  the interests of the State and  corruption offences sanctioned by 
the law of 10 February 1999 on the repression of corruption.38 The CDBC-OCRC, which is 
monitored  by  the  Federal  Prosecutors’  Office,  coordinates  operations  at  the  national  level, 
supports other police services with guidance or advice, and oversees the management of the 
National  Security Plan priorities. There are two sections within the CDBC-OCRC:  a public 
procurement  section  that  investigates  fraud  cases  concerning  government  contracts,  and  a 
financial fraud section that investigates fraud cases concerning subsidies, grants, or bribery of 
civil  servants  and  politicians.  Two  special  entities  also  exist  within  the  CDBC-OCRC:  the 
football fraud unit and a liaison office to the Gambling Commission, which coordinates joint 
investigations. Whilst there have previously been significant federal budget and staff cuts in 
law enforcement, which particularly affected the departments responsible for preventing and 
combating corruption, recent steps have been taken to reinforce the CDBC-OCRC.  

A dedicated reporting system has also been set up within the police. The latter has its own 
ethics and integrity rules and regulations, a deontological code and commission and its own 
inspectorate  services  such  as  Comité  P  (external  oversight)  and  the  General  Inspectorate 
(internal oversight).39 However, stakeholders consider that a further increase in resources of 
the law enforcement agencies is needed to be able to actively combat corruption.40 This was 
also  highlighted  by  GRECO’s  recent  evaluation  of  Belgian  law  enforcement,  which 

34   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019).  
35   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020).  
36   Art. 29 of the Criminal Code. 
37   OECD (2018), Phase 3 evaluation of Belgium: additional written report. 
38   UN  Office  on  Drugs  and  Crime  (2016),  Country  review  report  of  Belgium:  review  by  Mexico  and  the 
Netherlands  of  the  implementation  by  Belgium  of  articles  15-42  of  chapter  III.  “Criminalization  and  law 
enforcement” and articles 44-50 of chapter IV. “International cooperation” of the United Nations Convention 
against Corruption for the review cycle 2010-2015, pp. 129-136 (police and prosecutor’s office).  

39   Art. 15, Royal decree of 24 September 2015 Concerning the Basic Training of Staff of the Base Level of the 

Police Services. 

40   Information received in the context of the country visit. 

6 

 
                                                 
recommended that staffing levels be increased, that the internal  control department is  given 
more  resources  to  actively  combat  corruption  and  that  the  authorities  assess  the  need  to 
introduce  an  obligation  to  declare  assets/interests  for  top  management  and  high  risk 
positions.41  Nonetheless,  the  Federal  Police  is  well  regarded  by  the  public  at  large  and  the 
CDBC-OCRC  is  considered  to  be  genuinely  independent  of  the  political  authorities.  The 
police  also  remains  the  institution  most  trusted  by  Belgian  citizens  to  deal  with  corruption 
cases (56%), ahead of the justice system (26%) or the media (18%).42 Official figures show 
that 435 corruption cases were registered in 2019, compared to 435 in 2018 and 492 in 2017. 
For 2019, 126 involved cases of public corruption, 119 embezzlement by a public servant and 
91 forgery committed by a public official.43 

Several  national  public  bodies  have  key  roles  in  fighting  corruption  and  promoting 
ethics  and  integrity.  The  Court  of  Audit  exercises  external  scrutiny  of  the  budgetary, 
accounting  and  financial  operations  of  the  federal  state  whilst  the  Financial  Information 
Processing  Unit  processes suspicious  financial transactions linked to  money laundering  and 
serious crime. The Bureau of Administrative Ethics and Deontology (BAED-BEDA), created 
at federal level in June 2006, develops rules on integrity and assists federal administrations to 
put in place integrity measures. It has a preventive role in monitoring integrity in the federal 
public service and organises trainings for public officials. In its advisory function, it develops 
opinions  and  propositions  to  Ministers  on  federal  integrity  policy,  and  ensures  the 
implementation of the ethics framework, and resolution of conflicts of interest, in the federal 
civil service. The Federal Ethics Committee, established in 2014, also fulfils a preventive role 
and serves primarily to advise public officials with regard to ethics or conflicts of interest. It 
issues  general  opinions  at  the  request  of  a  public  representative,  the  House,  Senate  or 
Government. 

