Country report non-discrimination : transposition and implementation at national level of Council Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 : Belgium 2024.
Date: 2024-08-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: Belgium, age discrimination, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, national law, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination, social policy

Belgium 

2024

including summary 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Equality and Non-Discrimination 
Unit D1: Non Discrimination: LGBTIQ, Age, Horizontal Matters 
Unit D2: Non Discrimination: Anti-Racism and Roma Coordination 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Country report  

Non-discrimination 

Transposition and implementation at national level of 
Council Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 

Belgium 

Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck  

Reporting period 1 January 2023 – 1 January 2024 

2024  Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*)  The  information  given  is  free,  as  are  most  calls  (though  some  operators,  phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024 

© European Union, 2024 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-14519-7 

ISSN 2599-9176  doi: 10.2838/993295 

  DS-BB-24-002-EN-N 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 7 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 15 
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 23 
1 
THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 25 
2 
2.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives ..... 25 
2.2  Multiple and intersectional discrimination ................................................. 29 
2.3  Assumed and associated discrimination ................................................... 31 
2.4  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...................................................... 32 
Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ................................................... 34 
2.5 
2.5.1  Statistical evidence ................................................................... 35 
2.6  Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...................................................................... 38 
2.7 
Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ................................................ 40 
2.8  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 

3 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 41 
PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ............................................................ 48 
3.1  Personal scope ..................................................................................... 48 

3.1.1 

EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2), Directive 
2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2), Directive 2000/78) .......... 48 
3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16, Directive 2000/43) .............. 48 
Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) ........ 48 
3.1.3 
3.2  Material scope ...................................................................................... 49 
3.2.1  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to 

occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a)) ........................................ 49 
Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 
(Article 3(1)(c)) ........................................................................ 51 

3.2.2 

3.2.3  Access to all types and all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 

training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including 
practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) ................................... 52 

3.2.4  Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or 

employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) ........................................................................ 52 

3.2.5  Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 

3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ......................................................... 53 
3.2.6  Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) .................... 55 
3.2.7 
Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ............................... 55 
3.2.8  Access to and supply of goods and services that are available to the 

4 

public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) .................................... 59 
3.2.9  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ................................. 60 
EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................. 66 
4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4 Directive 

2000/43, Article 4(1) Directive 2000/78)) ................................................ 66 

4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 66 

4.3  Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recitals 18 and 

19, Directive 2000/78) .......................................................................... 72 
4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ................................................... 72 
4.5  Health and safety at work (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) ........................ 74 
4.6  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 75 
4.6.1  Direct discrimination ................................................................. 75 
4.6.2  Special conditions for younger or older workers ............................ 76 
4.6.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements ................................... 77 

3 

 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

4.6.4  Retirement ............................................................................... 78 
4.6.5  Redundancy ............................................................................. 81 

4.7  Further exceptions necessary in a democratic society: Public security, public 

order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection of the rights and 
freedoms of others (Article 2(5) Directive 2000/78) .................................. 81 
4.8  Any other exceptions ............................................................................. 82 
POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78)
 ................................................................................................................. 83 
REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ................................................................. 87 
6.1 
Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 
9 Directive 2000/78) ............................................................................. 87 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 91 
6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) .. 96 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) ...... 97 
6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 98 
BODIES  FOR  THE  PROMOTION  OF  EQUAL  TREATMENT  (Article  13 
Directive 2000/43) ................................................................................. 102 
7.1  National equality bodies ....................................................................... 102 
7.2  Political, economic and social context of the designated bodies ................. 103 
Institutional architecture ...................................................................... 104 
7.3 
7.4  Status of the designated bodies – general independence and resources ..... 105 
7.5  Grounds and fields covered by the designated bodies .............................. 108 
7.6  Competences of the designated bodies – and their independent exercise ... 109 
7.7  Legal standing of the designated bodies................................................. 112 
7.8  Dispute resolution ............................................................................... 114 
7.9  Procedural safeguards ......................................................................... 115 
7.10  Data collection by the designated bodies ............................................... 115 
7.11  Roma and Travellers ........................................................................... 116 
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES ...................................................................... 118 
8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners
 ........................................................................................................ 118 

8.2  Measures to ensure compliance with the principle of equal treatment (Article 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) ................................ 120 
COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ..................................................... 122 
9.1  Coordination at the governmental level ................................................. 122 
9.2  National Strategies and action plans ...................................................... 124 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES ..................................................................... 127 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES ................................................ 129 
11.1. Potential breaches of the directives at the national level .......................... 129 
11.2. Other issues of concern ....................................................................... 130 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2023 ............................................................ 136 
12.1  Legislative amendments ...................................................................... 136 
12.2  Case law ............................................................................................ 137 
ANNEX 1: INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ..................................................... 139 

4 

Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Legislation 

BLCSO: Framework Ordinance of 25 April 2019 to ensure a diversity policy and to combat 
discrimination in the local Brussels civil service (Brussels-Capital Region) 

BEMO:  Ordinance  of  4  September  2008  relating  to  the  fight  against  discrimination  and 
equal  treatment  in  the  employment  field  in  Brussels-Capital  Region  (Brussels-Capital 
Region) 

BRCSO: Ordinance of 4 September 2008 to promote diversity and combat discrimination 
in the Brussels regional civil service (Brussels-Capital Region) 

BETO: Ordinance of 5 October 2017 aiming to combat discrimination and promote equal 
treatment in the Region of Brussels-Capital (Brussels-Capital Region) 

BDCDO:  Ordinance  of  the  Joint  Community  Commission  of  30  June  2022  to  promote 
diversity  and  combat  discrimination  in  the  institutions,  centres  and  services  within  the 
competence of the Joint Community Commission and in the Services of the United College 
of the Joint Community Commission (Joint Community Commission (Cocom) Brussels) 

CED: Decree of 9 July 2010 on the fight against certain forms of discrimination and on the 
implementation of the principle of equal treatment (Cocof) 

CEMD:  Decree  of  22  March  2007  on  equal  treatment  between  persons  in  vocational 
training, implementing Directives 97/80/EC, 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC, 2002/207/EC and 
2006/54/EC  in  the  field  of  vocational  training  –  including  vocational  guidance,  learning, 
advanced vocational training and retraining – in Brussels-Capital Region (Cocof) 

CJ: Judicial Code 

FLED: Framework Decree for the Flemish equal opportunities and equal treatment policy 
of 10 July 2008 (Flemish Region) 

FLEMD: Decree of 8 May 2002 on proportionate participation in the employment market: 
only  applies  in  very  specific  situations,  in  which  case  FLED  is  not  applicable  (Flemish 
Region) 

FRED: Decree of the French Community adopted on 12 December 2008 on the fight against 
certain forms of discrimination (French Community) 

GAFA:  Federal  Act  of  10  May  2007  pertaining  to  fight  certain  forms  of  discrimination 
(Federal State)  

GED: Decree of 19 March 2012 aiming at fighting certain forms of discrimination (German-
speaking Community) 

GEFA: Federal Act of 10 May 2007 pertaining to fight discrimination between women and 
men (Federal State) 

REFA: Federal Act of 10 May 2007 amending the Act of 30 July 1981 criminalising certain 
acts inspired by racism or xenophobia (Federal State) 

WEMD: Decree of 6 November 2008 on the fight against certain forms of discrimination 
(Walloon Region) 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

WEHD  :  Decree  of  30  November  2023  on  the  fight  against  discrimination  in  access  to 
housing (Walloon Region) 

Organisations 

Cocof: French Community Commission (Commission communautaire française) 

Cocom: Joint Community Commission (Commission communautaire commune) 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1. Introduction

In Belgium, which has a population of 11 million, the main religion is Roman Catholicism 
(50 %).  Other  religious  groups  are  Muslims  (5 %),  Anglicans,  Protestant  and  Orthodox 
Christians  (2.5 %),  persons  of  Jewish  faith  (0.4 %)  and  Buddhists  (0.3 %).  In  addition, 
nearly 42 % of people identified themselves as non-believers, 10 % of whom claim to be 
atheists.1  The  population  is  roughly  divided  into  three  linguistic  groups:  7  million  Dutch 
speakers, a little more than 4 million French speakers, and some 76 000 German speakers. 
It is essentially this linguistic divide that has shaped Belgian federalism. Due to its history 
and the fact that it houses most of the EU institutions, Belgium is very cosmopolitan. There 
are no official figures on the ethnic composition of the country, other than numbers on the 
different nationalities. According to two different studies, around 25 % of the population 
are  of  foreign  origin  (compared  to  10 %  who  are  of  foreign  nationality).  The  biggest 
minorities are Moroccans, Italians, French, Turks and Dutch.2 Belgium is a representative 
democracy with a bicameral  Parliament.3 The  official head of  state is  the King (Philippe, 
since 21 July 2013) whose main functions are formal (i.e. signing federal laws and taking 
a largely symbolic role in forming the federal Government). The Prime Minister is the leader 
of  the  Government.  The  Government  always  consists  of  a  coalition  of  different  political 
parties since there are a multitude of parties that get elected to Parliament. 

The Belgian state system is divided into three levels: the  Federal State, the regions and 
communities.  This  federal  structure  has  been,  and  still  is,  a  complicating  factor  in  the 
implementation  of  anti-discrimination  law,  because  of  the  uncertainties  concerning  the 
division  of  competences  between  the  different  parts.  Since  October  2020,  the  federal 
Government has been led by Alexandre De Croo (Flemish liberal) and is based on a very 
large coalition of seven political parties. 

2. Main legislation

Belgium  is  party  to  most  of  the  important  international  agreements  relevant  to 
counteracting  discrimination.  However,  it  has  not  yet  ratified  Protocol  No.  12  to  the 
European Convention on Human Rights and the Council of Europe Framework Convention 
for  the  Protection  of  National  Minorities.  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  Constitution,  which 
prohibit  discrimination,  are  applicable  generally,  without  any  restriction  either  as  to  the 
grounds on which the discrimination is based (they require that the principle of equality be 
respected in relation to all grounds)  or as to the situations concerned (they apply to all 
contexts,  going  beyond  not  only  employment  and  occupation,  but  also  the  scope  of  the 
Racial Equality Directive). These constitutional provisions have been most effective when 
invoked  against  either  legislative  norms  or  administrative  acts.  In  March  2021,  a  new 
Article 22ter was added to the Constitution, which reads: ‘Every person with a disability 
has the right to full inclusion in society, including the right to reasonable accommodation 
(…)’. 

Today, the major anti-discrimination legislation at federal level is embodied in three acts 
adopted  on  10  May  2007.  First,  the  Federal  Act  amending  the  Act  of  30  July  1981 
criminalising  certain  acts  inspired  by  racism  or  xenophobia  (the  Racial  Equality  Federal 

1

There are no official figures available in Belgium. These come from an academic study: Voyé, L., 
Dobbelaere, K. and Abts, K. (eds.) (2012) Autres temps, autres moeurs, Brussels, Racine-Campus.  

2 Study carried out by Myria (2015), ‘Immigré, étranger, Belge d’origine étrangère: de qui parle-t-on?’ 

3

(Immigrant, foreigner, Belgian of foreign origin: who are we talking about?), Myriatics, December 2015, 
available in French: www.myria.be/files/Myriatics2__layout.pdf. 
It should however be noted that the Senate, through the successive stages of the reform of the State, lost 
the essence of its competence in legislative matters, and the quasi-totality of its competence in political 
control of the federal Executive. 

7 

Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Act).4 This Act is intended to implement both the Racial Equality Directive and the 1965 
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in a single 
law  prohibiting  discrimination  on  grounds  of  alleged  race,  colour,  descent,  national  or 
ethnic origin and nationality.5 Secondly, the Federal Act designed to combat certain forms 
of  discrimination  (the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act),6  covers  age,  sexual 
orientation,  civil  status,  birth,  property  (‘fortune’,  in  French),  religious  or  philosophical 
belief, state of health,7 disability, physical or genetic features, political opinion, trade union 
opinion,  language  and  social  origin  or  condition.  Thirdly,  the  Federal  Act  pertaining  to 
fighting  discrimination  between  women  and  men,8  relates  to:  sex,  pregnancy,  assisted 
reproduction,  childbirth,  breastfeeding,  motherhood,  family  responsibilities,  gender 
identity, gender expression, sex characteristics and medical or social transition (transition 
médicale ou sociale).9 In 2023,10 these laws were modified, following the greater part of 
the  recommendations  made  by  the  Expert  Commission  for  the  Assessment  of  the  2007 
Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts.11 

In addition to the federal legislature, the regions and communities have also taken action 
in  their  respective  fields  of  competence.  In  July  2008,  the  Flemish  Community/Region 
adopted  a  piece  of  legislation  establishing  a  Framework  Decree  for  the  Flemish  equal 
opportunities  and  equal  treatment  policy,12  which  tackles  largely  the  same  grounds  as 
those  covered  at  the  federal  level.  Its  scope  relates  to  employment  policy,  healthcare, 
education,  goods  and  services  available  to  the  public  (i.e.  housing,  energy,  cultural 
services), social advantages, and economic, social, cultural and political activities outside 
the private sphere. This piece of legislation comprises two main parts: (1) the design of a 
general framework for the implementation of a proactive and preventive policy on equal 
opportunities;  (2)  specific  provisions  against  discrimination  based  on  a  closed  list  of 
grounds very similar to those prohibited at the federal level.  

In  December  2008,  the  French  Community  (previously  called  the  French-speaking 
Community) adopted a Decree on the fight against certain forms of discrimination,13 which 
tackles  largely  the  same  grounds  as  those  covered  at  the  federal  level.  It  applies  to 
selection,  promotion  and  working  conditions,  including  dismissals  and  pay,  in  the  public 
service of the French Community, education and vocational training, health policy, social 
advantages, membership of and involvement in any professional organisation funded by 
the French Community, and access to goods and services available to the public.  

4   Federal Act amending the Act of 30 July 1981 criminalising certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia 

(Racial Equality Federal Act), OJ (Moniteur belge), 30 May 2007; last modified on 28 June 2023, OJ 20 July 
2023. 

