COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
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, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 702 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report    Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report    The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Belgian  justice  system  continues  to  undergo  reforms  relating  to  digitalisation  and  the 
autonomous management of resources by the judiciary, though little progress has been made 
in  the  past  year.  As  regards  digitalisation,  comprehensive  and  ambitious  initiatives  are 
foreseen for the coming years. The transfer of autonomous resource management powers to 
the judiciary is planned to be completed by 2024, and a workload measurement tool will be 
established.  The  High  Council  for  Justice  has  continued  to  take  steps  to  improve  the 
functioning  of  the  justice  system,  in  particular  through  recommendations  on  judicial 
investigations regarding law enforcement authorities, promoting the integrity framework for 
judges  and  adopting  standard  forms  to  improve  annual  reporting  by  judicial  entities.  The 
availability  of  sufficient  human  and  financial  resources  remains  a  challenge,  and  initiatives 
are  ongoing  to  improve  the  situation.  A  persistent  lack  of  consistent,  reliable,  and  uniform 
court data remains, which hampers progress on the efficiency of justice. Particularly lengthy 
delays in certain appeal courts raise concern.  

Measures  to  prevent  corruption  are  generally  in  place.  However,  shortcomings  remain  as 
regards the prevention of conflict of interest for Ministers and their advisors, the transparency 
of  asset  disclosure,  as  well  as  lobbying  activities.  The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  had  a 
negative impact on the investigation of corruption. Anti-corruption preventive measures are 
coordinated  by  several  networks  and  cooperation  platforms  at  the  federal  level.  The 
agreement  to  increase  the  budget  of  the  judiciary,  of  the  federal  police  and  of  the  security 
services  is  a  positive  element  that  is  expected  to  strengthen  the  fight  against  corruption. 
Several  reflections  are  ongoing  to  propose  potential  new  rules  to  strengthen  the  anti-
corruption framework. No comprehensive  regulation  on whistleblowers protection has  been 
introduced.  

The updated media laws further reinforced the independence of media regulatory authorities, 
notably  by  a  new  requirement  of  due  justification  of  any  decision  to  dismiss  the  head  or 
members of the collegiate body of the regulator. The regulators have also received additional 
resources  to  carry  out  new  tasks.  The  regional  authorities  have  put  in  place  media-specific 
measures to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, including emergency support 
funds. Despite a robust framework for the protection of journalists, some,  especially female 
journalists and journalists belonging to ethnic minorities, were targets of threats and attacks, 
especially online. 

The  advisory  branch  of  the  Council  of  State  continues  to  face  challenges  for  the  effective 
exercise of its mandate to ensure the quality of legislation. The Court of Appeal found that 
COVID-19  measures  were  adopted  on  a  correct  legal  basis,  striking  down  a  first-instance 
judgment.  A  pandemic  law  has  been  adopted  to  provide  a  new  legal  basis  for  pandemic 
emergency measures. The new Federal Human Rights Institution has been established and is 
now operational with a mandate to protect and promote human rights at the federal level. In 
the  preparation  of  a  future  State  reform,  the  Government  has  announced  a  wide  citizen 
consultation  process.  Civil  society  is  being  involved  in  government  initiatives,  although 
certain concerns regarding funding have been reported.  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The  justice  system  consists  of  13  first-instance  courts  of  general  jurisdiction1,  a  number  of 
specialised first instance courts2, five appeal courts and a Supreme Court. The judicial branch 
of  the  Council  of  State3  acts  as  the  highest  administrative  court.  A  non-permanent  court  of 
assises  hears  the  most  serious  criminal  cases4.  The  Constitutional  Court  is  competent  to 
scrutinise the constitutionality of legislation. Most competences related to justice are federal5. 
The  independence  of  the  judiciary  and  of  the  prosecution  service  is  enshrined  in  the 
Constitution6.  An  independent  High  Council  for  Justice7  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 on justice-related matters to the Government and to Parliament, 
both on request and on its own initiative. Candidate judges are selected by the High Council, 
and are appointed for life by the Government8 on the proposal of the Minister of Justice9. 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. Belgium participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). 

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  independence  of  the  judiciary  is  high  among  the  general 
population and average among companies. Overall, 66% of the general public and 58% of 
companies consider that the independence of courts and judges is either ‘very good’ or ‘fairly 
good’ in 202110. This level of perceived judicial independence has been quite consistent since 
2016, with this percentage rising from 2016 to 201911 and then dropping slightly afterwards 
for companies12, and increasing slightly for the general population13. 

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  legislative  and  regulatory 

proposals. 

4   It is composed of three judges and a jury of twelve citizens. 
5   There exists a number of specialised Flemish administrative courts. 
6   Art. 151 of the Constitution.  
7   The High Council for 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.  

8   Formally by the King.  
9   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.  

10   Figures 47 and 49, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 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%).  

11   From 54 to 64%. 
12   From 64% in 2019 to 58% in 2021.  
13   From 62% in 2016 to 66% in 2021.  

2 

 
 
                                                 
The reform of the selection process for substitute judges has been completed14 and the 
ethical  framework  for  all  members  of  the  judiciary  has  been  further  improved. 
Following concerns expressed by the Council of Europe regarding the system for substitute 
judges15,  the  Law  of  23  March  2019  amended  the  Judicial  Code  in  order  to  reinforce  the 
quality  of  the  selection  process  and  applicable  integrity  framework16.  The  reform  seeks  to 
strengthen  judicial  independence  by  improving  the  selection  process  and  strengthening  the 
integrity  framework  of  substitute  judges17.  Following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  law  in 
January  2020,  two  examination  sessions  of  candidate  substitute  judges  were  held  in  2020, 
with around one third of candidates succeeding18. Furthermore, the law also provides for the 
application of the general ethical principles to all categories of members of the judiciary, as 
well as for ethics training for both regular and lay judges19.  