Whilst  Belgium  does  not  have  a  dedicated  national  policy  on  preventing  corruption, 
federal authorities have put in place various integrity measures.44 The 'ethical framework 
for  officials  of  the  federal  administrative  public  service’45  contains  a  Code  of  Conduct  for 
public  office  holders.  The  Code  of  Conduct  for  public  office  holders  of  15  July  2018  is 
applicable to heads and deputy heads of strategic bodies of federal public services, as well as 
to directors, but not to other members of strategic bodies. Stakeholders raised the absence of 
an ethical code applicable to Ministers and members of strategy units as a shortcoming. This 
was also highlighted by GRECO, which has recommended that an ethical code with a broader 
scope  be  adopted,  and  that  members  of  strategic  bodies  be  subjected  to  a  clear  and 
harmonised  ethical  framework,  accompanied  by  appropriate  supervisory  and  sanctions 
arrangements.46  

Members  of  the  Federal  Parliament  pledge  to  comply  with  a  dedicated  Code  of 
Deontology, appended to the Rules of Procedure.47 However, there is a need for consistent 
and  effective  regulation  and  supervision  of  members  of  Parliament  in  respect  of  gifts, 
donations and other benefits, as well as adequate sanctions of which the public is informed, 

41   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendations xiv-xxi.  
42   Eurobarometer survey.  
43   Bureau  Statistische  Analyse  (2020),  Informatievraag  d.d.  25  mei  2020  door  de  Europese  Commissie  met 

betrekking tot omkoping, p.3. 

44   As  defined  in  the  note  on  policy  for  federal  preventive  integrity  approved  by  the  Belgian  Council  of 

Ministers on 30 June, 2006. 

45   Rules are set out in Circular No 573 and the Act of 6 January 2014. 
46   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation ii, para. 45. 
47   The Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives. 

7 

 
                                                 
as  underlined  by  GRECO.  In  addition,  whilst  the  Court  of  Audit’s  sanctioning  power 
regarding  mandates  was  expanded  in  2019,  there  are  no  applicable  sanctions  for  the  main 
breaches of the ethical rules governing parliamentarians.48  

Conflicts  of  interest  are  regulated  by  different  legal  acts,  each  foreseeing  specific 
mechanisms dedicated to their field of action. For instance, the royal decree of 2 October 
1937  covers  the  status  of  State  employees  to  avoid  placing  themselves  in  a  situation  of 
conflict of interest, whereas the law of 17 June 2016 regulates public markets. While rules on 
conflicts of interest for members of Parliament are covered by the Codes of Deontology, clear 
rules  governing  the  employment  of  members  of  strategy  units  are  lacking.  There  are  no 
procedures for checking the integrity of members of strategy units and no arrangements for 
avoiding  possible  conflicts  of  interest  arising  from  their  other  activities,  except  for  those 
already subject to the Code of Conduct for public office holders.49 In addition, there is a lack 
of transparency in the composition of strategy units and the remuneration of their members, 
and their appointments  are not  made public.  In this  regard,  GRECO has  recommended that 
rules  be  laid  down  for  setting  out  the  conditions  governing  the  direct  recruitment  and 
employment of members of strategy units that take account of the risks relating to integrity 
and conflicts of interest. Furthermore, the names and duties of all members of strategy units 
ought to be published online.50 The potential benefits of an ad hoc reporting requirement for 
persons  occupying  top  executive  functions  whenever  situations  of  conflict  between  their 
private interests and their official duties arise, has also been underlined.51  