5   Please note that nationality is meant here as nationality, and not citizenship. 
6   Federal Act designed to combat certain forms of discrimination (General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act), OJ 

(Moniteur belge), 30 May 2007; last modified on 28 June 2023, OJ 20 July 2023. 

7   The former version of the Law mentioned ‘actual or future’ ‘state of health’. The law of 20 July 2022 

(Moniteur belge, 17 October 2022) has suppressed the reference to ‘actual or future’. 

8   Federal Act pertaining to fighting discrimination between women and men, OJ (Moniteur belge), 30 May 

2007; last modified on 28 June 2023, OJ 20 July 2023. 

9   The former version of the Law mentioned ‘sex reassignment’. The law of 28 June 2023 (Moniteur belge, 20 

July 2023) replaced these words by a reference to ‘medical or social transition’. 

10   Federal Act of 28 June 2023, OJ (Moniteur belge), 20 July 2023. 
11   Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (Commission 

d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations) (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée. 
12   Flemish Community/Region, Framework Decree for the Flemish equal opportunities and equal treatment 

policy, 10 July 2008, OJ (Moniteur belge), 23 September 2008; last modified on 16 December 2022, OJ 22 
December 2022. 

13   French Community, Decree on the fight against certain forms of discrimination, 12 December 2008, OJ 

(Moniteur belge), 13 January 2009; last modified on 25 May 2023, OJ 31 August 2023. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

In November 2008, the Walloon Region adopted a Decree on the fight against certain forms 
of  discrimination.14  It  tackles  largely  the  same  grounds  as  those  covered  at  the  federal 
level  and  applies,  within  the  framework  of  the  competence  of  the  Walloon  Region,  to: 
vocational  guidance;  socio-professional  integration;  placing  of  workers;  funding  for  the 
promotion of employment; funding for employment and financial incentives to companies 
in the framework of the economic policy, including social economy and vocational training; 
social  protection  (including  healthcare  and  social  advantages);  supply  of  goods  and 
services that are available to the public and outside the private and family sphere (including 
housing);  and  access,  participation  or  any  exercise  of  an  economic,  cultural  or  political 
activity  open  to  the  public,  as  well  as  employment  relationships  in  departments  of  the 
Walloon Government, public authorities depending on the Walloon Region, decentralised 
bodies (such as provinces, municipalities, etc.) or public centres for social assistance. In 
the field of access to housing, this decree has been recently supplemented by the Decree 
of 30 November 2023 on the fight against discrimination in access to housing.15 

In  September  2008,  the  Brussels-Capital  Region  adopted  three  ordinances  to  combat 
discrimination.  The  first  is  the  Ordinance  on  the  fight  against  discrimination  and  equal 
treatment in the employment field.16 It tackles largely the same grounds as those covered 
at  the  federal  level  and  chiefly  applies  to  the  placing  of  workers  and  advertising  of 
employment.  It  is  worth  noting  that  this  Ordinance  provides  for  public  allowances  and 
labels for business, implementing diversity plans. The second is the Ordinance to promote 
diversity and combat discrimination in the Brussels regional civil service.17 It applies to the 
regional18 public services. The third one,19 which was replaced by a new ordinance in 2019, 
applies to the employment field in the local civil service of the Brussels-Capital Region and 
covers  access  conditions,  selection  criteria,  promotion  and  working  conditions,  including 
dismissals and pay. By encouraging public institutions to adopt diversity plans, this  third 
ordinance  also  puts  in  place  a  broad  policy  of  equal  treatment.  As  to  the  fight  against 
discrimination in housing, several ordinances modifying the Brussels Housing Code were 
also  adopted.20  On  5 October 2017,  the  Brussels-Capital  Region  completed  its  anti-
discrimination  legal  framework  by  adopting  an  ordinance  to  combat  discrimination  and 
promote equality, which covers the missing material fields within the competence of the 
Region (goods and services, social protection and advantages, access to economic, cultural 
and social activities, trade union affiliation, and official documents).21 Much more recently 
(30  June  2022),  an  ordinance  was  adopted  to  transpose  the  directives  in  the  area  of 
competence  of  the  Joint  Community  Commission  (Cocom)22  in  Brussels  (including,  in 
particular, family allowances and healthcare provided by the Brussels public hospitals).23 
This  new  legislation  fills  a  serious  gap  in  the  transposition  of  EU  law.  As  one  can  see, 

14   Walloon Region, Decree on the fight against certain forms of discrimination, 6 November 2008, OJ (Moniteur 

belge), 19 December 2008; last modified on 13 July 2023, OJ 14 September 2023. 

15   OJ (Moniteur belge), 22 December 2023. 
16   OJ (Moniteur belge), 16 September 2008, last modified on 1 June 2023, OJ 29 June 2023. 
17   OJ (Moniteur belge), 16 September 2008, last modified on 8 December 2016, OJ 28 December 2016. 
18   For example: the Administration of the Government of the Brussels-Capital Region. 
19   OJ (Moniteur belge), 16 September 2008, replaced by the Framework Ordinance of 25 April 2019 to ensure 

a diversity policy and to combat discrimination in the local Brussels civil service, OJ 24 May 2019. 

20   Brussels Housing Code, 17 July 2003, last modified on 9 June 2022, OJ 20 September 2022. 
21   OJ (Moniteur belge), 19 October 2017. 
22   The Joint Community Commission (Commission Communautaire commune; Gemeenschappelijk 

Gemeenschapscommissie, Cocom) is a federated authority in its own right, created in Brussels, in 
application of Article 135 of the Constitution, to regulate the ‘person-related’ matters for which the Flemish 
and French Communities cannot exercise their competences in application of Article 128 of the Constitution, 
either because it concerns institutions that cannot be linked exclusively to a community (e.g. public 
hospitals), or because it is a question of directly recognising rights or imposing obligations on the 
inhabitants of Brussels themselves. The Joint Community Commission is competent for the territory of 
Brussels, and its bodies (executive and legislative) are, broadly speaking, the same as those of the 
Brussels-Capital Region. 

23   Ordinance of the Joint Community Commission of 30 June 2022 to promote diversity and combat 

discrimination in the institutions, centres and services within the competence of the Joint Community 
Commission and in the Services of the United College of the Joint Community Commission, OJ (Moniteur 
belge), 4 August 2022. 

9 

 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Brussels’ anti-discrimination legislation is particularly complex and difficult to understand, 
which is why its codification is currently under discussion. 

On 19 March 2012, the German-speaking Community adopted a Decree on fighting certain 
forms  of  discrimination,24  which  lays  down  a  general  framework  for  combating 
discrimination within the competence of the German-speaking Community. It is designed 
to implement anti-discrimination EU law in: labour relations in the public bodies created or 
funded  by  the  German-speaking  Community,  education  institutions  and  the  civil  service 
and  governmental  institutions;  education;  employment;  social  advantages;  cultural 
matters;  person-related25  matters;  and  access  to,  and  supply  of,  goods  and  services 
available  to  the  public.  This  piece  of  legislation  is  very  similar  to  the  Federal  Anti-
Discrimination Acts and covers largely the same grounds. 

The  French  Community  Commission  of  the  Brussels-Capital  Region  (Cocof)  adopted  the 
Decree  on  equal  treatment  between  persons  in  vocational  training  on  22  March  2007,26 
which is based on  an open list  of prohibited criteria. It was amended  on 5 July 2012 to 
include a provision on protection from victimisation. In addition, on 9 July 2010, the Cocof 
adopted a second Decree on the fight against certain forms of discrimination and on the 
implementation of the principle of equal treatment.27 The purpose of this legal instrument 
is  to  lay  down  a  general  and  harmonised  framework  for  combating  certain  forms  of 
discrimination and for promoting equal treatment in the fields of competence of the Cocof, 
more precisely: school transport and school building management; municipal, provincial, 
inter-municipal and private facilities with regard to physical education, sports and outdoor 
life; tourism; social advancement; health policy; assistance for people;28 access to goods 
and services; access to, participation in and any other exercise of economic, social, cultural 
or political activities publicly available; and labour relations within public institutions of the 
Cocof. This piece of legislation is based on a list of prohibited criteria in line with the Federal 
Anti-Discrimination Acts. It also aims to promote diversity to the extent that each public 
institution  of  the  Cocof  is  required  to  develop  a  diversity  action  plan.  The  French 
Community  Commission  legislation  is  included  in  the  draft  codification  of  Brussels’  anti-
discrimination legislation, which is currently under discussion.29 

In  sum,  at  the  regional  level,  all  the  regions/communities  (Cocof,  German-speaking 
Community,  Flemish  Community/Region,  Brussels-Capital  Region,  French  Community, 
Walloon  Region,  Joint  Community  Commission)  have  adopted  statutory  laws  fighting 
against  discrimination  in  order  to  fully  implement  the  directives.  They  endeavoured  to 
harmonise  their  content  with  the  Federal  Anti-Discrimination  Acts  and  are,  to  a  large 
extent, in line with the directives. 

3. Main principles and definitions 

The Racial Equality Federal Act and the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act are in line 
with  most  of  the  main  concepts  enshrined  in  the  EU  directives  (direct  discrimination, 
indirect discrimination, harassment, instruction to discriminate, victimisation). Since 2023, 
discrimination based on assumed characteristics and discrimination based on association 
with persons with particular characteristics are expressly forbidden in the Racial Equality 
Federal Act and in the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act. 

24   OJ (Moniteur belge), 5 June 2012, last modified on 26 June 2023, OJ 9 November 2023. 
25   This is a specific Belgian concept, ‘matières personnalisables’, which means personal services or policy, such 

as services for older people. 

26   OJ (Moniteur belge), 24 January 2008; last modified on 5 July 2012, OJ 10 September 2012. 
27   OJ (Moniteur belge), 3 September 2010. 
28   This covers social assistance, integration of migrants, and policies on older persons or persons with 

disabilities. 

29   See http://weblex.brussels/data/arccc/doc/2023-24/109386/images.pdf#page=. The new code is currently 

(March 2024) under discussion before the Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region. Its adoption is 
expected before the election of 9 June 2024. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

The General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and the Racial Equality Federal Act provide for 
the  possibility  of  justifying  certain  differences  in  treatment  directly  based  on  one  of  the 
protected  grounds  where  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirements  are 
concerned,  in  employment  and  occupation.  The  definition  of  genuine  and  determining 
occupational  requirements  corresponds  to  that  offered  in  Directive  2000/43/EC  and 
Directive 2000/78/EC. No exhaustive list of such requirements is required and it is left to 
the judge to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the conditions are satisfied in order 
for the exception to apply. However, the King (i.e. the Government) is authorised to adopt 
a royal decree providing a list of examples in order to offer guidance to courts. 

There were vigorous debates related to the question of which authority was competent to 
legislate  on  reasonable  accommodation.  The  widespread  opinion  today  is  that,  although 
disability policy is the responsibility of the communities, this does not prohibit the Federal 
State or the regions from providing that denying reasonable accommodation to a person 
with  a  disability  amounts  to  discrimination.  The  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act 
provides that the refusal to put in place reasonable accommodations  for a person with a 
disability is a form of prohibited discrimination. The notion of reasonable accommodation 
does  not  extend  beyond  persons  with  disabilities  but  covers  all  the  fields  to  which  the 
General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act  applies,  which  go  far  beyond  employment.  This 
obligation can also be grounded on the new Article 22ter of the Constitution.  

Following the recommendations of the Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 
Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts,30 the idea of ‘multiple discrimination’ is now enshrined in 
federal legislation and in certain federate laws. 

4. Material scope 

The Racial Equality Federal Act and the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act provide for 
protection in large areas of public life: the provision of goods or services when these are 
offered  to  the  public;  social  advantages;  social  protection;  access  to  employment, 
promotion, conditions of employment, dismissal and remuneration, both in the private and 
in the public sector; the nomination of a public servant or his/her assignment to a service; 
the  mention  in  an  official  document  of  any  discriminatory  provision;  and  access  to  and 
participation  in,  as  well  as  exercise  of,  an  economic,  social,  cultural  or  political  activity 
normally  accessible  to  the  public.  The  other  legislative  instruments  adopted  in  order  to 
implement the equal treatment directives have a material scope of application limited to 
the  competence  of  either  the  region  or  the  community.  Education  is  covered  at  the 
community level. Unfortunately, some uncertainties remain as to the precise delimitation 
of the powers of the Federal State, the regions and the communities in this field, which is 
an obstacle in the process of implementation.  There are, however, no remaining gaps in 
the material scope. It must be noted that, beyond the existence of specific legislation, a 
form  of  ‘indirect’  horizontal  effect  of  the  constitutional  principles  of  equality  and  non-
discrimination is accepted by the Constitutional Court.31 

5. Enforcing the law 

The General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and the Racial Equality Federal Act provide for 
civil and criminal procedural protection of victims of discrimination that is nearly identical 
with  respect  to  all  the  prohibited  criteria.  Alongside  one  of  the  guiding  principles  of  the 
reform that there should be no hierarchy between grounds, only some criminal offences 
were retained in the Racial Equality Federal Act (discrimination in the provision of goods 
or a service or in access to employment, vocational training or in the course of a dismissal 

30   See: Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport 

final. Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité 
partagée, pp. 82-83. 

31   See Constitutional Court, No. 17/2009, 12 February 2009, pt. B.14.7. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

procedure) and are therefore specific to discrimination based on race and ethnic origin.32 
Victims  of  discrimination,  under  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  the  General  Anti-
Discrimination Federal Act, may: seek a finding that discriminatory provisions in a contract 
are  null  and  void;  seek  reparation  (damages)  according  to  the  usual  principles  of  civil 
liability (however, the victim may opt for a payment of the lump sums defined in the act 
rather than for damages calculated on the basis of the ‘effective’ damage); seek from the 
judge an injunction imposing positive immediate cessation of the discriminatory practice, 
under the threat of financial penalties; seek from the judge publication of the judgment 
finding  discrimination,  by  posting  the  judicial  decision  on  the  premises  where  the 
discrimination occurred, or by publishing the judicial decision in newspapers. These actions 
are brought before civil courts, or where an employment relationship is concerned, before 
specialised labour courts. The sanctions were generally held to be effective, proportionate 
and  dissuasive  in  the  meaning  of  EU  law.  Following  the  recommendation  of  the  Expert 
Commission  for  the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Acts,33  federal 
laws and certain federated laws were amended in 2023 to make the sanctions even more 
effective (including an increase in the amount of the lump sums). 