Recent  incidents  triggered  criticism  on  the  respect  for  legal  professional  privilege. 
Following the information published in May 2021 that meetings between suspects and their 
lawyers  had  potentially  been  recorded  on  video  in  a  police  station,  the  Flemish  bar 
association has filed an official complaint with the Committee P20. The French- and German-
speaking bar association also reacted publicly, stressing the importance of legal professional 
privilege  for  the  rule  of  law.  A  criminal  investigation  is  underway  to  determine  who  was 
aware  of  this  technical  possibility  and  whether  it  was  used  to  record  confidential 
conversations between the suspects and their lawyers. 

Quality  

Limited progress has been made regarding the digitalisation of the justice system, but 
ambitious  initiatives  are  foreseen  for  the  coming  years.  Given  the  remaining  need  to 
improve  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system,  the  government  envisages  ambitious 
initiatives  to  be  completed  by  202521.  These  include  the  creation  of  a  single  online  justice 
portal  for  citizens  and  businesses,  establishing  a  single  case  management  system  for  all 
courts,  facilitating  the  digital  submission  of  cases  and  file  consultation,  publishing  the 
majority  of  all  case  law  online,  and  allowing  for  a  resource  management  for  the  justice 
system  based  on  data.  While  the  achievement  of  these  plans  would  result  in  a  significant 
improvement  of  the  digitalisation  for  civil  and  criminal  courts,  administrative  justice  is  not 
included in the scope of these initiatives. Nevertheless, at the Flemish administrative courts, 
parties can now file litigation documents electronically.  

14   See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 2. 
15   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, p. 32. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country 

Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 2. 

16   Under  the  new  law,  candidates  must  pass  an  exam  in  order  to  become  a  substitute  judge,  and  substitute 
judges  most  follow  a  compulsory  training,  including  a  module  on  ethics.  The  law  further  abolished  the 
system of substitute prosecutors. 

17   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Compliance Report (published on 5 May 2021): Belgium, p. 8. 

GRECO assessed that its recommendations had been implemented satisfactorily. 
18   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Compliance Report: Belgium, p. 8.  
19   See  also  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  Compliance  Report:  Belgium,  p.  9-10.  GRECO 
assesses that its recommendation on this matter has been implemented satisfactorily. The High Council for 
Justice provides every new judge or prosecutor with a copy of the Handbook on ethics for members of the 
judiciary. 

20   The Committee P is the external independent oversight body of the police forces. 
21   Belgium, National Recovery and Resilience Plan.   

3 

 
 
                                                 
The  process  to  achieve  autonomous  management  of  resources  by  the  judiciary 
continues22.  The  College  of  Courts  and  Tribunals  and  the  College  of  Public  Prosecutors 
continue their efforts in the process to transfer the management of resources to the judiciary, 
which has been pending for years. In 2022 and 2023, a workload measurement tool should be 
established,  which  is  necessary  for  optimal  allocation  of  resources  between  courts23.  The 
objective  is  to  achieve  the  autonomous  resource  management  powers  by  the  judiciary  in 
2024. The Government appealed against the judgment of the Brussels French-speaking first 
instance court of 13 March 202024, which condemned the State for not providing the judiciary 
with  the human resources required by law. While the appeal  is  pending  without suspensive 
effect,  the Government  has not  finalised all steps to  fully  comply  with  the judgment25. The 
High Council for Justice is  continuing reflections on how to  make a  career in  the judiciary 
more  attractive,  with  the  goal  of  starting  concrete  projects  after  the  summer  of  2021. 
Furthermore, increases in financial means for the justice system are foreseen for the coming 
years. These initiatives aim to lead to an improvement of the human and financial resources 
situation of the justice system. 

The  High  Council  for  Justice  has  made  recommendations  relating  to  judicial 
investigations regarding law enforcement authorities. Following the launch of its special 
investigation  into  the  ongoing  judicial  investigation  on  the  circumstances  surrounding  the 
death of Jozef Chovanec26, the High Council for Justice adopted its investigation report on 28 
October 2020. The High Council recommended to improve the communication between the 
different  judicial  authorities  in  an  investigation,  to  improve  the  protocol  for  judicial 
investigations  following  violence  against  or  by  the  police  forces,  and  to  establish  a 
mechanism for  regular and thorough  follow-up of such cases,  as  regards  both the facts  and 
the  investigatory  acts.  The  High  Council  submitted  its  recommendations  to  the  Minister  of 
Justice  who  asked  the  prosecution  service  to  take  the  recommendations  into  careful 
consideration27.  The  High  Council  plans  to  conduct  another  investigation  once  the  judicial 
investigation,  launched  on  27  February  201828,  is  concluded29.  The  High  Council  will  also 
monitor the follow-up to its recommendations.  

Several initiatives seek to further improve the quality of the justice system. Following a 
GRECO  recommendation  to  introduce  periodic  general  reporting  on  the  functioning  of  the 
judicial  entities30,  a  working  group  established  by  the  High  Council  for  Justice  has  now 
finished developing standard forms for annual reporting by the prosecution service and by the 

22   See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 4. 
23   Information  received  from  the  College  of  Courts  and  Tribunals  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 

Belgium. 