Officials  and  strategic  advisors  are  obliged  to  submit  asset  declarations  and  a  list  of 
mandates,  functions  and  professions.  Pursuant  to  the  law  of  2  May  1995,  officials  are 
required  to  file  their  declarations  at  the  registry  of  the  Court  of  Audit.  A  law  issued  on  14 
October  2018  has  considerably  extended  the  scope  of  the  obligation  to  submit  a  list  of 
mandates, positions, professions and assets.52 As of January 2019, remunerated members of 
the  boards  of  directors,  the  advisory  councils  and  the  management  committees  of  the  legal 
entities  over  which  the  Government  exercises  influence  will  also  have  to  declare  their 
mandates. Government commissioners and some cabinet employees are also covered by the 
new obligations, which have also been extended to Federal Government staff responsible for 
advising  on  policy53  and  Government  representatives  on  the  boards  of  companies.54  The 
Court of Audit publishes the lists of mandates in the Official Gazette and its website and is 
responsible for sanctions where violations of the rules can result in an administrative fine or a 
criminal sanction. However, the declaration of assets is submitted to the Court of Audit in a 
sealed  envelope  and  is  neither  published  nor  verified  for  accuracy  by  the  Court. 
Consequently, GRECO recommended that the current declaration system be supplemented by 
information on income, be subject to public disclosure, and be made more easily accessible 
via an official website. 

New lobbying provisions were introduced to the House of Representatives in July 2018. 
Persons  representing  certain  organisations  and  carrying  out  activities  aimed  at  directly  or 

48   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Evaluation Report, recommendation vi. 
49   These are the heads and deputy heads of private offices and heads of management bodies of members of the 

Federal Government. 

50   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation i para. 36.  
51   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation viii, para. 77.  
52   Law  modifying  legislation  relating  to  declarations  of  mandate  and  assets  as  regards  transparency  of 

remuneration, extension to public administrators, electronic filing and supervision.  

53   Collaborateurs de fond. 
54   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, para. 90. 

8 

 
                                                 
indirectly  influencing  policies,  the  implementation  of  policies  or  decision-making  of  the 
House of Representatives are required to sign and undertake to comply with certain rules of 
conduct. This is a measure designed to increase transparency and reduce conflicts of interest. 
The  lobbying  register  is  published  on  the  website  of  the  House.  However,  rules  for 
interactions by parliamentarians with  lobbyists  are  yet to  be adopted and there are no  rules 
governing  the  relationship  between  some  top  executive  functions  and  lobbyists  and  other 
third parties. GRECO has therefore recommended the introduction of rules and guidelines on 
how  persons  exercising  top  executive  functions  should  manage  such  contacts.  It  also 
recommends  that steps be taken to  make the purpose of such contacts more transparent,  by 
identifying the persons with whom, or on behalf of whom, the contact has taken place and the 
specific  subject  matter(s)  of  the  discussions.  The  rules  concerning  public  officials  and 
members of Parliament  adequately  regulate ‘revolving door’-related issues. However, those 
laid  down  in  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  top  executive  positions  have  been  considered 
inadequate as  almost  no rules apply to  Ministers and none to  ordinary members of strategy 
units.55 

There  is  no  general  whistleblower  protection  regulation  in  Belgium.  While  regulations 
exist at the federal and Flemish level, other levels of government still need to adopt adequate 
systems  to  protect  whistleblowers. Regarding the private sector, protection is  limited to  the 
financial sector. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

Belgium has three linguistic and cultural  Communities, which are vested with  competences 
relevant for media pluralism. The legal framework concerning media pluralism is based on a 
set of constitutional safeguards, such as for the press and freedom of expression, as well as on 
legislation. The independent audiovisual media regulatory authorities ensure transparency of 
media ownership.56 

Three  audiovisual  media  regulatory  authorities  are  responsible  for  the  media  falling 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  respective  linguistic  Communities  (Dutch,  French  and 
German).  For  the  Flemish  Community,  the  regulatory  authority  is  the  Vlaamse  Regulator 
voor de Media (VRM), an independent agency with legal personality under public law. The 
mission  of  the  Flemish  Regulator  is  to  enforce  the  media  regulations  in  the  Flemish 
Community, settle disputes related to the media regulations, issue broadcasting licences and 
licences  for  the  exploitation  of  terrestrial  broadcasting  platforms,  and  authorise  service 
providers  to  transmit  broadcasting programmes in accordance with  these  regulations.  In the 
French  Community,  the  corresponding  authority  is  the  Conseil  supérieur  de  l’Audiovisuel 
(CSA), also an independent agency with a legal personality, while the Medienrat is in charge 
of  the  German-speaking  Community.  The  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  (MPM  2020)  reports  a 
very low risk for the independence of media authorities. In particular, it reports that Belgium 
respects  independence  guarantees  and  that  being  a  member  in  the  media  regulatory 
authorities  is  generally  incompatible  with  a  position  in  the  Governments  or  with  having 
interests  in  a  media  or  advertising  company.  As  regards  the  Flemish  Community,  the 
members  of  the  Chambers  of  the  Flemish  Regulator  for  the  Media  are  both  appointed  and 
replaced  by  the  Flemish  Government.57  Their  mandate  of  five  years  is  renewable.  The 