The General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and the Racial Equality Federal Act provide for 
the legal standing of Unia (Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to 
Racism  and  Discrimination),  of  organisations  with  a  legal  interest  in  the  protection  of 
human  rights  or  in  combating  discrimination  (provided  that  their  activities  meet  certain 
conditions of effectiveness and durability contained in the Civil Procedure Code),34 and of 
trade  unions,  to  file  a  suit  (civil  or  criminal)  on  the  basis  of  the  anti-discrimination 
legislation.  However,  where  the  victim  of  the  alleged  discrimination  is  an  identifiable 
(natural  or  legal)  person,  their  action  will  in  principle35  only  be  admissible  if  they  prove 
that the victim has agreed to their action being filed. 

Both federal acts provide for a shift of the burden of proof in all the jurisdictional procedures 
except  the  criminal  ones.  A  victim  seeking  damages  in  reparation  of  the  alleged 
discrimination will be allowed to produce certain evidence – for example, ‘statistical data’ 
or ‘recurrence tests’ – which, when presented in court, could lead the judge to presume 
that discrimination has occurred, thus obliging the defendant to demonstrate that, contrary 
to  that  presumption,  there  has  been  no  discrimination.  It  should  be  stressed  that 
‘recurrence tests’ are closely linked to situation testing but are less controversial under this 
terminology and are, therefore, explicitly mentioned in the legislation. 

Typically, a victim of discrimination will turn to Unia. If the latter considers that an instance 
of discrimination has occurred, it first seeks to encourage an amicable settlement of the 
case,  by  ensuring  that  measures  will  be  taken  in  order  to  avoid  a  repetition  or  a 
continuation of the discriminatory practice. If the attempt at mediation fails, Unia may  – 
with the consent of the victim, where there is an identified victim – file proceedings against 
the perpetrator of the discrimination. 

With the adoption of the various equal treatment decrees and ordinances since 2008, the 
systems of remedies put in place in the regions and communities copy to a large extent 
those  of  the  Federal  Anti-Discrimination  Acts  and  are  in  line  with  the  European 
requirements. 

32   Criminal penalties for acts of discrimination committed by private individuals were also reintroduced in the 

Gender Act in 2014. 

33   Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, pp. 
154-160. 

34   Civil Procedure Code, Article 17(2). 
35   Some exceptions have been introduced by the reform of the federal acts in 2023. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

As  regards  Roma,  a  new  version  of  the  ‘National  Strategy  for  Roma  Integration’  was 
submitted  to  the  European  Commission  in  2022.36  This  Strategy  is  the  result  of  a 
cooperation between the communities, the regions, representatives of civil society and the 
federal authorities. The Strategy has four objectives: health, education, work and housing. 
The idea is to prevent anti-Gypsyism, i.e. specific racism against Roma, Sinti, Travellers 
and other people stigmatised as ‘Gypsies’ in the public imagination. The Strategy aims to 
combat  the  discrimination  that  Roma  communities  often  face  and  to  promote  the 
socioeconomic integration of Roma by combating stereotypes.  

On 16 July 2021, the Council of Ministers adopted the ‘Federal Disability Action Plan (2021-
2024)’.37 The Plan was developed in close cooperation with all ministers and secretaries of 
state, supported by the representative organisations of persons with disabilities (National 
High  Council  for  Persons  with  Disabilities  and  Unia).  The  Plan  proposes  145  measures, 
which  touch  on  all  aspects  of  life:  health  crisis  management,  healthcare  and  social 
protection, work and employment, accessibility and mobility. 

6. Equality bodies 

The officially designated bodies are Unia and the Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut (Flemish 
Human Rights Institute). 

Unia38  (formerly  the  Centre  for  Equal  Opportunities  and  Opposition  to  Racism,  renamed 
the  Interfederal  Centre  for  Equal  Opportunities  in  2014,  and  Unia  in  2016)  was  initially 
created in 1993. In 2007, it was given a role in the supervision of all the grounds covered 
by  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Act,  except  for 
language.  The  Institute  for  Equality  of  Women  and  Men  is  in  charge  of  supervising  the 
grounds  covered  by  the  Gender  Equality  Federal  Act.  In  March  2014,  Unia  became  an 
interfederal  agency,  entrusted  with  the  monitoring  and  implementation  of  the  anti-
discrimination law adopted by the regions and the communities: in the event of potential 
infringement of any of the federal or regional anti-discrimination laws, citizens were able 
to  contact  either  Unia’s  main  office  in  Brussels,  or  the  contact  points  in  Flanders  and 
Wallonia.  

However, on 30 September 2019, the newly formed Flemish Government announced that 
it intended to drop out of Unia, and to entrust the tasks of the equality body, as far as the 
competences of the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region are concerned, to a new 
Vlaams  Mensenrechteninstituut  (Flemish  Human  Rights  Institute),  which  would  have  a 
broader  mission  following  the  model  of  the  Dutch  College  voor  de  rechten  van  de  Mens 
(Netherlands Institute for Human Rights). This new Institute was created by a decree of 
28 October 2022.39 Article 58 of this Decree repeals the Flemish Decree of 20 December 
2013 approving the cooperation agreement establishing Unia. 

Unia  issues  reports,  surveys  and  recommendations  within  its  mandate.  It  also  assists 
victims of discrimination, and it may file judicial actions, but it is not a quasi-judicial body. 
In  2022  Unia  received  7 310  complaints,  opened  1 887  files  and  launched  16  judicial 
actions.40 The low number of cases relative to the number of opened files is partly due to 
the capacity  of Unia to  reach an amicable  settlement through mediation. Unia has been 

36   See: Stratégie nationale pour l’Intégration des Roms (2022) https://www.mi-is.be/fr/strategie-nationale-

dintegration-des-roms. 

37   Federal Disability Action Plan (2021-2024), available at: 

https://socialsecurity.belgium.be/fr/publications/plan-daction-federal-handicap-2021-2024. 

38   Unia has chosen to use the abbreviation ‘the Centre’ to refer to itself, and as such, is referred to as both 

Unia and the Centre throughout this report (see: www.unia.be/en/). 

39   OJ (Moniteur belge), 9 November 2022. 
40   Unia (2023) Unia comme organisme de promotion de l’égalité de traitement, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Unia_comme_organisme_de_promotion_de_l%C3
%A9galit%C3%A9_(Unia_-_Rapport_annuel_2022).pdf. Figures for 2023 were not available when this 
report was submitted (February 2024). 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

established as an autonomous public service. Although placed under the supervision of the 
federal  and  regional  parliaments,  its  independence  is  guaranteed  by  legislation  and,  in 
practice, it fulfils its mandate in an independent fashion. 

7. Key issues 

One of the major concerns for the year 2023 remains the short, medium and long-term 
consequences of the Flemish authority’s decision to withdraw from Unia (see above).  

The year 2023 was also marked by major changes to the legislation transposing Directives 
2000/43/EC  and  2000/78/EC,  both  at  federal  level  and  at  the  level  of  certain  federated 
authorities. At the latter level, reforms have already been passed, and others are still in 
the process of being adopted, in the Flemish Community and in Brussels (codification of 
the legislation of the Brussels-Capital Region, the Joint Community Commission and the 
French Community Commission). These reforms, inspired in part by the recommendations 
of  the  Expert  Commission  for  the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-Discrimination  Federal 
Acts,41 are undoubtedly  beneficial for the  effectiveness  of the legislation concerned. The 
difficulty  is  that  they  are  being  carried  out  without  much  coordination  and  consultation 
between  the  various  competent  political  authorities,  and  that  the  federal  and  federated 
rules  relating  to  identical  or  similar  situations  are  becoming  increasingly  different  as  a 
result.  This  makes  anti-discrimination  law  more  difficult  to  read  and  understand, 
particularly  for  victims,  and  the  cessation  of  Unia’s  role  as  a  ‘one-stop  shop’  does  not 
improve the situation. 

The year 2023 was dramatically marked by a resurgence in antisemitic hate speech and 
acts,  as  a  consequence  of  the  events  that  followed  7  October  2023.  In  the  two  months 
between  7  October  2023  and  7  December  2023,  91  complaints  (signalements)  were 
recorded  by  Unia,42  66  of  which  explicitly  referred  to  Jewish  ancestry.  By  way  of 
comparison, in 2022, Unia received an average of between  four and five complaints per 
month. 

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels in 2015 and 2016 respectively, there 
has been persistent anti-Muslim rhetoric, in both the public and political spheres. This has 
been realised in calls to ban the wearing of the Islamic veil in many places (which has led 
to multiple cases,43 some of which have  even  reached the European Court of Justice),44 
and has led to an increase in reports of discrimination on grounds of religion, of which the 
Muslim community has been the main target.  

41   Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée. 

42   See: Unia (2024) ‘ Il faut mieux lutter contre l’antisémitisme en Belgique’ 25 January 2024, 

https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/mieux-lutter-contre-antisemitisme.  

43   For some recent cases concerning employment, see: Labour Court of Liège (Cour du travail de Liège), 20 
December 2021, Unia v scrl PPVA; Labour Court of Liège (Cour du travail de Liège), 30 April 2021, Unia v 
scrl PPVA; Labour Tribunal of Brussels (Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles), 3 May 2021, Unia, LT and Ligue 
des droits de l’Homme v. Société de transport intercommunal Bruxellois. Concerning education, see, 
Tribunal of First Instance of Brussels (Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles), 24 November 2021, 
L.E.A and others v. Ville de Bruxelles, and compare with Constitutional Court, 4 June 2020, No. 81/2020. All 
these decisions can be consulted on the Unia website. Concerning older case law, see the previous editions 
of this report.  

44   See CJUE, 28 November 2023, Commune d’Ans, C-148/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:924. See also CJUE, 13 

October 2022, S.C.R.L., C-344/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:774. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

INTRODUCTION 

The national legal system 

In the Belgian federal system, the competence to legislate on discrimination in the areas 
covered by the Racial Equality and Employment Equality Directives is divided between the 
Federal  State,  the  three  communities45  and  the  three  regions.46  Unlike  in  the  French-
speaking part of Belgium, in the Flemish part of the country, the region and community 
are merged into one body. 

In other words, the fight against discrimination is not a ‘matter’ in itself, which would fall 
within the exclusive competence of the Federal State, the communities or the regions, but 
is a shared competence: it is exclusively up to the Federal State, the communities or the 
regions  to  adopt  the  measures  necessary  to  prevent  and  punish  discrimination  in  their 
areas of competence. 

With respect to the implementation of the principle of equal treatment in the fields to which 
only  Directive  2000/43/EC  applies  (social  protection,  including  social  security  and 
healthcare;  social  advantages;  education;  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services 
which are available to the public, including housing),47 the Constitution and the Special Act 
of 8 August 1980, last revised on 6 January 2014 (Sixth Belgian State Reform), provide 
that: 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

social security is a federal matter, except for family allowances48 which has been a 
responsibility of the communities since the sixth Belgian state reform of 2014;49 
healthcare is essentially a competence of the communities, except for certain matters 
including the adoption of framework legislation and health insurance, which remain 
matters of federal competence; 
with a few exceptions, social aid is a competence of the communities; 
education is a competence of the communities, including the status of schoolteachers 
and  other  civil  servants  or  employees  working  in  schools  (Article  127(1)(2)  of  the 
Constitution); 
social housing, as well as the rules relating to the private housing market, are the 
responsibility of the regions, since the sixth Belgian state reform of 2014; 
prohibition  of  discrimination  in  the  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services 
available to the public should be dealt with by each competent authority in the sphere 
of its powers (for instance, public transport falls within the competence of the regions, 
apart  from  the  national  airport  and  the  public  railway  company,  which  are  the 
responsibility of the Federal State).  

With respect to the implementation of the principle of equal treatment in the fields to which 
both the Racial Equality and the Employment Equality Directives apply, the Special Act of 
8  August  1980  specifically  reserves  to  the  federal  level  the  competence  to  legislate  in 
employment law. The regions and communities, however, have important powers in the 
domain of employment policy:  

45   The French Community (Communauté française) which is referred to as the Wallonia-Brussels Federation 
(Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles) in the political and media discourse, the Flemish Community (Vlaamse 
Gemeenschap), and the German-speaking Community (deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft).  

46   The Walloon Region (Région wallonne), the Flanders Region (Vlaams Gewest) and the Brussels-Capital 

Region (Région de Bruxelles-capitale).  
47   Directive 2000/43/EC, Article 3(1)(e) to (h). 
48   Parental leave allowances are still a federal matter. 
49   The French Community has transferred the exercise of this competence to the Walloon Region, on the basis 

of Article 138 of the Constitution. In Brussels, the competence is exercised by the Commission 
Communautaire commune. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

- 

- 

- 

the regions have been granted powers relating to the placement of workers (which 
includes vocational guidance) and the adoption of programmes for the professional 
integration of the unemployed; 
the communities have been granted powers relating to vocational training (although, 
in the French-speaking part of the country, vocational training was transferred from 
the French Community to the Walloon Region and the Commission Communautaire 
française); 
the status of personnel of the regions or communities is the exclusive competence of 
the regions and communities. 

List of main legislation transposing and implementing the directives 

Federal level 
Official title of the law: Federal Act amending the Act of 30 July 1981 
criminalising certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia (Loi tendant à 
réprimer certains actes inspirés par le racisme ou la xénophobie) 
Name used in this report: Racial Equality Federal Act 
Abbreviation: REFA  
Date of adoption: 10 May 2007 
Entry into force: 9 June 2007 
Latest relevant amendment: 28 June 2023 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds covered: alleged race,50 colour, descent, national or ethnic origin and 
nationality. 
Civil and criminal law 
Material scope: access to and supply of goods and services available to the public; 
social protection (notably social security and healthcare); social advantages; working 
relationships (access to employment, working conditions and salary, termination of 
employment contract, etc.); affiliation and membership of an organisation representing 
workers or employers or of any professional organisation; and access to and 
participation in, or any exercise of, an economic, social, cultural or political activity 
open to the public. 
Principal content: This Act implements the Racial Equality Directive and the 1965 
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in a 
single law. It covers both the private and public sectors. 