24   See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 4. 
25   The  Government  has  set  aside  additional  budget  to  strengthen  the  judiciary  and  additional  vacancies  have 

already been published with the goal of improving the human resources situation.  

26   It is the first time the High Council for Justice launched an investigation into judicial investigations that are 
still ongoing. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 
2. 

27   The  prosecution  service  is  currently  revising  a  circular  to  improve  the  dissemination  of  information  about 
facts  that  could  lead  to  disciplinary  sanctions  for  police  officers,  and  a  has  established  a  working  group 
including  magistrates,  police  officers  and  medical  professionals  to  establish  a  good  practices  guide 
concerning cases of ‘Excited Delirium Syndrome’.  

28   The facts occurred on 24 February 2018. The judicial investigation is still ongoing.  
29   The High Council would then also be able to assess the decisions in the judicial investigation in more detail.  
30   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation xiv.  

4 

 
 
                                                 
courts  and  tribunals31.  Furthermore,  initiatives  to  foster  the  quality  of  justice  are  ongoing, 
such as the reform of the complaint procedure on the functioning of justice and the initiative 
to promote the use of clear language in judicial decisions32. As regards access to justice, the 
raising of the income thresholds for legal aid to EUR 1 226 monthly income on 1 September 
2020 is a welcomed development, and further gradual increases up to EUR 1 526 are foreseen 
until 1 September 2023. 

Measures were taken to ensure the  continued functioning of the justice system during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Several laws were adopted to ensure the continued functioning of 
the justice system during this pandemic. For example, the law of 20 May 2020 temporarily 
allowed to send documents digitally to initiate legal proceedings. Furthermore, the College of 
Courts and Tribunals adopted binding directives to ensure that court buildings remained open 
and  that  hearings  continued  in  courtrooms  or  virtually33.  Cases  were  also  treated  through 
written means, where parties consented to this. 

Efficiency 

A persistent lack of data prevents having a full overview of the efficiency of the justice 
system34. Significant data gaps continue to exist as regards the length of proceedings in court 
cases35,  which  prevents  obtaining  a  full  overview  of  the  efficiency  of  the  justice  system36. 
The  limited  data  available  show  that  the  high  rate  of  resolving  cases  at  first  instance  has 
dropped to around 100% for civil and commercial cases in 2019. The rate of resolving cases 
for  first-instance  administrative  cases  remains  above  100%,  although  proceedings  are  still 
lengthy37.  Stakeholders  also  report  particularly  lengthy  delays  in  certain  courts,  such  as  the 
Brussels  appeal  court38.  Belgium  continues  to  be  subject  to  enhanced  supervision  by  the 
Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers regarding the excessive length of proceedings of 
first-instance  civil  cases39.  As  regards  administrative  law  cases,  the  judicial  branch  of  the 
Council of State faces  a significant  backlog in  its caseload, which has been exacerbated by 
the  COVID-19  pandemic40.  Moreover,  the  average  length  of  proceedings  is  increasing,  and 
backlogs are likely to grow further due to the clearance rate being below 100%41. 

31   GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report,  recommendation  xiv.  GRECO  welcomed  this 
development, but notes that these documents remain to be formalised by regulation as required by law.  
32   See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, pp. 4-5. Both 

initiatives were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  

33   Input from Belgium for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
34   GRECO also recommended that the High Council (HCJ) expands its audit and investigation activities, and 
welcomed in that regard the introduction of legislation strengthening the competences of the HCJ in the area 
of investigations and audits. Second Compliance Report: Belgium, p. 10. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, 
Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 3. 

35   Figures 6, 7, 14 and 15 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
36   See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 5. 
37   Figure 9, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
38   Contribution  from  the  Ordre  des  Barreaux  francophones  et  germanophones  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 
Report, which mentions particularly lengthy delays at certain courts (five years). Information received in the 
context of the country visit to Belgium revealed that in certain cases, delays are even longer than five years. 
39   See also Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)103 of the Committee of Ministers of 9 June 2021, expressing 
deep concern at the persistent lack of comprehensive statistical data on the first instance civil tribunals. 

40   Information received in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 
41   Information received in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The competence to investigate and prosecute corruption is shared between several authorities. 
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. The Committee P is the external independent oversight body of 
the  police  forces,  responsible  for  monitoring  compliance  with  integrity  rules.  Furthermore, 
several  national  public  bodies  (Court  of  Audit,  Interfederal  Corps  of  the  Inspectorate  of 
Finance,  Federal  Public  Service  for  Policy  and  Support,  amongst  others)  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  Bureau  of 
Administrative  Ethics  and  Deontology  changed  its  name  and  became  the  Unit  for  Integrity 
and Culture. This formerly independent body has now been integrated in the structure of the 
Federal Public Service for Policy and Support (FOD BOSA), where it continues to develop 
rules on integrity and assists federal administrations to put in place integrity measures42. 

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the  public  sector  remains  relatively  low.  In  the  2020  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  by 
Transparency International, Belgium scores 76/100 and ranks 5th in the European Union and 
15th globally43. This perception has been relatively stable44 over the past five years45.  