55   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation x, para. 89. 
56   In  2020,  Belgium  is  at  12th  position  worldwide  in  the  Reporters  Without  Borders  World  Press  Freedom 

Index. See: https://rsf.org/en/ranking.  

57   Art. 216 Act on Radio and Television Broadcasting. 

9 

 
                                                 
Medienrat of the German-speaking Community is composed of a decisional Chamber and an 
advisory one. In the French Community, the members of the regulator are appointed by the 
Government  of  the  Wallonia-Brussels  Federation  (also  called  French  Community).  Their 
mandate of four  years is  also  renewable. For the latter, the Belgian authorities indicate that 
appointment and dismissal procedures will be revised in the framework of the transposition 
of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). This Directive reinforces guarantees 
for media regulators’ independence in EU law by requiring that they be legally distinct and 
functionally independent from their Government and from any other public or private body. 
Some concerns were expressed during the country visit regarding the adequacy of resources 
of the regulatory authorities of the French and German-speaking Communities. 

There  are  two  very  active  press  councils.  The  Conseil  de  déontologie  journalistique 
(CdJ)58, established in 2009, is the self-regulatory body for the French- and German-speaking 
media. It is composed of representatives from the publishers, journalists, editors in chief and 
members of the civil society. Similarly, the Raad voor de Journalistiek59 is the self-regulatory 
body for the Dutch-speaking media, of which almost all media are either direct members, or 
participating  via  umbrella  associations  of  newspapers  and  magazines.  Both  entities  are 
independent and handle complaints from the public. They help setting deontology standards 
for  journalists  by  issuing  guidelines.  Stakeholders  indicate  that  there  is  a  disagreement 
between  the  CSA  and  the  CdJ  over  their  respective  jurisdiction  as  regards  the  respect  of 
deontological standards in audiovisual media services.60  

Both  the  Dutch-  and  French-speaking  media  regulators  make  information  regarding 
media  ownership  available  to  the  general  public.  The  VRM  publishes  an  annual  Media 
Concentration Report61, while the CSA maintains a website presenting the media offer in the 
Wallonia-Brussels  Federation62.  Both  publications  aim  at  ensuring  media  ownership 
transparency,  and  are  considered  as  good  practices,  especially  in  view  of  the  revised 
AVMSD63.  

Belgium provides constitutional protection for the press and freedom of expression and 
ensures  protection  of  the  journalistic  profession.  A  law  on  the  protection  of  journalistic 
sources  is  in  force  since  7  May  2005.64  However,  in  2019  a  draft  law  was  submitted  that 
would  have  exposed  anyone  revealing  classified  information  to  criminal  penalties.65 
Following criticism from the Council of State on the ground of protection of the freedom to 
information,66 the Government has committed to changing the draft law.67 Also imprisonment 
is  among  the  possible  sanctions  for  defamation.  The  MPM  2020  reports  concerns  about  an 
increasing  employment  instability  for  journalists  in  the  country.  Cases  of  intimidations, 

58   Journalistic Ethics Council, Website Journalistic Ethics Council.  
59   Journalistic Council, Website Journalistic Council.  
60   Information received from the CSA in the context of the country visit.  
61   Flemish Media Regulator (2019), Flemish report on media concentration.  
62   Superior Council of Audiovisual, Guide for media, companies, groups and sectors.  
63   It should be recalled in this regard that the revised AVMSD encourages Member States to adopt legislative 
measures  providing  that  media  service  providers  under  their  jurisdiction  make  accessible  information 
concerning their ownership structure, including the beneficial owners.  