Official title of the law: Federal Act of 10 May 2007 designed to combat 
certain forms of discrimination (Loi tendant à lutter contre certaines formes de 
discrimination) 
Name used in this report: The General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act 
Abbreviation: GAFA  
Date of adoption: 10 May 2007 
Entry into force: 6 June 2007 
Latest relevant amendment: 28 June 2023 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds covered: age, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, property (‘fortune’, in 
French), religious or philosophical belief, state of health,51 disability, physical or genetic 
features, political opinion, language, social origin or condition, and trade union opinion. 
Civil and criminal law 
Material scope: access to and supply of goods and services available to the public; 
social protection (notably social security and healthcare); social advantages; working 
relationships (access to employment, working conditions and salary, termination of 
employment contract, etc.); affiliation and membership of an organisation representing 

50   The Belgian legislature uses the expression ‘alleged race’ in order to avoid giving the impression that it 

subscribes to the idea that there are indeed different races. 

51   The former version of the Law mentioned ‘actual or future’ ‘state of health’. The Law of 20 July 2022 

(Moniteur belge, 17 Octobre 2022) has suppressed the reference to ‘actual or future’. 

16 

 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

workers or employers or of any professional organisation; and access to and 
participation in, or any exercise of, an economic, social, cultural or political activity 
open to the public. 
Principal content: This act seeks to implement Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 
2000. Similar to the Racial Equality Federal Act, it covers both the private and public 
sectors. 

Regional/Community level 
Flemish Community/Region: 
Official title of the law: Framework Decree for the Flemish equal opportunities 
and equal treatment policy (Decreet houdende een kader voor het Vlaamse 
gelijkekansen en gelijkebehandelingsbeleid) 
Name used in this report: Flemish Framework ET Decree 
Abbreviation: FLED 
Date of adoption: 10 July 2008 
Entry into force: 3 October 2008 
Latest relevant amendment: 16 December 2022 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds covered: race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, nationality; age, 
sexual orientation, civil status, birth, property (‘fortune’, in French), religious or 
philosophical belief, political opinion, trade union opinion, language, state of health, 
disability, physical or genetic features, social origin; sex/gender, gender identity, 
gender expression, transsexuality,52 pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood.  
Civil and criminal law 
Material scope: employment policy, healthcare, education, goods and services 
available to the public (i.e. housing, energy, cultural services), social advantages, and 
economic, social, cultural and political activities outside the private sphere. 
Principal content: The Framework Decree for the Flemish equal opportunities and 
equal treatment policy implements, among others, Directives 2000/43/EC and 
2000/78/EC. Its scope relates to the areas of competence of the Flemish Region and 
the Flemish Community. 

Official title of the law: Decree on proportionate participation in the 
employment market (Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de 
arbeidsmarkt)53 
Name used in this report: Flemish proportionate participation Decree 
Abbreviation: FLEMD 
Date of adoption: 8 May 2002 
Entry into force: 1 October 2002 
Latest relevant amendment: 19 March 2021 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds covered: sex, alleged race, ethnic origin, religion or conviction, disability, 
age, sexual orientation.  
Civil and criminal law 
Material scope: vocational training, vocational guidance, integration of persons with 
disabilities in the labour market, public authorities of the Flemish Region/Community, 
including those in the field of education. 
Principal content: The Decree seeks both to prohibit discrimination on the grounds 
listed in Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and 
to encourage the integration of target groups into the labour market by positive action 
measures (preparation of diversity plans and annual reports on progress made). When 
a discriminatory situation is within the scope of this Decree, the Flemish Framework ET 
Decree is not applicable (Article 20(3) of the FLED). 

52   Transsexuality refers to the existence of a sex change. 
53   OJ (Moniteur belge), 26 July 2002; last modified on 19 March 2021, OJ, 30 March 2021. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

French Community: 
Official title of the law: Decree of the French Community on the fight against 
certain forms of discrimination (Décret de la Communauté française relatif à la lutte 
contre certaines formes de discrimination) 
Name used in this report: The French Community ET Decree 
Abbreviation: FRED  
Date of adoption: 12 December 2008 
Entry into force: 23 January 2009 
Latest relevant amendment: 25 May 2023 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds covered: alleged race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, nationality; 
age,  sexual  orientation,  civil  status,  birth,  property  (‘fortune’,  in  French),  religious  or 
philosophical  belief,  actual  or  future  state  of  health,  disability,  physical  or  genetic 
features, political opinion, language, social origin, trade union opinion; sex/gender and 
related  grounds:  pregnancy,  childbirth,  motherhood,  gender  reassignment,  gender 
identity and gender expression. 
Civil and criminal law 
Material scope: Selection, promotion, working conditions, including dismissals and pay, 
in  the  public  service  of  the  French  Community;  education;  vocational  training;  health 
policy;  social  advantages;  membership  of  and  involvement  in  any  professional 
organisation funded by the French Community; access to goods and services available 
to the public, and access to and participation in, or any exercise of, an economic, social, 
cultural or political activity open to the public 
Principal content: The Decree implements Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC, 
2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC. This Decree applies in the scope of competence of the 
French Community. 

Walloon Region: 
Official  title  of  the  law:  Decree  on  the  fight  against  certain  forms  of 
discrimination, (Décret de la Région wallonne relatif à la lutte contre certaines formes 
de discrimination) 
Name used in this report: the Walloon ET Decree 
Abbreviation: WEMD  
Date of adoption: 6 November 2008 
Entry into force: 30 December 2008 
Latest relevant amendment: 13 July 2023 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds covered: alleged race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, nationality; 
age,  sexual  orientation,  civil  status,  birth,  property  (‘fortune’,  in  French),  religious  or 
philosophical  belief,  state  of  health,  disability,  physical  or  genetic  features,  political 
opinion, language, social origin or condition, trade union opinion; sex/gender and related 
grounds:  pregnancy,  childbirth,  motherhood,  breastfeeding,  gender  reassignment, 
gender identity and gender expression; family status. 
Civil and criminal law 
Material  scope:  vocational 
training,  vocational  guidance,  socio-professional 
integration, placing of  workers, funding for the promotion of  employment, funding for 
employment  and  financial  incentives  to  companies  in  the  framework  of  the  economic 
policy,  including  social  economy  and  vocational  training,  in  the  public  and  the  private 
sectors.  It  also  covers:  social  protection,  including  healthcare;  social  advantages;  the 
supply of goods and services that are available to the public and outside the private and 
family  sphere,  including  housing;  access  to,  participation  in,  or  any  exercise  of,  an 
economic, cultural or political activity open to the public; and statutory and contractual 
relationships in departments of the Walloon Government, public authorities depending 
on  the  Walloon  Region,  decentralised  bodies  (such  as  provinces,  municipalities,  etc.), 
and public centres for social assistance. 

18 

 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Principal  content:  The  Decree  implements  European  Directives  2000/43/EC, 
2000/78/EC,  2004/113/EC  and  2006/54/EC.54  This  Decree  applies  in  the  scope  of 
competence of the Walloon Region. 

German-speaking Community: 
Official  title  of  the  law:  Decree  on  fighting  certain  forms  of  discrimination 
(Dekret zur Bekämpfung bestimmter Formen von Diskriminierung) 
Name used in this report: The German Community ET Decree 
Abbreviation: GED 
Date of adoption: 19 March 2012 
Entry into force: 15 June 2012 
Latest relevant amendment: 26 June 2023 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds covered: Sex, alleged race, national or ethnic origin, religious or philosophical 
belief,  disability,  age,  sexual  orientation,  nationality,  colour,  descent,  social  origin, 
pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood, parenthood, transgender, civil status, birth, property 
(fortune), political opinion, trade union opinion (conviction syndicale), language, actual 
or future state of health, physical or genetic features. 
Civil and criminal law 
Material  scope:  labour  relations  regarding  public  bodies  created  or  funded  by  the 
German-speaking  Community,  education  institutions  and  the  civil  service  and 
governmental institutions; education; employment; social advantages; cultural matters; 
person-related  matters;  access  to,  and  supply  of,  goods  and  services  available  to  the 
public.  
Principal  content:  The  Decree 
implements  European  Directives 2000/43/EC, 
2000/78/EC,  2004/113/EC  and  2006/54/EC.  The  Decree  applies  in  the  scope  of 
competence of the German Community. 

Brussels-Capital Region and the Commission Communautaire commune:55 
Official title of the law: Ordinance relating to the fight against discrimination 
and equal treatment in the employment field (Ordonnance relative à la lutte contre 
la discrimination et à l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi) 
Name used in this report: Brussels ET Employment Ordinance 
Abbreviation: BEMO 
Date of adoption: 4 September 2008 
Entry into force: 26 September 2008 
Latest relevant amendment: 1 June 2023 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds  covered:  Sex,  alleged  race,  religious,  philosophical  or  political  conviction, 
disability, age, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, property (fortune), language, actual 
or  future  state  of  health,  physical  or  genetic  features,  pregnancy,  childbirth, 
motherhood, gender reassignment, nationality, colour, descent, national, ethnic or social 
origin, trade union opinion (conviction syndicale). 
Civil and criminal law 
Material scope: The employment field covers, at the regional level, worker placement 
policies  and  policies  aimed  at  unemployed  persons  (as  defined  in  Article  4(9)  of  the 
Ordinance). 
Principal 
Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC, 2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC.  

implements 

Ordinance 

content: 

European 

partially 

The 

54   OJ (Moniteur belge), 10 April 2009.  
55   The ‘Brussels’ legislative package is particularly complex. A codification of these in a single instrument is 
desirable (See Council of State, advisory opinion No. 64.098/4, 24 September 2018 (http://www.raadvst-
consetat.be/dbx/avis/64098.pdf#search=64098), and has been planned (See Déclaration de politique 
générale commune au Gouvernement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale et au Collège réuni de la 
Commission Communautaire commune, Législature 2019-2024, p. 44, available at: 
http://www.parlement.brussels/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/07-20-Déclaration-gouvernementale-
parlement-bruxellois-2019.pdf. 

19 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Official  title  of  the  law:  Ordinance  to  promote  diversity  and  combat 
discrimination  in  the  Brussels  regional  civil  service  (Ordonnance  visant  à 
promouvoir  la  diversité  et  à  lutter  contre  la  discrimination  dans  la  fonction  publique 
régionale bruxelloise) 
Name used in this report: The Brussels Regional Civil Service ET Ordinance 
Abbreviation: BRCSO 
Date of adoption: 4 September 2008 
Entry into force: 26 September 2008 
Latest relevant amendment: 8 December 2016 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds  covered:  Sex,  alleged  race,  religious,  philosophical  or  political  conviction, 
disability, age, sexual orientation, trade union opinion (conviction syndicale), civil status, 
birth,  property  (fortune),  language,  state  of  health,  physical  or  genetic  features, 
pregnancy, childbirth,  motherhood, gender reassignment, nationality, colour, descent, 
national or ethnic origin, social origin. 
Civil and criminal law 
Material scope: The employment relationship in the Brussels regional civil service. 
Principal 
Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC, 2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC. 

implements 

Ordinance 

European 

content: 

partially 

The 

Official  title  of  the  law:  Framework  Ordinance  for  the  promotion  of  diversity 
and  the  fight  against  discrimination  in  the  local  civil  service  of  the  Brussels-
Capital  Region  (Ordonnance-cadre  visant  à  assurer  une  politique  de  diversité  et  de 
lutte contre les discriminations au sein de la fonction publique locale bruxelloise) 
Name used in this report: Brussels Local Civil Service ET Ordinance 
Abbreviation: BSCO 
Date of adoption: 25 April 2019 
Entry into force: 3 June 2019 
Latest relevant amendment: N/A 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds  covered:  Sex,  alleged  race,  religious,  philosophical  or  political  conviction, 
disability, age, sexual orientation, trade union opinion (conviction syndicale), civil status, 
birth,  property  (fortune),  language,  state  of  health,  physical  or  genetic  features, 
pregnancy,  childbirth,  motherhood,  gender  reassignment,  gender  identity  and  gender 
expression,  nationality,  colour,  descent,  national  or  ethnic  origin,  social  origin  or 
condition. 
Civil and criminal law 
Material scope: The employment relationship in the Brussels local civil service. 
Principal 
Ordinance 
Directives 2000/43/EC, 2000/78/EC, 2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC. 

implements 

European 

content: 

partially 

The 

Official  title  of  the  law:  Ordinance  of  the  Joint  Community  Commission  to 
promote  diversity  and  combat  discrimination  in  the  institutions,  centres  and 
services within the competence of the Joint Community Commission and in the 
Services of the United College of the Joint Community Commission (Ordonnance 
visant à promouvoir la diversité et à lutter contre la discrimination dans les institutions, 
centres  et  services  relevant  de  la  compétence  de  la  Commission  Communautaire 
commune ainsi que dans les Services du Collège réuni de la Commission Communautaire 
commune) 
Name used in this report: Ordinance of the Joint Community Commission on diversity 
and discrimination 
Abbreviation: BDCDO 
Date of adoption: 30 June 2022 
Entry into force: 14 August 2022 
Latest relevant amendment: N/A 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 

20 

 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Grounds  covered:  age;  sexual  orientation;  civil  status;  birth;  wealth;  religious, 
philosophical  or  political  convictions;  trade  union  beliefs;  language;  current  or  future 
state of health; disability; physical or genetic features; nationality; alleged race; colour; 
descent; national origin; ethnic origin; social  origin; and gender and  related grounds: 
pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood, breastfeeding, gender reassignment. 
Civil and criminal law 
Material scope: The Ordinance applies, within the limits of the competences devolved 
to  the  Joint  Community  Commission,  to  all  persons,  both  in  the  private  and  public 
sectors,  including  public  bodies,  in  the  following  matters:  health  policy;  aid  to  people 
(aide  aux  personnes);  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services;  access  to, 
participation  in  and  other  exercise  of  publicly  available  economic,  social  and  political 
activities; and labour relations. 
Principal  content:  The  Ordinance  implements  European  Directives 2000/43/EC, 
2000/78/EC,  2004/113/EC  and  2006/54/EC  in  the  scope  of  competence  of  the  Joint 
Community Commission. 