Several  anti-corruption  networks and cooperation platforms exist at  federal  level.  The 
Ministry of  Foreign Affairs is  responsible for the exchange with  international  bodies in  the 
field of anti-corruption, within a platform where Ministers’ Cabinets are invited. Moreover, 
the  Ministry  of  Justice  has  recently  established  a  new  informal  platform,  which  envisages 
meetings  up  to  three  times  a  year  to  coordinate  anti-corruption  actions  and  to  respond  to 
international  recommendations.  National  authorities  expressed  their  willingness  to  further 
develop  synergies  between  the  two  platforms46.  This  complements  the  already  existing 
Federal  State  Integrity  Network,  which  ensures  coordination  among  the  integrity  agents 
appointed in the public service. The aim of this network is to support the cooperation between 
integrity coordinators and to provide a platform for sharing experiences and good practices47. 

42   Compared to the framework in place before the reorganisation, the autonomy of the Unit for Integrity and 

Culture has been reduced.   

43   Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2020, pp. 2-3. The level of perceived corruption is 
categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public  sector 
corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-50), 
high (scores below 50). 

44   In 2015 the score was 77, while, in 2020, the score is 76. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

45   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

46   Information received from the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the context of the 

country visit to Belgium.  

47   Follow up written input from the National Authorities.  

6 

 
 
                                                 
In  addition,  the  Integrity  Trusted  Persons  Network48  aims  at  boosting  cooperation  between 
the  integrity  trusted  persons  appointed  to  provide  protection  and  to  support  public  officials 
reporting an alleged integrity breach in the federal administration49. 

Shortcomings on the limitation period for investigations on foreign bribery cases have 
not been addressed. In the fight against foreign bribery, according to the most recent OECD 
recommendations,  Belgium  addressed  the  issue  of  criminal  liability  of  legal  persons, 
for 
identified 
however,  shortcomings  have  been 
comprehensive  and  in-depth  investigations  and  prosecution  of  foreign  bribery  cases50.  The 
mechanism for reporting possible foreign bribery cases is in place, however, as confirmed by 
national authorities, no reports have been introduced in the system in 202051.  

limitation  period 

regarding 

the 

Integrity  in  the  police  is  being  monitored  by  the  Committee  P  and  the  General 
Inspectorate. The police has its own dedicated reporting system, whereas the Committee P 
and the General Inspectorate ensure internal investigation of possible breaches of ethics and 
integrity  rules.  In  2020,  there  were  six  reports  introduced  in  the  system  and  three  were 
dismissed while the other three led to  the start  of a formal investigation52. On 6 November 
2020,  the  Ministry  of  Interior  announced  the  intention  to  propose  new  legislation  on  the 
reporting of breaches of integrity53.  

Some measures are envisaged in the area of preventing conflict of interests for Ministers 
and their advisors. Federal public servants are bound to respect the code of conduct adopted 
in July 2018. However, Ministers and members of their cabinets are still out of the scope of 
these  rules.  The  Group  of  States  against  Corruption  of  the  Council  of  Europe  (GRECO) 
considered that recommendations in this regard have not yet been fully implemented54. Only 
heads and deputy heads of the cabinets are covered by rules of the code of conduct for public 
office holders55. Integrity rules for the members of cabinets are still weak, with no procedure 
in  place to  check integrity of these members56.  In  this regard, GRECO also underlined that 
more transparency  should be ensured in  the rules governing the recruitment  of members of 
cabinets57.  

48   This network was established on the basis of the Royal Decree of 9th October 2014 implementing article 3, § 
2  of  the  Law  of  15  September  2013  on  the  reporting  of  suspected  breach  of  integrity  within  a  Federal 
Administrative authority by a member of its staff.  

49   Ibid. 
50   OECD (2018), Phase 3 evaluation of Belgium: additional written report. 
51   Information received from Central Office for the Repression of Corruption in the context of the country visit 

to Belgium.  

52   In  2019  there  were  5  reports  and  4  investigation  opened.  Information  received  during  the  country  visit  to 

Belgium.  

53   Verlinden,  A.,  Beleidsverklaring  van  de  minister  van  Binnenlandse  zaken,  Institutionele  Hervormingen  en 
Democratische  Vernieuwing.  Brussel,  Belgische  Kamer  van  Volksvertegenwoordigers,  6  November  2020, 
DOC 55 1610/020, pp. 23-24. 

54   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation ii, para. 45. 
55   Art. 4 of the Code of Conduct for public office holders provide with a definition of a conflict of interest.  
56   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Evaluation Report, recommendation vi. 
57   GRECO  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report,  recommendation  i  para.  36.  In  order  to  raise 
awareness  on  the  integrity  risks  and  to  improve  the  prevention  of  conflict  of  interests  for  members  of  the 
cabinets, the Government has recently entrusted the Unit for Integrity and Culture with the task of organising 
a  workshop  on  conflict  of  interest  for  members  of  ministers’  cabinets.  According  to  the  information 

7 

 
 
                                                 
 
Shortcomings  identified  in  the  area  of  asset  declaration  remain.  The  shortcomings 
identified in  the 2020 Rule of  Law Report58 in  the area of asset  declarations remain, as the 
Court  of  Audit  receives  the  declarations  in  sealed  envelopes,  which  are  not  published  or 
verified for accuracy. Declarations are only accessible by investigating judges in the context 
of criminal investigations59.  

Integrity  rules  for  members  of  Parliament  are  in  place,  however,  shortcomings 
identified with regards to rules on gifts and benefits have not been addressed. Members 
of Parliament  need to  comply  with  the Parliament’s own Code of Deontology60, but  not  all 
shortcomings identified  by GRECO61 have been addressed. This  is  specifically the case for 
benefits  and  gifts  received  by  members  of  Parliament,  since  no  comprehensive  rules  have 
been adopted for this yet.  