64   Law of 7 April 2005 on the protection of journalistic sources.  
65   Draft law modifying the law of 11 December 1998.  
66   Advisory Opinion 66.143/2 of the Council of State of 20 June 2019.  
67   By the date of 8 September 2020, the draft law had not yet been passed.  

10 

 
                                                 
threats or attacks to journalists are relatively rare.68 In 2020, the Council of Europe’s Platform 
to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  published  five  alerts 
concerning,  in  particular,  online  harassment  of  journalists  by  private  detectives.  As  an 
example of a good practice, in 2019, the Flemish association of journalists set up a specific 
hotline for physical or verbal aggression against journalists. 69 

The right of access to government-held information is enshrined in the Constitution.70 It 
is  reported,  however,  that  the  rules  and  procedures  in  place  to  obtain  such  access  have 
shortcomings, e.g. as  regards the possibility of appeal.71 The MPM 2020 also indicates that 
there are only a few mechanisms in place that report about e.g. the amount, qualification or 
procedural status of whistleblower cases, notwithstanding that these procedures do exist and 
certain protections are in place.  

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Belgium  is  a  federal  state  with  significant  powers  residing  at  the  level  of  the  Communities 
and  of  the  Regions.  At  the  federal  level,  Belgium  has  a  bicameral  parliamentary  system  of 
Government.72 The Parliament is composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate. 
Legislative proposals can originate from the Government and from members of both houses 
of Parliament.73 The Constitutional Court is competent to review legislative acts adopted by 
the Federal Parliament and by the parliaments of the Communities and Regions. In addition 
to the justice system, independent authorities play an important role for checks and balances.  

Conducting  impact  assessments  and  consulting  stakeholders  are  well-established 
practices in the legislative process. Governments at different levels have a policy to conduct 
impact  assessments  and  consult  stakeholders  in  the  legislative  process,  often  through 
consultative bodies. For example, the Flemish public administration contains eight strategic 
advisory  councils  that  include  civil  society  organisations  and  other  stakeholders,  as  well  as 
representatives  of  local  governments  and  experts.  When  preparing  legislation,  the  Flemish 
Government  is  obliged  to  ask  the  advice  of  these  advisory  councils,  which  may  also  give 
advice  on  their  own  initiative.  While  stakeholders  are  often  consulted  in  the  legislative 
process,  no  statistics  are  available  as  to  the  number  of  consultations  open  to  the  general 
public.74  The  introduction  of  a  central  and  public  database  of  all  ongoing  stakeholder 
consultations could prove beneficial in this regard.75  

The  caretaker  Government  was  granted  special  powers  in  order  to  deal  with  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. On 13 March 2020, the Government proclaimed the Federal phase of 
the national emergency plan76. The caretaker Government was subsequently granted the full 

68   In  2019,  the  Council  of  Europe  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists 
and Reporters without Borders reported an alleged attempt of intimidation towards journalists of the regional 
daily “L'Avenir”.  

69   VVJ-Meldpunt.  Flemish  Association  of  Journalists,  Hotline  for  physical  and  verbal  aggression  against 

journalists.  

70   Art. 32 of the Constitution.  
71   Access Info and Centre for Law and Democracy, Global right to information rating.  
72   Composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives.  
73   The Senate can only propose legislation in certain fields.  
74   OECD (2019), Better Regulation Practices across the European Union, p. 128.  
75   See previous note.   
76   Ministerial  Decree  of  13  March  2020  proclaiming  the  Federal  phase  concerning  the  coordination  and 
management  of  the  crisis  coronavirus  COVID-19,  based  on  the  Royal  Decree  of  31  January  2003  for  the 
national level and on the Royal Decree of 22 May 2019 for the provincial and municipal level.  

11 

 
                                                 
powers  of  a  regular  Government,  as  well  as  special  powers  to  deal  with  the  crisis.77  The 
special  powers  included  the  power  to  adopt  measures  to  enforce  public  health  and  public 
order by Royal Decree.78 The Council of State provided an ex ante opinion on the granting of 
special powers.79 The conferral of special powers to the Government ended on 30 June 2020.  