Commission Communautaire française (Cocof):56 
Official  title  of  the  law:  Decree  on  equal  treatment  between  persons  in 
vocational training (Décret relatif à l’égalité de traitement entre les personnes dans la 
formation professionnelle) 
Name used in this report: the Cocof Vocational Training ET Decree 
Abbreviation: CEMD 
Date of adoption: 22 March 2007 
Entry into force: 24 January 2008 
Latest relevant amendment: 5 July 2012 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds covered: Open list of grounds. 
Civil and criminal law 
Material scope: Vocational training – including vocational guidance, learning, advanced 
apprentissage, 
vocational 
perfectionnement et recyclage professionnel). 
Principal content: The Decree partially implements European Directives 2000/43/EC, 
2000/78/EC, 2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC. 

(orientation, 

formation, 

retraining 

training 

and 

Official  title  of  the  law:  Decree  on  the  fight  against  certain  forms  of 
discrimination  and on the implementation of the principle of  equal treatment 
(Décret relatif à la lutte contre certaines formes de discrimination et à la mise en oeuvre 
du principe de l’égalité de traitement) 
Name used in this report: The Cocof ET Decree 
Abbreviation: CED 
Date of adoption: 9 July 2010 
Entry into force: 3 September 2010 
Latest relevant amendment: N/A 
Weblink: www.moniteur.be 
Grounds  covered:  Sex,  alleged  race,  religious,  philosophical  or  political  conviction, 
disability,  age,  sexual  orientation,  civil  status,  birth,  property  (fortune),  trade  union 
opinion  (conviction  syndicale),  language,  actual  or  future  state  of  health,  physical  or 
genetic features, pregnancy, motherhood, childbirth, gender reassignment, nationality, 
colour, descent, national, ethnic or social origin. 
Civil and criminal law 
Material  scope:  School  transport  and  school  building  management;  municipal, 
provincial, inter-municipal and private facilities with regard to physical education, sports 

56   The Commission Communautaire française (Cocof), to which, in 1993 and 2014, the French Community 
transferred a substantial part of its competences (including on vocational training, health policy and 
assistance) in the Brussels-Capital Region, adopted two decrees on implementing the EU anti-discrimination 
directives. 

21 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

and  outdoor  life;  tourism;  social  advancement;  health  policy;  assistance  for  people; 57 
access  to  goods  and  services;  access  to,  participation  in,  and  any  other  exercise  of 
economic,  social,  cultural  or  political  activities  that  are  publicly  available;  and  labour 
relations within public institutions of the Cocof. 
Principal content: The Decree partially implements European Directives 2000/43/EC, 
2000/78/EC, 2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC. 

57   This covers social assistance, integration of migrants, and policy on persons with disabilities and older 

persons. 

22 

 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

1  GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion 
of equality  

The constitution of Belgium includes two main articles regarding non-discrimination. 

Articles 10 and 11 guarantee equality before the law and enjoyment without discrimination 
of the rights and freedoms accorded to all, without specifying a list of prohibited grounds 
of discrimination. These equality clauses are of general application, without any restriction 
as to the grounds on which the discrimination is based (they require the principle of equality 
to be respected in relation to all grounds). There has been case law  with respect to the 
discriminatory grounds of the equality directives.58 

These  provisions  apply  to  all  areas  covered  by  the  directives.  Their  material  scope  is 
broader than those of the directives. They are applicable to all contexts, going beyond not 
only employment and occupation, but also the scope of Directive 2000/43/EC. 

or 

or 

by 

the 

regions 

communities 

(Décrets/Decreten 

The  constitutional  anti-discrimination  provisions  are  directly  applicable.  Their  main 
importance  lies  in  the  fact  that  legislative  norms  adopted  either  by  the  Federal  State 
(Lois/Wetten) 
or 
Ordonnances/Ordonnanties),  and  regulations  adopted  by  the  different  governments 
(Arrêtés royaux /Koninklijke besluiten when adopted by the Federal Government, Arrêtés 
du  gouvernement  /Besluiten  van  de  regering  when  adopted  by  the  governments  of  the 
regions), must respect the constitutional principle of equality. Respect for the constitutional 
principles of  equality and non-discrimination is ensured by the power accorded to  every 
person  with  a  legal  interest  to  seek  the  annulment  of  a  statutory  law  or  an  executive 
regulation,  respectively,  before  the  Constitutional  Court  or  the  Council  of  State 
(Conseil d’État /Raad  van  State  –  Supreme  Administrative  Court).  Moreover,  if  a 
jurisdiction  entertains  doubts  as  to  the  compatibility  of  a  legislative  norm  (federal  act, 
decree or ordinance), it may submit the question to the Constitutional Court by a referral 
procedure, and the Court may then consider a piece of legislation invalid if it is found to 
violate the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. 

These  provisions  can  be  enforced  against  all  public  authorities,  and  against  private 
individuals,  at  least  in  an  indirect  manner.  A  form  of  ‘indirect’  horizontal  effect  of  the 
constitutional  principles  of  equality  and  non-discrimination  is  indeed  accepted  by  the 
Constitutional Court.59 

Article 11bis of the Constitution is specifically dedicated to gender equality. 

In March 2021, a new  Article 22ter was added to the Constitution: ‘Every person with a 
disability  has  the  right  to  full  inclusion  in  society,  including  the  right  to  reasonable 
accommodation  (…)’.  As  noted  by  I.  Hachez,60  ‘the  adoption  of  Article  22ter  is  a  long-
awaited (r)evolution for the disability sector, which has been largely involved in its adoption 
process’. 

58   See for example Constitutional Court, No. 122/2019, 26 September 2019 (about sexual orientation); 

No. 81/2020, 4 June 2020 (about religious convictions); No. 103/2020, 9 July 2020 (about disability and 
age). 

59   See Constitutional Court, No. 17/2009, 12 February 2009, pt. B.14.7: ‘(A)n unequal treatment in the 
relationship between citizens to which no justification can be given constitutes discrimination and, 
consequently, a tort which may give rise to a civil penalty, including compensation. In addition, the judge 
may annul a discriminatory contractual clause on the basis of articles 6, 1131 and 1132 of the Civil Code on 
the grounds that it is contrary to public order’. 

60   Hachez, I. (2022) ‘La consécration constitutionnelle du droit à l’inclusion des personnes en situation de 

handicap (art. 22ter): de la duplication du cadre juridique au dessin de politiques publiques’, Journal des 
Tribunaux, 2022, pp. 17-24. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

The meaning and consequences of this constitutional ‘emphasis’ on certain criteria is not 
clear.  The  Constitutional  Court  has  sometimes  associated  it  with  a  reason  to  exercise 
stricter control over distinctions in treatment based on these criteria.61 

61   The Constitutional Court notes in this respect that Articles 10, 11 and 11bis of the Constitution, read 

together, ‘invite legislators to be particularly cautious when establishing a difference of treatment on the 
basis of sex’. It adds that such a criterion ‘is permissible only if it is justified by a legitimate aim and if it is 
relevant to that aim’, which, in fact, is valid for any distinction in treatment, on the basis of any criterion 
whatsoever. But it specifies that ‘the Court’s control is stricter if the fundamental principle of gender 
equality is at stake’ (Constitutional Court, No. 44/2014, 13 March 2014, B.4) and on another occasion 
stressed that ‘the Constitution attributes particular importance to equality between men and women’ 
(Constitutional Court, No. 159/2004, 20 October 2004, B.5.6). 

24 

 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

2  THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION  

2.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives 

None of the grounds mentioned in the Racial Equality and Employment Equality Directives 
which were implemented in the Belgian legislation were provided with  a definition when 
the implementation took place. These definitions were considered unnecessary, as  these 
concepts – in the context at least of an act prohibiting discrimination – were seen as self-
explanatory. Generally speaking, neither the grounds covered by the Racial Equality and 
the Employment Equality Directives, nor the additional grounds to which the General Anti-
Discrimination Federal Act applies, are defined in other parts of national legislation.  

The website of Unia provides some indication of the meaning of the terms, but chiefly relies 
on broad definitions based on the usual sense of the discrimination grounds.62 

a) 

Racial or ethnic origin 

The concepts of alleged race and ethnic origin are not defined in Belgian anti-discrimination 
law.  

In Unia’s 2022 socio-economic monitoring report, which highlights the stratification of the 
labour market according to the origin and the migratory history of people, both terms are 
defined as follows: 

- 

- 

the  term  ‘origin’  combines  the  nationality  of  the  person,  nationality  at  birth  of  the 
person and nationality at birth of the person’s parents; 
the  term  ‘migratory  history’  combines  the  nationality  of  the  person,  nationality  at 
birth  of  the  person,  nationality  at  birth  of  the  person’s  parents,  country  of  birth, 
country of birth of the person’s grandparents (only when the persons are of Belgian 
nationality, are born in Belgium from parents who were Belgian at the moment of the 
birth),  date  of  registering  at  the  National  Register  and  date  of  acquisition  of 
nationality.63 

No  reference  is  made  to  membership  of  a  national  minority  in  the  federal  anti-
discrimination legislation, although it would have been justified by reference to the list of 
prohibited grounds of discrimination in Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
In  practice,  due  to  the  very  specific  treatment  of  linguistic  minorities  in  Belgium,  the 
inclusion of ‘membership of a national minority’ in the anti-discrimination legislation would 
have  been  very  tricky  and  the  legislature  decided  to  avoid  these  difficulties  by  not 
mentioning it as such.  

Belgian case law does not interpret the terms ‘alleged race’ and ‘ethnic origin’ separately. 
Belgian courts do not draw a clear distinction between the two terms; sometimes they use 
both of them, and sometimes only one of them without any real consistency.64 Occasionally 
the  courts  just  refer  to  the  pertinent  legal  provisions  without  quoting  the  grounds 
themselves.65 There are no recognised ethnic minorities in Belgium, which would benefit 
by having a special legal status. Minority language could be recognised as a part of ethnicity 

62   See: www.unia.be/en. 
63   Unia (2022) Socio-Economic Monitoring – Labour Market and Origin, Unia & Federal Public Service on 

Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, Brussels, 2022, pp. 12-13, 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Monitoring_socio%C3%A9conomique_2022.pdf. 
64   See: Court of first instance (Correctionele rechtbank) of Antwerp, Judgment No. 2009/4737 of 22 October 
2009; Court of Appeal (Hof van Beroep) of Antwerp, Judgment No. 2009/1837 of 25 February 2009; Court 
of Appeal (Cour d’appel) of Mons, Judgment of 13 January 2010; Criminal Court (Tribunal 
correctionnel/Correctionele rechtbank) Dendermonde, Judgment No. F.D. 35.98.16/05 AF of 7 February 
2014; and Court of Appeal (Hof van Beroep) of Brussels, Judgment of 10 February 2015. www.unia.be/en. 

65   See Court of First Instance of Brussels (Criminal section) (Tribunal correctionnel de Bruxelles), 

Judgment No. BR 43.IN.101194/06 of 26 February 2014, www.unia.be/en. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

but discrimination on the grounds of language as such is dealt with separately in Belgian 
anti-discrimination  law  and  is  not  under  the  responsibility  of  Unia  because  of  the  tense 
relationships between the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking communities. In Belgium, 
the  use  of  French  or  Dutch  in  political  life,  but  also  in  art,  culture,  education,  etc.  is  of 
highly symbolic significance and can give rise to serious political tensions. 

A recurring question in the case law is whether incitement to hatred against Muslims can 
constitute  incitement  to  racial  hatred.  The  issue  is  to  know  whether  the  offence  thus 
constituted, when it is carried out by a form of media that can be qualified as ‘press’ in the 
constitutional sense of the term,66 falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of Assize (Cour 
d'assise)  (popular  jury)  (Article  150  of  the  Constitution)  or  of  the  ordinary  correctional 
courts  (see  below,  11.2.3).  The  answer  of  the  jurisprudence  to  this  question  is  not 
unanimous.67 

In  its  2016  and  2017  annual  reports,  Unia  focused  on  the  increase  of  racism  and 
discrimination related to the post-terrorist climate we are living in.68 It also pointed out the 
significant increase of hate speech on social media.69 Similar findings appear in the 2022 
report.70 

Racism remains a persistent issue in Belgium. According to Patrick Charlier (co-director of 
Unia), the fact that a quarter of the files that Unia opens relate to racially motivated cases 
illustrates the extent of the issue.71 According to Unia’s report for the year 2022, ‘Racial 
characteristics are at the top of the list prohibited behaviour’ in the field of hate crimes.72 

b) 

Religion or belief73 

Neither ‘religion’ nor ‘belief’ are defined in the anti-discrimination legislation. 

In 2017, Unia published a report concerning discrimination based on religious belief, linked 
to the consequences of the terrorist attacks. The report shows a rise in anxiety vis-a-vis 
the Muslim community in Belgium and more broadly people of North African origin.74 This 
situation  leads  to  more  discriminatory  behaviour  being  reported  to  Unia,  especially 
discrimination against Muslim women wearing the hijab.  In its 2018 annual report, Unia 
noted that ‘Current events relating to the ground of religion and belief have focused mainly 

66   According to the case law of the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation), radio and television cannot be 

considered as ‘press’ within the meaning of Articles 25 and 150 of the Constitution. 