Certain gaps remain as regards lobbying rules for members of Parliament and rules for 
interactions between individuals with top executive functions and lobbyists. According to 
the  rules  in  force62,  lobbyists  need  to  sign  and  comply  with  certain  rules  of  conduct  when 
they aim to directly or indirectly influence policy making. The recommendation of GRECO 
to adopt rules for interactions between members of Parliament and lobbyists as well as rules 
governing the relationship between some top executive functions and lobbyists has not been 
taken  up  yet63.  As  reported  last  year,  while  rules  on  “revolving  doors”  for  members  of  the 
Parliament and public officials are generally adequate, shortcomings remain as regards rules 
included  in  the  code  of  conduct  for  top  executive  functions.  Almost  no  rules  exist  for 
Ministers and members of their cabinets64. 

An  amendment  to  the  political  parties  financing  rules  has  been  adopted  aiming  at 
addressing  international  recommendations  on  the  issue  of  foreign  donors.  On  21  May 
2021, the Senate adopted an amendment  to  Article 16bis of the  Law of  4 July 1989 on the 
financing  of  political  parties65.  The  new  provision  regulates  the  issue  of  foreign  donors  as 
also recommended by GRECO66.  

received, the test workshop was developed in May with the aim of delivering the final product in September 
2021. 

58   See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium. 
59   GRECO  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report,  para.  92.  The  recommendation  of  GRECO  that  the 
current declaration system be supplemented by information on income, be subject to public disclosure, and 
be more easily accessible via an official website, is still pending. 

60   House of Representatives rules of procedure December 2020. 
61   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round, Second Compliance Report, p. 3. 
62   See Rule of Law Report 2020.  
63   GRECO  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report,  recommendation  viii,  para.  60.  In  this  regard,  the 
Coalition Agreement mentions the possibility to extend the scope of the existing transparency register of the 
Parliament to include also Members of the Government, Coalition Agreement p. 82. In order to address this 
issue, talks between the Parliament and the Government have already started and an evaluation is currently 
ongoing. 

64   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, recommendation x, para. 89. 
65   Proposition de Loi modifiant l’article 16bis de la loi du 4 juillet 1989 relative à la limitation et au contrôle 
des dépenses électorales engagées pour l’élection de la Chambre des représentants, ainsi qu’au financement 
et à la comptabilité ouverte des partis politiques, en ce qui concerne les donateurs. The text was adopted by 
the House of Representatives on the 18 March 2021.  

66   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round, Second Compliance Report, p. 3. 

8 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
No comprehensive whistleblowers legislation is in place as yet. The Government coalition 
agreement  foresees  the  approval  of  comprehensive  rules  to  protect  whistle-blowers, 
specifically mentioning the protection of civil servants who report misconduct in good faith 
by the end of 202167.  

The COVID-19 pandemic has  slowed down  corruption  investigations.  According to  the 
authorities,  the  pandemic  has  had  a  negative  impact  on  the  activities  of  the  police  and  the 
judiciary,  including  in  the  fight  against  corruption.  The  law  enforcement  authorities  had  to 
adapt to the new situation by trying to conduct activities remotely as well as by postponing 
certain  investigative  measures,  which  need  physical  presence  of  officers  on  the  ground68. 
Nevertheless, investigation and prosecution of complex cases continued in a regular manner.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

Belgium has three linguistic and cultural Communities 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.  Legislation  was  adopted  to 
transpose  the  revised  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive.  The  independent  audio-visual 
media regulatory authorities ensure transparency of media ownership69. 

The  independence  and  resources  of  the  media  regulators  have  been  reinforced.  As  a 
result  of  the  transposition  of  the  revised  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  (AVMSD), 
the independence of the audiovisual media regulatory authority for the Flemish Community 
(VRM)70  has  been  reinforced,  in  particular  by  a  new  requirement  of  due  justification  and 
transparency of any decision to replace or dismiss a member of the chamber. Two additional 
employees have been recruited by the VRM to deal with additional tasks stemming from the 
AVMSD to reach a total staff of 2171. The independence of the audiovisual media regulatory 
authority  for  the  French-speaking  Community  (CSA)72  has  been  similarly  reinforced,  as  a 
result of the transposition of the revised AVMSD, by a new requirement of transparency of 
the  reasons  for  any  dismissal  of  the  head  of  the  CSA.  The  regulator’s  budget  has  been 
increased by almost 9% compared to 2020, which allowed for the recruitment of 4 additional 
staff  members,  reaching  a  total  of  3173.  The  audiovisual  media  regulatory  authority  for  the 
German-speaking  Community’s74  has  been  restructured  by  separating  the  decision-making 
body  –  the  ruling  chamber  –  from  the  advisory  board,  which  added  new  members, 
representing  online  services  and  civil  society.  Moreover,  its  budget  doubled  compared  to 

67   It is unclear whether the description included in the coalition programme will address the full definition of 
(Regeerakkoord) 

whistle-blowers. 
(https://www.belgium.be/sites/default/files/Regeerakkoord_2020.pdf).  

Government 

Coalition 

program 

Belgian 

(2020), 

68   Information received in the context of the country visit to Belgium.  
69   Belgium registers at the 11th position in the Reporters Without Borders 2021 World Press Freedom Index 

(6th among the EU Member States), up one place from the 12th position last year. 