The Council of State advisory branch faces a significant workload. The Council of State 
plays an important role in scrutinising the quality of draft legislation. The combination of a 
sharp increase in its workload over the past decades and the growing complexity of the legal 
issues  it  deals  with  poses  issues  for  the  effective  functioning  of  its  advisory  branch.80  The 
frequent recourse to procedures with shortened deadlines and the shortage of resources under 
which the Council operates exacerbate these challenges.81  

A  new  National  Human  Rights  Institution  is  in  the  process  of  being established.  Unia, 
the national equality body, is a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) accredited with B-
Status by GANHRI.82 It is currently competent in the field of anti-discrimination for all levels 
of  government.83  In  April  2019,  the  Federal  Parliament  adopted  an  act  establishing  a  new 
Federal  Human  Rights  Institution  whose  mandate  will  extend  to  all  fundamental  rights. 
Although its mandate is currently foreseen to be limited to federal matters,84 the law includes 
the  possibility  to  set  up  a  collaborative  council  if  a  cooperation  agreement  is  agreed  upon 
between the different levels of government to expand the institution’s competence to the non-
federal level. The selection procedure for the board of directors of this new institute is now 
complete,  and  the  board  will  meet  for  the  first  time  in  September  2020.  Additionally,  a 
federal  Ombudsman office is  competent  to  investigate complaints on the functioning of the 
federal  administration,  as  well  as  to  give  recommendations  and  report  on  its  findings. 
Ombudsmen offices also exist at the regional levels and for specific subject matters. 

A  recently  adopted  law  provides  civil  society organisations with  increased  possibilities 
to  defend  their  statutory  interests.  Belgium  has  an  open  civil  society  landscape,85  and 
stakeholders  are  regularly  consulted  in  the  legislative  process.  Following  a  Constitutional 
Court  ruling  of  2013,  a  December  2018  law  makes  it  possible  for  legal  entities  to  start 
litigation aimed at the protection of human rights or fundamental freedoms86 that are part of 
their statutory interests. Furthermore, since May 2019, petitioners who gather the signatures 
of more than 25,000 natural persons domiciled in Belgium have the right to be heard by the 
House of Representatives. 

77   Law  of  27  March  2020  authorising  the  King  to  take  measures  to  combat  the  spread  of  the  coronavirus 

COVID-19 (II).  

78   If such  measures adopted by  Royal Decree are  not ratified by Parliament  within one  year after their entry 

into force, they are considered to have never had effect.  

79   Advisory Opinion 67.142/AV of the Council of State of 25 March 2020. The judicial branch of the Council 
of  State  has  also  ruled  on  the  impact  of  a  measure  prohibiting  certain  religious  gatherings,  denying  a 
suspension  of  the  measure:  Judgment  of  the  Council  of  State  of  28  May  2020,  Religious  Gatherings, 
247.674.  

80   Memorandum by the Council of State, 4 July 2019.  
81   See previous note.  
82   The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions.  
83   This excludes gender discrimination. The Institute for Equality between Women and Men and the Flemish 
GenderOmbuds have been designated as competent equality bodies for gender discrimination in Flanders.  

84   This would exclude the competence of the new institution for matters such as education and health. 
85   See  the  rating  given  by  CIVICUS;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed.  

86   That are recognised in the Constitution or in international treaties to which Belgium is a party.  

12 

 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order.*  

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law Report 

can be found at (COM website).  

Access Info and Centre for Law and Democracy, Global right to information rating.  https://www.rti-

rating.org/country-data/.  

Belgian Federal Government (2020), Input of Belgium for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

Brussels French-speaking First Instance Court, judgment of 13 March 2020. 

Bureau Statistische Analyse (2020), Informatievraag d.d. 25 mei 2020 door de Europese Commissie 

met betrekking tot omkoping. 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor. 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.  

CEPEJ (2018), Evaluation of the judicial systems (2016-2018 cycle): Belgium. 