67   See Court of First Instance of Brussels (Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles) 29 June 2021, published 
on www.unia.be (no assimilation between incitement to hatred against Muslims and incitement to racial 
hatred) and compare with Court of First Instance of Antwerp (Tribunal de première instance d’Anvers, 
Section Malines), 26 May 2021, published on www.unia.be (assimilation between incitement to hatred 
against Muslims and incitement to racial hatred). The latter judgment has however been quashed on appeal 
(Antwerp Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel d’Anvers), 9 February 2022, published on www.unia.be. 
68   Unia (2017) Annual report for 2016, p. 19 and Unia (2018), Annual report for 2017, pp. 58-59, both 

available on its website, www.unia.be/en. 

69   Unia (2018), Annual report for 2017, pp. 53-57, available on its website, www.unia.be/en. 
70   Unia (2023), Annual report for 2022. Discours et délits de haine, pp. 13-14, available on its website, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Discours_et_d%C3%A9lits_de_haine_(Unia_-
_Rapport_annuel_2022).pdf. 

71   RTBF (2020) ‘Interview with Patrick Charlier’, 22 June 2020, https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_25-8-
des-discriminations-sont-fondees-sur-des-criteres-raciaux-un-probleme-structurel-unia?id=10526971. 

72   Unia (2023), Annual report for 2022. Discours et délits de haine, pp. 18, available on its website, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Discours_et_d%C3%A9lits_de_haine_(Unia_-
_Rapport_annuel_2022).pdf. 

73   In addition to ‘religion’ and ‘beliefs’, Belgian law also covers ‘political opinion’ and ‘trade union belief’. 
According to the Court of Justice, these are conceptually distinct elements which do not overlap: ‘the 
protection against discrimination guaranteed in Directive 2000/78 covers only the grounds which are 
exhaustively listed in Article 1 thereof, so that that directive does not cover political or trade union belief; 
nor does it cover artistic, sporting, aesthetic or other beliefs or preferences’ (CJEU, 13 October 2022, 
S.C.R.L, C-344/20, pt. 28). However, it is questionable whether, given the broad definition of the concepts 
of ‘belief’ and ‘religion’ in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, on which the Court of Justice 
is based, there may not be intersections between, for example, philosophical beliefs and political opinions. 

74   Unia (2017), Mesures et climat: conséquences post-attentats, June 2017, www.unia.be/en. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

on  the  wearing  of  the  hijab’.75  In  its  2019  report,  Unia  stressed  that  most  of  the  cases 
related to discrimination based on religion concern Islam (86.3 %).76 The same trends can 
be observed in 2020,77 202178 and 2022.79 

c) 

Disability 

Disability is not defined in the anti-discrimination legislation.80 

Social  security  legislation  provides  for  benefits  for  persons  with  a  certain  degree  of 
disability, which has to be medically certified. In this context, disability is often defined by 
reference  to  an  official  recognition  by  a  competent  authority.81  For  instance,  Collective 
Agreement No. 99 of 20 February 2009 concerning the level of remuneration for workers 
with  disabilities  and  replacing  the  Collective  Agreement  No.  26  of  15 October 1975,82 
applies  to  workers  with  disabilities  recognised  by  a  proper  authority,  namely  a  regional 
agency in charge of the social and professional integration of persons with disabilities.83 

On disability, the explanatory memorandum84 accompanying the Cooperation Agreement 
of 19 July 2007, relating to the concept of reasonable accommodation,85 explains that: 

‘by  analogy  with  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act,  the  choice  has  been 
made  not  to  include  a  definition  [of  disability]  in  the  Protocol.  By  doing  so,  it  is 
intended  to  avoid  any  restrictive  interpretation  of  the  concept  of  disability  and  to 
make it possible for the definition of ‘person with disabilities’ to evolve. In any case, 
it  is  necessary  to  understand  the  notion  of  disability  as  any  lasting  and  important 
limitation  of  a  person’s  participation,  due  to  the  dynamic  interaction  between 
1) intellectual,  physical,  psychic  or  sensory  deficiencies;  2) limitations  during  the 
execution of activities and 3) personal and environmental contextual factors (…). Any 
person whose participation in the social or professional life is hindered or impeded, 
and not only the people recognised as being disabled by law, is to be regarded as a 
person with disabilities within the meaning of the present protocol.’ 

75   Unia (2019), Annual Report for 2018 (Reconnect with human rights), pp. 71-75, available on the website, 

www.Unia.be/en. 

76   Unia (2020) Annual statistics report 2019 (Contributing to a more equal society for all), available on its 

website, p.52, www.unia.be. 

77   Unia (2021), ‘Rapport Chiffres 2020’, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Jaarrapport/Rapport_chiffres_2020_Unia_FINAL_FR_DEF.pdf 
(pp. 61-64). 

78   Unia (2022), ‘Rapport Chiffres 2021’, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Rapport_chiffres_2021_Unia_FR_def.pdf, p. 64. 

79   See the statistics available in Unia (2023) Annual Report 2022, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Unia_comme_organisme_de_promotion_de_l%C3
%A9galit%C3%A9_(Unia_-_Rapport_annuel_2022).pdf.  

80   See Labour Court of Appeal of Brussels, Judgment of 23 May 2022, available on: 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2022_05__23__Cour_Trav._Bruxelles.pdf. 

81   Similarly, but outside the field of employment, the Ordinance of the Brussels-Capital Region of 18 December 
2008 relating to the admittance of guide dogs to public places defines a person with disabilities as ‘any 
person whose disability is recognised by an authority competent to this end’ (last modified on 25 April 2012, 
OJ (Moniteur belge), 5 May 2012). 

82   Collective Agreement No. 99 of February 2009 (Convention collective de travail n° 99 du 20 février 2009, 
conclue au sein du Conseil national du Travail, concernant le niveau de rémunération des travailleurs 
handicapés et remplaçant la convention collective de travail n° 26 du 15 octobre 1975 concernant le niveau 
de rémunération des travailleurs handicapés occupés dans un emploi normal), made compulsory by the 
Royal Decree of 28 June 2009, OJ (Moniteur belge), 13 July 2009. 

83   These are: Agence wallonne pour l'intégration des personnes handicapées - AWIPH, Service bruxellois 
francophone des personnes handicapées, Vlaams Agentschap voor Personen met een Handicap - VAPH 
and/or Vlaamse Dienst voor Arbeidsbemiddeling en Beroepsopleiding, Dienststelle für Personen mit 
Behinderung. 

84   The memorandum is a commentary that is not binding but that the courts are likely to consider as a source 

of reference when interpreting anti-discrimination concepts. 

85   Cooperation Agreement of 19 July 2007 (Protocole du 19 juillet 2007 entre l'État fédéral, la Communauté 
flamande, la Communauté française, la Communauté germanophone, la Région wallonne, la Région de 
Bruxelles-Capitale, la Commission communautaire commune, la Commission communautaire française en 
faveur des personnes en situation de handicap), OJ (Moniteur belge), 20 September 2007. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

By defining disability by reference to the person’s environment rather than his/her physical 
or intellectual characteristics, this commentary seems in line with the definition provided 
by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Ring and Skouboe Werge86 as well 
as with Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has 
been ratified by Belgium.87 This line of reasoning has been followed by the Federal Action 
Plan  on  Disability  (2021-2024),88  the  case  law89  and  by  the  Constitution  itself.  The  new 
Article  22ter  of  the  Constitution  (March  2021)  does  not  refer  to  ‘disability’  or  ‘disabled 
persons’ but to ‘personnes en situation de handicap’ (person with a disability, persoon met 
een handicap). The idea is to refer to the guidance on the concept of disability provided by 
the UN CRPD, and to put an end to the ‘medical’ conception of ‘disability’. 

Concerning the definition of disability in general, it should be borne in mind that the anti-
discrimination  legislation  also  covers  state  of  health  and  physical  and  genetic  features. 
Thus, distinctions in treatment based on (among other things) disability have been deemed 
to constitute distinctions in treatment related to obesity,90 diabetes,91 the consequences of 
cancer,92 and the consequences of a burn-out.93  

d) 

Age 

Age is not defined in the anti-discrimination legislation.  

Although Unia’s different reports emphasise that it is mostly older people who fall victim 
to age discrimination, all ages can be and are affected.94 

e) 

Sexual orientation 

Sexual orientation is not defined in the anti-discrimination legislation or in case law.  

The previous interfederal plan on the fight against homophobic and transphobic violence 
stressed, in 2013, that sexual orientation is not a choice: ‘Sexual orientation is defined on 
the basis of the gender of individuals for whom an individual has attraction and affection, 
whether physical or emotional’. 

The last federal plan on the matter – ‘For an LGBTQI+ friendly Belgium’ – was adopted in 
2022. According to the Lexique provided by this plan, LGBTQI+ is ‘an acronym for Lesbian, 
Gay,  Bisexual,  Transgender,  Queer,  Intersex.  The  ‘+’  refers  to  all  the  identities, 
orientations, expressions not represented by the acronym, in short, to all other realities’.95 

86   CJEU, Judgment of 11 April 2013, HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge), joined cases C-335/11 and 

C-337/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:222. 

87   See, among others, Labour Court of Appeal of Liège, 3 May 2022, https://www.unia.be/fr/jurisprudence-

alternatives/jurisprudence/cour-du-travail-bruxelles-neerlandophone-3-mai-2022. 
88   See: https://handicap.belgium.be/docs/fr/plan-federal-handicap-2021-2024.pdf, p. 5. 
89   See, very explicitly, Labour Court of Appeal of Brussels, Judgment of 23 May 2022, available on: 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2022_05__23__Cour_Trav._Bruxelles.pdf. 

90   Judgment of 20 June 2016, Labour Court of Liège, www.unia.be/en. 
91   Judgment of 6 October 2017 of the Labour Appeal Court of Antwerp (in Dutch), 

www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/Arbeidshof_Antwerpen_16_oktober_2017.pdf. 

92   Judgment of 20 February 2018 of the Labour Appeal Court of Brussels (in Dutch), 

www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/Arbeidshof_Brussel_20_februari_2018.pdf. 

93   Judgment of 24 April 2023, Labour Court of Antwerp (in Dutch), 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2023_04_24_Arbsrb._Antwerpen.pdf. Compare with 
Judgment of 18 April 2023 of the Labour Appeal Court of Brussels (‘burn-out’ concerns ‘state of health’) 
(available on https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2023_04_18__Cour_Bruxelles.pdf)  
94   See e.g. Council of State, No.254.911, Judgment of 27 October 2022, Skeyes. The Council of State ruled 

that the age limit of 25 years applied by Skeyes for selection competitions for aspiring air traffic controllers 
was not objectively justified. 

95   See: https://sarahschlitz.be/wp-content/uploads/sites/300/2022/05/Pour-une-Belgique-LGBTQI-

frienldy.pdf. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

The plan does not provide for a definition of ‘sexual orientation’ as such (although it does 
provide definitions for other terms, such as intersex people96 and homosexual people97).98 

2.2  Multiple and intersectional discrimination 

In Belgium, multiple and intersectional discrimination are now expressly prohibited by law 
at the federal level. This express prohibition is one of the results of the reform of federal 
laws introduced by the Act of 28 June 2023. It follows on from one of the recommendations 
of the final report of the  expert commission in charge of evaluating the 2007 legislation 
(2022).99  

The Racial Equality Federal Act (Article 4-9°/1 and Article 4-9°/2) and The General Anti-
Discrimination  Federal  Act  (Article  4-9°/1  and  Article  4-9°/2)  now  distinguish  two  new 
concepts, which they define in identical terms: 

- 

- 

cumulative  discrimination  (discrimination  cumulée):  a  situation  that  arises  when  a 
person is discriminated against as a result of a distinction based on several protected 
criteria that add up, but can be separated 
intersectional discrimination: a situation in which a person is discriminated against 
because  of  a  distinction  based  on  several  protected  criteria  which  interact  and 
become inseparable  

Cumulation or intersection can occur between  grounds that are each covered by distinct 
federal legislation (Racial Equality Federal Act, General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act or 
Federal Act pertaining to fighting discrimination between women and men): for instance, 
gender and religion or disability and alleged race. 

The  system  of  sanctions  (damages)  has  also  been  adapted  to  reflect  the  additional 
dimension of gravity of this kind of discrimination : the court hearing the case may decide 
to  cumulate  the  lump-sum  damages  (see,  for  example,  Article  18(2)  3°  and  4°  of  the 
General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act). 

The Criminal Code had already been adapted in 2022 to provide expressly that the system 
of aggravated punishment for motives based on discrimination (the ‘abject motives’), will 
be applicable to motives based on more than one motive of discrimination.100 

96   The definition provided by the Plan for the concept of ‘intersex people’ reads as follows: ‘Intersex people are 
individuals born with sexual characteristics (such as chromosomes, genitalia, or hormonal structure) that do 
not fully correspond to the categories of male or female, or corresponding to both at the same time.’ 

97   The definition provided by the Plan for the concept of ‘homosexual people’ reads as follows: ‘person who is 
romantically and/or sexually attracted to a person of the same gender. Homosexual men are often defined 
as “gay”, homosexual women are often defined as “lesbian”. There are as many ways to live one’s 
homosexuality as there are homosexuals’. 

98   Belgian Government (2018) Inter-federal plan to fight against discrimination and violence towards people 
based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or intersex condition, May 2018, 
available on the website of the Federal Government: 
fedweb.belgium.be/sites/default/files/Plan_d_action_LGBTI_2018-2019_FR.pdf. 

99   See Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport 

final. Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité 
partagée, p. 83. See, formerly, Unia (2016), Evaluation of the Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (Federal Act 
of 10 May 2007 amending the Act of 30 July 1981 criminalising certain acts inspired by racism or 
xenophobia and Federal Act of 10 May 2007 pertaining to fight certain forms of discrimination), February 
2016, pp. 8 and 62, www.unia.be/en. This statement was repeated in the evaluation report published in 
February 2017, p. 68. 