70   Vlaamse Regulator voor de Media (VRM). 
71   Information received in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 
72   Conseil supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA). 
73   Input from Belgium for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 13. 
74   The Medienrat. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
2020, enabling it to recruit new staff, reaching a total of 475. The Media Pluralism Monitor 
(MPM 2021) reports a very low risk for the independence of media authorities76.  

Robust  media  self-regulatory  structures  are  in  place  and  improving.  The  Journalistic 
Ethics  Council77  and  the  Council  for  Journalism78  have  reported  growing  interest  of 
audiences in the accuracy of media content and few complaints pertaining to media coverage 
of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  Journalistic  Ethics  Council  is  considering  applying 
expedited examination of complaints against investigative journalists in  order to avoid self-
censorship,  which  often  is  a  side  effect  of  long  examination  periods79.  According  to  the 
Journalistic Ethics Council, the disagreement with the CSA over the jurisdictions of the two 
bodies  as  regards  the  respect  of  deontological  standards  in  audio-visual  media  services, 
referred to in the 2020 Rule of Law report, has been resolved, and they are putting in place a 
global cooperation scheme80. 

is 

Media  ownership  transparency 
largely  ensured.  To  secure  media  ownership 
transparency, the VRM publishes an annual Media Concentration Report and gives access to 
ownership  information  on  its  website,  while  the  CSA  maintains  a  website  presenting  the 
media offer in the French-speaking Community. However, according to the MPM 2021, for 
digital  news  media  actors,  media  regulatory  authorities  in  Belgium  have  limited  data 
regarding financial or ownership structures81. Stakeholders have reported rare cases of certain 
online  media,  for  instance  satirical  websites,  claiming  anonymity  as  a  way  to  ensure  their 
security82. News media concentration is high in Belgium83. 

Authorities  have  put  in  place  media-specific  measures  to  mitigate  the  impacts  of  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, most audio-visual and print 
media have seen a  drop  in  turnover due to  the decrease in  advertising revenues, with  some 
smaller  outlets  reporting  financial  liquidity  problems.  Freelance  journalists  have  been  hit 
especially  hard84.  At  the  same  time,  the  audience  for  trustful  journalism  appears  to  have 
grown,  which  shows  the  interest  from  public  for  objective  and  fact-based  reporting85.  The 
measures  put  in  place  by  the  three  Communities  include  public  communication  campaigns, 
emergency  support  funds  for  media,  direct  support  to  freelance  journalists  and  journalists 
without  income,  postponement  of  payment  of  licence  fees  for  radios  and  launching  of 
projects looking into longer-term sustainability of the sector86. The MPM 2021 highlights that 

75   Information received in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 
76   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Belgium, p. 9. 
77   The self-regulatory media body for the French- and German-speaking communities. 
78   The self-regulatory media body for the Flemish community. 
79   Information received from the Journalistic Ethics Council in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 
80   Information received in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 
81   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Belgium, p. 17. 
82   Information received in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 
83   The  market  and  audience  concentration  shares  of  the  top  four  in  any  media  format  are  close  to  100%. 
Nevertheless, content from media outlets based in France, Germany, Luxemburg and the Netherlands help 
diversify the offer. Market shares of online-only news media is often unknown. See 2021 Media Pluralism 
Monitor, country report for Belgium, pp. 11 and 17. 

84   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Belgium, p. 9. 
85   Information received in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 
86   Input from Belgium (French Community) for the 2021 Rule of Law report, as well as information received 

in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
such  measures  have  been  implemented  while  preserving  the  low  risk  to  political 
independence of media87. 

There is room to improve access to government-held information. According to the MPM 
2021,  the  systems  for  obtaining  access  to  government-held  information  are  still  not  as 
operational  as  needed  to  adequately  protect  the  right  to  information88.  Stakeholders  have 
noted several issues specific to the COVID-19 pandemic reporting environment, such as the 
suspension of certain public meetings (e.g. those of municipal councils) and limited access to 
courtrooms.  On  the  other  hand,  as  an  essential  activity,  journalism  has  benefited  from 
exceptions to lock-down rules and other movement restrictions89. 

Some concerns about online and legal threats to journalists were raised. The Council of 
Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists published 
three  alerts  for  Belgium  since  October  2020  concerning  online  threats  to  journalists  and  a 
search  of  a  journalist’s  house  after  a  breaking  story  on  vaccine  corruption90.  According  to 
information  gathered  by  the  Flemish  journalists’  union  on  the  use  of  a  specific  hotline  for 
aggression  against  journalists,  online  attacks  often  target  female  journalists  and  journalists 
belonging  to  ethnic  minorities.  Stakeholders  have  also  reported  cases  of  cyberstalking  of 
journalists91 as well as recent cases of threat of legal action and confiscation by the police of 
the press card of a journalist who was covering a demonstration92. As a result, the MPM 2021 
assesses the indicator on journalistic profession, standards and protection as being at medium 
risk93.  The  concerns  about  potential  limitations  stemming  from  the  Law  on  Classified 
Information94 seem to have been resolved, thanks to an exception for freedom of information 
added to its draft by the Government95.  

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Belgium  is  a  federal  state  with  significant  powers  residing  at  the  level  of  the  Regions  and 
Communities.  At  the  federal  level,  Belgium  has  a  bicameral  parliamentary  system.  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 
Parliament96.  The  advisory  branch  of  the  Council  of  State  provides  opinions  on  draft 
legislation.  The  Constitutional  Court  is  competent  to  review  legislative  acts  adopted  by  the 
federal Parliament and by the parliaments of the Regions and Communities. In addition to the 
justice system, independent authorities play an important role for checks and balances.  