CIVICUS, Monitor tracking civic space: Belgium. https://monitor.civicus.org/country/belgium/.  

Constitutional Court, Court of Cassation and the Council of State (2019), Joint memorandum of the 
State. 

of  Cassation 

the  Council 

and 

of 

Constitutional  Court, 
http://www.raadvanstate.be//?action=doc&doc=1095.  

the  Court 

Council of Europe: CCJE-BU (2020), Report on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary in 

the Member States of the Council of Europe (2019 edition). 

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2000), Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee 

of Ministers to Member States on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system.  

Council of Ministers (2006), Note on policy for federal preventive integrity.  

Council of State, Advisory Opinion 67.142/AV of 25 March 2020 

Council of State, judgment of 28 May 2020, Religious Gatherings, 247.674. 

Council of State (2019), Memorandum by the Council of State of 4 July 2019.  

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 12 December 2019, PPU ZB, C-627/19 PPU. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Eurobarometer:  perceived  independence  of  the 

national justice system in the EU among the general public. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

European Commission (2020), The EU Justice Scoreboard. 

Flemish  Association  of  Journalists,  Hotline  for  physical  and  verbal  aggression  against  journalists. 

https://journalist.be/2019/03/vvj-richt-meldpunt-in-voor-agressie-tegen-journalisten.  

Flemish  Media 

Flemish 
https://www.vlaamseregulatormedia.be/en/documents.  

Regulator 

(2019), 

report 

on  media 

concentration. 

French and German Speaking Bar Association and other associations of judges and lawyers (2020), I 

believe in the rule of law! 

GRECO  (2019),  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report  on  Belgium  on  preventing  corruption 
and  promoting  integrity  in  central  Governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law  enforcement 
agencies.  

GRECO  (2019),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  Interim  Compliance  Report  on  Belgium  on 

corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

High Council for Justice (2019), Memorandum for a better functioning of justice. 

Journalistic Council, Journalistic Council web page. https://www.rvdj.be/.  

13 

 
Journalistic Ethics Council, Website Journalistic Ethics Council. https://www.lecdj.be/fr/.  

Law of 27 March 2020 authorising the King to take measures to combat the spread of the coronavirus 

COVID-19 (II). 

Law of 31 July 2020 containing diverse urgent provisions in the field of justice. 

Ministerial Decree of 13 March 2020 proclaiming the Federal phase concerning the coordination and 

management of the crisis coronavirus COVID-19. 

OECD (2018), Phase 3 evaluation of Belgium: additional written report.  

OECD (2019), Better regulation practices across the European Union.  

President of the High Council for Justice Vanessa de Francquen (2020), Letter to the President of the 
House of Representatives on the law containing various provisions on justice in the context of the 
fight against the spread of the coronavirus.  

Royal  Decree  of  22  May  2019  concerning  the  emergency  plan  and  emergency  management  at 
municipal and provincial level and regarding the role of mayors and provincial governors in case of 
crisis events and situations requiring coordination or management at national level.  

Royal  Decree  of  31  January  2003  establishing  the  emergency  plan  for  crisis  events  and  situations 

requiring coordination or management at national level.  

Superior  Council  of  Audiovisual,  Guide 

for  media,  companies  groups  and 

sectors. 

https://www.csa.be/pluralisme/.  

UN Office on Drugs and Crime (2016), Country review report of Belgium: review by Mexico and the 
Netherlands of the implementation by Belgium of articles 15-42 of chapter III. “Criminalization and 
law  enforcement”  and  articles  44-50  of  chapter  IV.  “International  cooperation”  of  the  United 
Nations Convention against Corruption for the review cycle 2010-2015.  

Virtual country visit to Belgium in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Belgium 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in May and June 2020 with: 

  Academic expert 
  Central Office for the Fight against Corruption 
  College of Courts and Tribunals  
  Council of State 
  Flemish Media Regulator 
  High Council for Justice 
  High Council for the Audiovisual 
 
  Media Council of the German-speaking Community 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Prosecution Service 
  Service of the Administrative Law Courts 
  Transparency International Belgium  

Journalistic Ethics Council 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

15