100  See the new Article 78ter of the Criminal Code, introduced by a law of 6 December 2022 (Moniteur Belge, 

21 December 2022): ‘(…). An offence is deemed to have been committed with a discriminatory motive when 
one of the perpetrator’s motives is hatred, contempt or hostility towards a person because of his or her 
alleged race, (…), whether such characteristic is actually present or merely assumed by the perpetrator. The 
same applies when one of the perpetrator’s motives consists of a link or a supposed link between the victim 
and a person towards whom the perpetrator harbours hatred, contempt or hostility for one or more of the 
real or supposed characteristics listed in paragraph 2.’ 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

At the regional level, most of the communities/regions have made the choice of adopting 
a framework equality decree including all the prohibited criteria. According to the French 
Community and the Flemish Community/Region,101 this type of legislative framework was 
chosen, to a certain extent, because it is better suited to tackling multiple discrimination. 
The  Ordinance  amending  the  Brussels  Housing  Code  to  strengthen  the  fight  against 
discrimination in access to housing, adopted on 21 December 2018,102 explicitly mentions 
that discrimination may be based on several protected grounds (Article 205 of the Housing 
Code). The same applies to the Walloon ET Decree, as modified in 2019 (Articles 4, 7 and 
9).  

Even  before  the  reform  of  the  federal  legislation  in  2023,  examples  of  multiple 
discrimination were already being reflected in Belgian case law: e.g. double discrimination 
based on sex and age103 and discrimination based on disability and sex.104  

The latter case was a very good sign of collaboration between Unia and the Institute for 
Equality between Women and Men. The fact that there are several distinct equality bodies 
(in  federal  matters,  the  Federal  Institute  for  Equality  of  Women  and  Men,  dealing  with 
gender, and Unia, dealing with all the other protected grounds (apart from language)), is 
usually viewed to be the major obstacle  in tackling situations of multiple discrimination. 
On 20 March 2019, Unia and the Institute for Equality between Women and Men signed a 
cooperation protocol to formalise a cooperation that has existed for years and to stimulate 
‘increased and valued exchanges’.105  

In a landmark judgment from 3 May 2021,106 the President of the Brussels Labour Court 
found that the refusal of the STIB (Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles) 
to hire a woman wearing a headscarf  who had the necessary technical skills for internal 
administrative functions, and which was repeated on two occasions, constituted both direct 
discrimination on the basis of her religious beliefs, prohibited by the Brussels Ordinance of 
4  September  2008  to  promote  diversity  and  combat  discrimination  in  the  civil  service 
(BRSCO) and indirect discrimination  on the basis of her gender, prohibited by the  same 
Ordinance. 

In its decision, the Brussels court left unanswered the question of whether the situation 
complained  of  was  ‘intersectional  discrimination’  combining  religion  and  gender  and 
therefore refrained from going into further detail about the applicable regime. On the other 
hand, it did find the existence of cumulative discrimination based on religion on the one 
hand and gender on the other. The particularity of the decision is that it refused to cumulate 
the  lump-sum  compensation  which,  in  principle,  is  due  for  each  of  these  forms  of 
discrimination  considered  separately,  and  to  have  departed  on  this  point,  in  an  express 
manner, from a judgment of the Labour Court of Liège of 11 August 2017,107 which had 
admitted  such  a  cumulation  in  the  context  of  discrimination  based  on  gender  and  age. 
According to the judgment of 3 May 2021, if the victim intended to obtain more substantial 
compensation, because of the double discrimination suffered, it was up to her to act on the 
basis of the ordinary law of extra-contractual liability, within the framework of an ordinary 
procedure. One must note that, contrary to the situation that led to the judgment in the 
case  related  to  disability  and  sex  (mentioned  above),  the  procedure  that  led  to  the 

101  See the Draft Framework Decree on Equal Opportunities, Flemish Parliament 2007-2008, Doc. 1578/1, 

p. 165. See, more in detail, Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal 
Acts (2022), Rapport final. Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une 
responsabilité partagée, p. 83. 

102  OJ (Moniteur belge), 31 January 2019. 
103  Judgment of 11 August 2017, Labour Court of Liège, R.G. 16/294/A.  
104  Judgment of 29 September 2020, Labour Court of Antwerp, A.R. 19/3232/A, in Dutch: 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2020_09_29_Arbrb._Antwerpen.pdf. 

105  Memorandum of understanding between the Institute for Equality between Women and Men and Unia 
(2019) https://www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-statistiques/publications/protocole-daccord-relatif-a-la-
collaboration-entre-linstitut-pour-legalite.  

106  Brussels Labour Court (Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles), 3 May 2021, published on www.unia.be. 
107  Judgment of 11 August 2017, Labour Court of Liège, R.G. 16/294/A 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

judgment of 3 May 2021 was initiated by Unia (among others), but not by the Institute for 
Equality between Women and Men. 

As we can see, a legislative clarification was highly desirable. It has now been achieved, 
at least at federal level. 

2.3  Assumed and associated discrimination 

a)  Discrimination by assumption 

In  Belgium,  discrimination  based  on  a  perception  or  assumption  of  a  person’s 
characteristics is prohibited in national law. 

Originally, discrimination based on assumed characteristics was not expressly forbidden in 
the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  in  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act. 
However, the preparatory works (travaux préparatoires) of 2007 clearly specify that these 
Acts apply to such discrimination.108  

The Racial Equality Federal Act (Article 4(4)) and The General Anti-Discrimination Federal 
Act  (Article  4(4))  have  now  been  amended,  by  the  Law  of  28  June  2023,  to  prohibit 
explicitly discrimination by assumption. According to the newly formulated provisions, the 
protected ground ‘may be real or assumed, assigned directly or by association (…)’. This 
explicit reference to ‘discrimination by assumption’, for the sake of legal certainty, was one 
of  the  recommendations  of  the  2022  final  report  of  the  expert  commission  in  charge  of 
evaluating the 2007 legislation.109  

At  the  regional  level,  discrimination  based  on  assumed  characteristics  is  not  always 
expressly forbidden in the text of the regional decrees but the prohibition clearly  follows 
from  the  preparatory  works.  However,  in  the  Flemish  Framework  ET  Decree,110  the 
definition  of  direct  discrimination  specifically  states  that  it  is  applicable  in  cases  of 
discrimination based on an assumed characteristic (Article 16).  

b)  Discrimination by association 

In Belgium, discrimination based on association with persons with particular characteristics 
is prohibited in national law. 

Originally, discrimination based on association with persons with particular characteristics 
was  not  expressly  forbidden  in  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  in  the  General  Anti-
Discrimination  Federal  Act.  However,  during 
the  preparatory  works  (travaux 
préparatoires),  it  was  stressed  that  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  was 
considering a reference for preliminary ruling in the Coleman case111 and that the federal 
legislation would be construed in accordance with the CJEU ruling.  Belgian case law had 
already showed examples of this line of reasoning.112 

The Racial Equality Federal Act (Article 4(4)) and the General Anti-Discrimination Federal 
Act (Article 4(4)) have now been amended, by the Act of 28 June 2023, to prohibit explicitly 
discrimination by association. According to the newly formulated provisions, the protected 
ground  ‘may  be  real  or  assumed,  assigned  directly  or  by  association  (…)’.  This  explicit 

108  Report Libert, Doc. Parl. Chambre 2006-2007, No. 2720/009, pp. 41-42.  
109  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
85. 

110  Framework Decree for the Flemish equal opportunities and equal treatment policy (Decreet houdende een 

kader voor het Vlaamse gelijkekansen en gelijkebehandelingsbeleid) of 10 July 2008. 

111  CJEU, Judgment of 17 July 2008, Coleman, C-303/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:415. 
112  Judgment No. 12/1064/A of 10 December 2013 (Jan V.H. v. BVBA V.) of the Labour Court of Leuven, 

available on the website of the Centre, www.unia.be/en. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

reference to ‘discrimination by association’, for the sake of legal certainty, was one of the 
recommendations of the final report of the expert commission in charge of evaluating the 
2007 legislation.113 

In  the  Flemish  Framework  ET  Decree,114  the  definition  of  direct  discrimination  expressly 
states that it is applicable in cases of discrimination by association (Article 16). It is the 
same in the Brussels-Capital Region with respect to housing. The Ordinance amending the 
Brussels Housing Code to strengthen the fight against discrimination in access to housing, 
adopted on 21 December 2018,115 explicitly mentions discrimination by association (Article 
205  of  the  Housing  Code).  The  Walloon  ET  Decree  also  states  that  direct  and  indirect 
discrimination are applicable in cases of discrimination by association (Article 4(1)(6) and 
(7)).  In  other  federated  legislation,  the  inclusion  of  ‘discrimination  by  association’  is 
implicit, but is explicitly mentioned in the preparatory works. 

2.4  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination 

In Belgium, direct discrimination is prohibited in national law. It is defined.  

The  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act  define 
direct  discrimination  as  any  ‘direct  distinction’  (described  as  ‘the  situation  which  occurs 
whenever,  on  the  basis  of  one  or  more  protected  ground,  a  person  is  treated  less 
favourably than another is treated, has been treated, or would be treated in a comparable 
situation’),116 which cannot be justified under one of the exceptions provided for under the 
act.117 As explained just below (2.4.b), these exceptions in turn are restrictively defined in 
order to ensure that those legislative texts are in compliance with the requirements of the 
directives. 

All the pieces of regional anti-discrimination legislation now define direct discrimination in 
line  with  EU  requirements.118  However,  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  definition  of  direct 
discrimination in the Flemish Decree of 10 July 2008 (Article 16(1)) and the Decree of the 
German  Community  of  19  March  2012  (Article  5(4))  and  the  Ordinance  of  the  Joint 
Community Commission of 30 June 2022 (Article 7), as currently worded, could be formally 
read as allowing for derogations to direct discrimination, which is not possible under the 
directives. 

b) 

Justification for direct discrimination 

The Racial Equality Federal Act prohibits discrimination on grounds of alleged race, colour, 
descent,  national  or  ethnic  origin,  and  nationality.  A  distinction  is  made  between 
1) differences in treatment based on alleged race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, 
and 2) differences in treatment based on nationality. 

113  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, pp. 
85-86. 

114  Framework Decree for the Flemish equal opportunities and equal treatment policy (Decreet houdende een 

kader voor het Vlaamse gelijkekansen en gelijkebehandelingsbeleid) of 10 July 2008. 

115  OJ (Moniteur belge), 31 January 2019. 
116  To the knowledge of the author of the report, the use of the term ‘a person’ has not been interpreted as 

excluding groups of persons from protection. 

117  Belgium, General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act, Article 4(6) and (7) and Article 14; Racial Equality Federal 

Act, Article 4(6) and Article 12. 

118  Even if direct discrimination is correctly defined by the Flemish Framework ET Decree as taking place when 
‘someone is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable 
situation’, it is worth mentioning that there is an error in the French translation of the decree published in 
the OJ (Moniteur belge) where it is stated that direct discrimination occurs when ‘someone is treated less 
favourably than another person in a comparable situation’. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

- 

- 

Discrimination based on nationality may be justified as a means both appropriate and 
necessary  for  the  fulfilment  of  legitimate  objectives  (Article  7(2)(1)),  unless  this 
would  be  in  violation  of  the  prohibition  of  discrimination  on  grounds  of  nationality 
under EU law (Article 7(2)(2)); 
By contrast, differences in treatment based on alleged race, colour, descent, national 
or ethnic origin, are in principle absolutely prohibited (i.e. such differences may not 
be justified) (Article 7(1)), with three exceptions: 

• 

• 

• 

in  the  field  of  employment  and  occupation,  where  such  characteristics 
constitute a genuine occupational requirement (Article 8) (see below, 4.1);  
where  the  difference  in  treatment  is  part  of  a  positive  action  measure 
(Article 10) (See below, 5); 
where  the  difference  in  treatment  is  imposed  by,  or  by  virtue  of,  other 
legislation (Article 11, known as the ‘safeguard provision’).  

The  third  exception  is  justified,  according  to  the  Government,  by  the  need  to  avoid  the 
challenge of legal provisions on the basis of the Racial Equality Federal Act. It provides that 
the Racial Equality Federal Act does not, per se, apply to differences in treatment enshrined 
in  any  other  piece  of  legislation.  Needless  to  say  that  any  legal  provision  allowing  a 
difference of treatment based on alleged race, colour,  descent, national or ethnic origin, 
may be challenged on the basis of Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, or under European 
and international law. 

In the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act, differences in treatment based on one of 
the  listed  grounds  (age,  sexual  orientation,  civil  status,  birth,  property  (‘fortune’,  in 
French), religious or philosophical belief, state of health,119 disability, physical or genetic 
features, political opinion, trade union opinion, language, and social origin or condition120) 
are prohibited unless they are justified as means both appropriate and necessary to realise 
a legitimate objective (Article 7).  

However, Article 8 of the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act adds that, in the field of 
employment and occupation, and concerning the grounds listed in Directive 2000/78/EC 
(apart  from  age  where  additional  justifications  are  allowed),  only  genuine  occupational 
requirements may justify differences in treatment directly based on these grounds, unless 
the difference in treatment is justified as a form of positive action (Article 10) (see below, 
5),  or  –  as  in  the  ‘safeguard  provision’  in  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  –  unless  it  is 
imposed or authorised by another law (Article 11). Finally, Article 13 provides that in the 
case of occupational activities within public or private organisations the ethos of which is 
based on religion or belief (churches are not explicitly mentioned, but must be considered 
included), a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief will not constitute 
discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or the context in which 
they  are  carried  out,  a  person’s  religion  or  belief  constitutes  a  genuine,  legitimate  and 
justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation’s ethos (in line with 
Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC) (see below, 4.2). 

The  Act  of  28  June  2023,  reforming  the  federal  law,  provides,  in  cases  of  ‘cumulative 
discrimination’ or ‘intersectional discrimination’ (see 2.2 above), for the application of the 
system of justification that is most favourable to the victim, i.e. the most severe. 

All  the  regional  anti-discrimination  legislation  includes  a  justification  system  regarding 
direct discrimination that, in spirit, takes into account EU requirements. However, as it is 
currently  worded,  the  Flemish  Framework  ET  Decree  (Article  16(1)),  the  German 
Community ET Decree (Article 5(4)) and the Ordinance of the Joint Community Commission 

119  The former version of the Law mentioned ‘actual or future’ ‘state of health’. The Law of 20 July 2022 

(Moniteur belge, 17 October 2022) has suppressed the reference to ‘actual or future’. 