The  Council  of  State  advisory  branch  continues  to  face  challenges  for  the  effective 
fulfilment  of  its  mandate97.  A  shortage  of  resources,  in  particular  budgetary  and  human 

87   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Belgium, p. 12. 
88   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Belgium, p. 9. 
89   Information received in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 
90   Belgium has not replied to the alerts yet. 
91   Information received in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 
92   Input from Blueprint for Free Speech for the 2021 Rule of Law report. 
93   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Belgium, p. 9. 
94   According  to  the  initial  draft,  the  law  would  have  exposed  anyone  revealing  classified  information  to 
criminal penalties. 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 10. 

95   Contribution received from the Flemish journalists’ union in the context of the country visit to Belgium. 
96   The Senate can only propose legislation in certain fields.  
97   See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 5. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
resources,  continues  to  pose  challenges  for  the  advisory  branch.  Due  to  these  challenges, 
combined with the frequent recourse to procedures with shortened deadlines, the Council is in 
some cases  not  able to  render an opinion on draft legislation. Moreover, recent  budget  cuts 
have  further  exacerbated  the  challenges  that  the  advisory  branch  faces  in  the  effective 
fulfilment of its mandate, which is important for ensuring the quality of legislation.  

The Court of Appeal found that COVID-19 measures  were adopted on a correct legal 
basis,  striking  down  a  first-instance  judgment.  In  a  case  brought  before  the  Brussels 
French-speaking first instance court, the Government was ordered to provide for a legislative 
basis for COVID-19 measures within 30 days98, under a penalty payment of 5,000 EUR per 
day of delay, in the absence of which the measures would become invalid at the end of the 
term. The Government appealed the judgment to the Brussels appeal court, which found in its 
decision of 7 June 2021 that the COVID-19 measures do have a correct legal basis. However, 
the  appeal  court  considered  that  a  forthcoming  ruling  of  the  Constitutional  Court  must  be 
awaited  in  relation  to  the  question  whether  COVID-19  measures  have  been  adopted  in  full 
respect of the Constitution and fundamental rights99.  

A  ‘pandemic  law’  has  been  adopted  to  provide  a  new  legal  basis  for  pandemic 
emergency  measures100. After the Minister of  Interior had proclaimed the federal  phase of 
the national emergency plan on 13 March 2020, COVID-19 measures were adopted through 
ministerial  decrees  on  the  basis  of  existing  laws101.  Following  growing  criticism  that  the 
measures adopted to address the COVID-19 pandemic required a more solid legal basis given 
their  impact  on  fundamental  rights,  the  Government  prepared  a  ‘pandemic  law’,  which,  
following  several  opinions  by  the  Council  of  State102  and  of  the  Federal  Institute  for  the 
Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (FIRM/IFDH)103, was adopted on 15 July 2021. 
The law provides that the Government can declare the state of epidemic emergency by royal 
decree, after which it has to be confirmed by Parliament within 15 days. Emergency measures 
are to  be adopted by  royal  decree,  except  in  cases of ‘imminent danger’,  in  which case the 
measures may be adopted by ministerial decree.  

Measures were taken to ensure the continued functioning of the Parliament during the 
COVID-19  pandemic.  An  amendment  of  the  Rule  of  Procedure  of  the  House  of 
Representatives enabled that plenary debates and votes could be held with the majority of its 
the  use  of 
Members  being  present  either 
videoconferencing allowed to organise committee meetings virtually, and members were able 
to vote in plenary through digital means.  

in  person  or  remotely.  Furthermore, 

The  Government  will  launch  a  wide  citizen  consultation  process  to  feed  into  the 
envisaged  new  constitutional  reform.  The  Government  is  preparing  for  a  new  ‘State 

98   Brussels  French-speaking  first  instance  court,  judgment  of  31  March  2021.  Also,  in  May,  the  Kortrijk 
criminal court overturned a fine imposed for violation of COVID-19 related measures on appeal, due to the 
lack of legal basis of the measures. 

99   Brussels appeal court, judgment of 7 June 2021.  
100  The draft pandemic law was already in preparation by the Government before the judgment of the Brussels 

French-speaking first instance court. 

101  Following deliberation in the Council of Ministers.  
102  The  Council  of  State  advised  that  while  emergency  measures  would  not  necessarily  require  Parliamentary 

ratification, they should be adopted by royal decree rather than by ministerial decree.  

103  Federal Institute for Human Rights, Opinion on the Preliminary draft law on the measures of administrative 

police during an epidemic emergency.  

12 

 
 
                                                 
reform’  after  the  2024  elections,  which  may  amend  the  Government  formation  process 
following  elections104,  as  well  as  change  the  procedure  for  constitutional  revisions.  The 
Government has announced the launch of a dialogue online platform, through which citizens, 
civil  society,  academia  and  local  authorities  would  be  able  to  give  their  opinion  on  the 
envisaged  State  reform105.  The  consultation  would  be  open  for  six  weeks  and  would  be 
launched in September 2021. Additionally, the federal Parliament adopted rules laying down 
the  detailed  provisions  under  which  petitioners  who  gather  signatures  of  over  25 000 
inhabitants of Belgium must be heard in the responsible committee106. 

The  new  Federal  Human  Rights  Institute  has  been  established  and 
is  now 
operational107. Following the appointment of the board members of the Federal Institute for 
the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (FIRM/IFDH) in July 2020, the secretariat of 
the  FIRM/IFDH  commenced  its  work  in  early  2021.  The  mandate  of  the  FIRM/IFDH 
includes issuing non-binding opinions, recommendations and reports to the state authorities, 
including on its own initiative, as well as promoting human rights. However, the Institute is 
not  competent  to  treat  individual  complaints  from  citizens108.  The  law  establishing  the 
FIRM/IFDH  provides  for  the  possibility  to  adopt  a  cooperation  agreement  in  order  to  have 
the Institute’s competence, which currently remains limited to the federal level, extended to 
the non-federal level. While this results in  a somewhat scattered landscape of human rights 
protection,  the  FIRM/IFDH  cooperates  with  other  relevant  bodies  for  human  rights 
protection109, also at the non-federal level. 

Civil society is involved in certain government initiatives, such as the development of an 
action  plan  against  racism.  Belgium  is  considered  as  having  an  open  civil  society 
landscape110, and civil society organisations are invited to participate in  certain government 
initiatives, such as the preparation of a National  Action Plan against Racism111. The Action 
Plan  will  be  developed  jointly  by  the  government  authorities  and  the  ‘NAPAR  coalition’, 
which is a group of 60 civil society organisations.  

104  The objective of this revision is to decrease the duration of future formation processes.  
105  Statement  by  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  to  the  Parliamentary  Commission  on  the  Revision  of  the 

Constitution. 

106  Input from Belgium for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter 

on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 12. 

107  See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Belgium, p. 12. 
108  A  federal  Ombudsperson  is  competent  to  investigate  complaints  on  the  functioning  of  the  federal 

administration. Ombudspersons also exist at the non-federal levels and for specific subject matters.  

109  Such  as  UNIA,  the  national  equality  body  accredited  with  B-status  by  GANHRI,  as  well  as  Myria,  the 
Federal Migration Centre. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in 
Belgium, p. 12. 

110  See  the  rating  given  by  CIVICUS;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

111  At the same time, stakeholders report a decreasing willingness of government authorities to support certain 

civil society organisations. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Belgian 
(https://www.belgium.be/sites/default/files/Regeerakkoord_2020.pdf). 

Government 

Coalition 

(2020), 

program 

(Regeerakkoord) 

Belgian Government (2021), National Recovery and Resilience Plan.  

Belgium (French Community) (2021), Input from Belgium (French Community) for the 2021 Rule of 
Law report. 

Blueprint  for  Free  Speech  (2021),  Input  from  Blueprint  for  Free  Speech  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 
report. 

Brussels appeal court, Judgment of 31 March 2021.  

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space –Belgium (https://monitor.civicus.org/country/belgium/). 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021. 

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

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  Businesses'  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Belgium. 

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

Federal Institute for Human Rights (2021), Opinion on the Preliminary draft law on the measures of 
administrative  police  during  an  epidemic  emergency  (Voorontwerp  van  Wet  betreffende  de 
maatregelen 
noodsituatie), 
epidemische 
(https://www.federaalinstituutmensenrechten.be/nl/documenten/FIRM-2021-advies-
pandemiewet.pdf). 

bestuurlijke 

tijdens 

politie 

van 

een 

Flemish  Association  of  Journalists  -  Vlaamse  Vereniging  van  Journalisten  (VVJ/AVBB)  (2021), 
Contribution  from  the  Flemish  Association  of  Journalists  –  (Vlaamse  Vereniging  van  Journalisten) 
(VVJ/AVBB) for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

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 (2021), Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Belgium on Corruption prevention 
in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

Ordre  des  Barreaux  Francophones  et  Germanophones  (2021),  Contribution  from  the  Ordre  des 
Barreaux Francophones et Germanophones for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. 

OECD 
(2018),  Anti-Bribery  Convention,  Additional 
(https://one.oecd.org/document/DAF/WGB(2018)31/en/pdf). 

follow-up 

to  Phase  3 

report, 

Verlinden,  A.  (2020),  (Beleidsverklaring  van  de  minister  van  Binnenlandse  zaken,  Institutionele 
Hervormingen 
van 
Vernieuwing). 
Volksvertegenwoordigers, 
23-24, 
(https://verlinden.belgium.be/sites/default/files/articles/Beleidsverklaring20201112.pdf). 

Belgische  Kamer 
1610/020, 

en  Democratische 

Brussel, 
55 

6  November 

2020,  DOC 

pp. 

14 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Belgium 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in April and May 2021 with: 

  Central Office for the Repression of Corruption 
  College of Courts and Tribunals 
  Committee P 
  Council of State 
  Federal Deontological Commission  
  Federal Institute for Human Rights 
  Flemish Bar Association 
  Flemish Media Regulator 
  French and German speaking Order of the Belgian Bar  
  High Council for Justice 
  High Council for the Audiovisuel 
 
Journalistic Ethics Council 
  League for Human Rights (Liga voor Mensenrechten) 
  League for Human Rights (Ligue des Droits Humains) 
  Media Council of the German-speaking Community 
  Ministry of the Interior 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Prosecution Service 
  Service of the Administrative Law Courts 
  Transparency International Belgium 
  Unit for Financial Information Processing 
  Unit for Integrity and Culture  

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

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  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 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 

ILGA-Europe 
International Commission of Jurists 
International Federation for Human Rights 

15 

 
 
 
 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

16