120  The former version of the Law mentioned ‘social origin’. The Act of 28 June 2023 (Moniteur belge, 26 July 

2023) added the term ‘condition’. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

of 30 June 2022 (Article 7),  could be formally  read as allowing for  justification to direct 
discrimination,  which  is  not  possible  under  the  provisions  of  the  directives.  An 
interpretation consistent with the EU directives is thus needed. 

2.5  Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination 

In Belgium, indirect discrimination is prohibited in national law.121 It is defined.  

The Racial Equality Federal Act (Article 4(9)) and the General Anti-Discrimination Federal 
Act (Article 4(9)) define indirect discrimination as an ‘indirect distinction’ on the basis of 
one  of  the  protected  grounds,  which  cannot  be  justified  under  Article  9  of  the  Racial 
Equality  Federal  Act  or  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act  (see  section  2.5.b 
below). Article 4(8) of both acts in turn defines ‘indirect distinction’ as the situation that 
occurs whenever an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice, may result in (‘est 
susceptible d’entraîner’), compared to other persons, a particular disadvantage for persons 
characterised by one or more protected grounds. The definition of indirect discrimination 
has  thus  been  aligned  with  that  of  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  and  of  the  Employment 
Equality Directive, which it seeks to implement, although by the detour of the strange (and 
perhaps antonymous) notion of ‘indirect distinction’. The Racial Equality Federal Act also 
decriminalises certain offences linked to indirect discrimination on grounds of alleged race, 
colour,  descent,  national  or  ethnic  origin,  and  nationality,  among  others,  because  the 
criminalisation of indirect discrimination was considered to be problematic as regards the 
requirement of legal certainty in criminal law.  

All the regional anti-discrimination legislation defines indirect discrimination in line with the 
EU requirements. 

Unia  stresses  that  the  concept  of  indirect  discrimination  is  still  not  very  well  known  in 
Belgium and that the question of intent remains an issue in some cases in practice (there 
is a confusion between disguised direct discrimination and indirect discrimination).122 This 
is also underlined in the 2017 Report of the Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 
2007  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Acts.123  A  significant  example  of  this  problematic 
understanding  of  the  notion  of  indirect  discrimination  is  provided  by  the  aftermath  in 
Belgium of the Achbita ruling (see below, 4.2). 

b) 

Justification test for indirect discrimination 

Article 9 of the Racial Equality Federal Act and Article 9 of the General Anti-Discrimination 
Federal Act provide that such apparently neutral measures may only be justified if they are 
objectively justified by a legitimate objective that they seek to fulfil by means which are 
both appropriate and necessary. 

The General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act (Article 9(2)) adds that, as regards apparently 
neutral measures resulting in a particular disadvantage for persons with disabilities, they 
may  be  justified  by  the  fact  that  no  reasonable  accommodation  can  be  adopted. 
Incidentally,  this  demonstrates  that  discrimination  resulting  from  the  failure  to  provide 
‘reasonable accommodation’ is considered as indirect discrimination, rather than as direct 
discrimination, although Article 14 of the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act lists the 
indirect 
denial  of  reasonable  accommodation,  along  with  direct  discrimination, 
discrimination, the instruction to discriminate and harassment as a form of discrimination.  

121  Racial Equality Federal Act, Article 12 and General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act, Article 14. 
122  E. Bribosia and I. Rorive, Interview with Patrick Charlier, co-director of Unia, 3 March 2021. 
123  Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 
Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, para. 66, available at: https://www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-
statistiques/publications/valuation-de-la-loi-antiracisme-et-de-la-legislation-antidiscrimination-2017. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

In addition, ‘indirect distinctions’ (i.e. apparently neutral measures which may result in a 
particular disadvantage for persons characterised by one or more protected grounds) may 
be justified: 

- 

- 

by  the  need  to  adopt  positive  action  measures  (Article  10  of  the  Racial  Equality 
Federal Act and the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act); 
or  by  the  fact  that  the  adoption  of  such  measures  is  imposed  by,  or  by  virtue  of, 
other  legislation  (these  are  the  ‘safeguard  provisions’  referred  to  earlier,  found  in 
Article  11  of  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  the  General  Anti-Discrimination 
Federal Act). 

The  reform  of  the  Federal  Act  of  28  June  2023  provides,  in  cases  of  ‘cumulative 
discrimination’ or ‘intersectional discrimination’ (see 2.2, above), for the application of the 
system of justification that is most favourable to the victim, i.e. the most severe. 

The justification systems inserted in the regional anti-discrimination legislation are similar 
to that of federal legislation. 

2.5.1  Statistical evidence 

a) 

Legal framework 

In Belgium, there is legislation regulating the collection of personal data. 

Data relating to race or ethnic origin, religion, disability (health) or sexual orientation are 
regarded as sensitive data on basis of the legislation implementing the GDPR in Belgium. 
According to Article 34 of the federal Act of 30 July 2018 on the protection of individuals 
with regard to the processing of personal data,  

‘The processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, 
religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade-union membership, and the processing of 
genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, 
data  concerning  health  or  data  concerning  the  sex  life  or  sexual  orientation  of  a 
natural person, shall be authorised only where absolutely necessary and subject to 
appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subject, and only in 
one of the following cases: 
1.  when the processing is authorised by law, decree, ordinance, European Union law 

or international agreement; 

2.  when  the  processing  is  necessary  for  the  defence  of  the  vital  interests  of  the 

person concerned or of another natural person; 

3.  where the processing relates to data which is manifestly made public by the person 

concerned. 

In  line  with  Article  9(3)  of  the  GDPR,  the  federal  act  listed  those  bodies  authorised  to 
process sensitive personal data, which includes the relevant public authorities, the secret 
services (including the OCAM, the counterterrorism unit) and the armed forces.  

However,  the  collection  of  statistics  is  made  more  difficult  by  the  existence  of  Article 
24quinquies of the Federal Law of 4 July 1962 relating to public statistics. This provision 
states that ‘under no circumstances may the statistical investigations and studies of the 
National Statistical Institute concern sexual life, political, philosophical or religious opinions 
or activities, race or ethnic origin.’ 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

The  report,  Improving  equality  data  protection  in  Belgium  (2021),124  underlines  the 
inconsistency of Article 24quinquies with the current state of data protection law and what 
is necessary in order to effectively fight against discrimination.125 According to the report 

‘It should be possible to open a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of 
Article 24 quinquies, as well as the room for manoeuvre it offers. This discussion will 
help to provide better information on what is and isn’t permitted, thereby clarifying 
the scope of the article, as well its relationship with Article 9 of the GDPR. This would 
prevent certain types of studies on inequality or discrimination are not carried out for 
fear of not complying with this article’.  

In Belgium, statistical evidence may be admitted under national law in order to establish 
indirect discrimination. It could also be relied upon to establish direct discrimination. 

The Racial Equality Federal Act (Article 30(3)) and the General Anti-Discrimination Federal 
Act (Article 28(3)) provide that, in civil cases,  

‘among  the  facts  from  which  it  may  be  presumed  that  there  has  been  indirect 
discrimination  (…)  are  included,  although  not  exclusively,  1.  general  statistics 
concerning the situation of the group to which the victim of discrimination belongs or 
facts  of  general  knowledge;  or  2.  the  use  of  an  intrinsically  suspect  criterion  of 
distinction; or 3. elementary statistics which reveal adverse treatment.’ 

Legislative preparatory works are of no great help. ‘General statistics’ are said to be those 
gathered at the macro-economic level (national or regional) and the Court of Justice of the 
European Union has made reference to their use in gender discrimination.126 According to 
the  preparatory  works,  the  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof  could  also  come  from  ‘specific 
statistics’ related to the group to which the victim belongs (for instance, at the level of the 
company). ‘Elementary statistics’ are statistics that do not provide conclusive evidence of 
the disproportionate impact of a neutral provision, criterion or practice but which lead to a 
presumption of disproportionate impact.127 

In  its  2009  rulings  concerning  several  actions  in  annulments  against  the  Federal  Anti-
Discrimination Acts, the Constitutional Court stressed that the facts leading to the reversal 
of the burden of proof cannot be of general character but must be attributed specifically to 
the  author  of  the  distinction.  Consequently,  the  Court  stated  that  it  is  not  enough  to 
establish through statistics that a neutral criterion disadvantages persons characterised by 
a protected ground of discrimination. According to the Court, it must also be shown that 
the  defending  party  was  aware  of  that  situation.128  In  the  opinion  of  the  author  of  this 
report,  that  statement  of  the  Court  is  in  complete  breach  of  EU  law  and  in  complete 
contradiction of the intention of the Belgian legislature.  

The anti-discrimination legislation adopted by the Flemish Community/Region, the French 
Community,  the  German-speaking  Community,  the  Walloon  Region  and  the  Brussels-
Capital  Region  have  all  been  harmonised  with  the  federal  acts  regarding  the  express 
reference to statistical evidence to establish indirect discrimination. Although statistics as 
such are not mentioned explicitly in the Decree of the Cocof on equal treatment between 

124  This report is the result of a Belgian project cofunded by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship (REC) 

programme of the Directorate-General for Justice of the European Commission. It was realised thanks to a 
partnership between Unia and the Equal Opportunities Team of the Federal Public Service for Justice. See, 
for the final report, Unia (2021) Improving equality data collection in Belgium, 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Rapport_IEDCB-FR-1106.pdf.  

125  Unia (2021) Improving equality data collection in Belgium, p. 25 
126  For instance, CJEU, judgment of 6 February 1996, Lewark, Case C-457/93, ECLI:EU:C:1996:33, paragraphs 

29-30. 

127  Report Libert, Doc. Parl. Chambre 2006-2007, No. 51-2720/0009, pp. 80-81. 
128  Constitutional Court (Cour constitutionnelle), Decision of 12 February 2009, No. 17/2009, para. B.93.3; 
Decision of 11 March 2009, No. 39/2009, para. B.52; Decision of 2 April 2009, No. 40/2009, para. B.97. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

persons  in  vocational  training  of  22  March  2007,  the  Cocof  ET  Decree,  the  Brussels  ET 
Employment Ordinance and the Brussels Local Civil Service ET  Ordinance, it  seems that 
this mode of proving discrimination is allowed under the provisions providing for shifting 
the  burden  of  proof  in  civil  cases.  In  any  case,  statistical  evidence  follows  the  general 
admissibility conditions of such evidence in court. 

b) 

Practice 

In  Belgium,  statistical  evidence  is  not  used  in  practice  in  order  to  establish  indirect 
discrimination. 

To the knowledge of the author of this report with respect to the grounds of discrimination 
listed in the Racial Equality and Employment Equality Directives, statistical data have not 
so far been invoked in the context of judicial proceedings and have not been used to design 
positive action measures. This is to be explained, at least partly, by the fact that the data 
which  should  be  relied  upon  are  not  available,  due  to  the  ambiguity  of  the  legislative 
framework underlined above.  

On  this  point,  the  UN  Committee  on  the  Elimination  of  Racial  Discrimination,  in  its 
Concluding observations on the combined twentieth to twenty-second periodic reports of 
Belgium (May 2021),129 made the following statement and recommendation: 

‘5. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the State party on the 
issue  of  data  collection  but  is  concerned  about  the  national  legislation  on  the 
collection of personal data that reveal a person’s race or ethnic origin, which leads 
to a lack of comprehensive disaggregated data and makes it difficult to assess the 
extent to which the State party is fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. It 
regrets  that  the  State  party  has  not  developed  sufficiently  appropriate  and 
accurate criteria to be able to produce reliable statistics on the ethnic composition 
of its population (art. 1). 

6.  Recalling  the  importance  of  data  for  identifying  and  effectively  combating  racial 
discrimination, the Committee takes note of the plans that are set to be carried 
out in 2021 and recommends that the State party endeavour to develop tools that 
will allow it to have an overall view of the composition of its population. In this 
regard,  the  State  party  should  provide  details  of  any  information  on  descent  or 
national  or  ethnic  origin  derived  from  social  surveys  and  on  first  languages, 
languages  commonly  spoken  or  any  other  indicators  of  ethnic  diversity.  The 
information  should  be  backed  up  by  figures  and  should  provide  a  qualitative 
description  of  the  ethnic  characteristics  of  the  population  obtained  voluntarily, 
anonymously and on the basis of self-identification’. 

The need for data was further highlighted by Unia in  its report, Improving equality data 
collection  in  Belgium.130  Today,  the  Unia  website  includes  a  data  hub  with  data  on 
‘(In)equality  and  discrimination  in  Belgium’,131  which  is  freely  accessible.  This  inventory 
was compiled thanks to input from civil society organisations and public institutions, and 
through proactive research by Unia. 

129  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2021) Concluding observations on the combined 

twentieth to twenty-second periodic reports of Belgium, May 2021, CERD/C/BEL/CO/20-22. 

130  Unia (2021) Improving equality collection data in Belgium. 
131  See: https://www.equalitydata.unia.be. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

2.6  Harassment (Article 2(3)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of harassment 

In Belgium, harassment is prohibited in national law. It is defined.  

In  the  Federal  Act  of  4  August  1996  on  the  welfare  of  workers  while  carrying  out  their 
work,132 ‘moral harassment at work’ is defined as  

‘several  unwanted  conducts,  of  the  same  kind  or  not,  external  or  internal  to  the 
company or the institution, which last over a certain period of time, with the purpose 
or the effect of violating the personality, the dignity or the physical or psychological 
integrity of a worker (…), during the time of work, of putting in jeopardy his/her work 
or  of  creating  an  intimidating,  hostile,  degrading,  humiliating  or  offensive 
environment and which manifest themselves notably through words, intimidations, 
acts, gestures or unilateral writings.’  

This provision applies to the relationships, during working time, between employers and 
workers,133 including trainees and students carrying out an internship, but not to domestic 
workers (housekeepers) and volunteers.134 

Such  behaviour  could  be  linked  to  religion  or  beliefs,  disability,  age,  sexual  orientation, 
sex, race or ethnic origin. 

Article  442bis  of  the  Criminal  Code  introduced  by  the  Federal  Act  of  30  October  1998, 
already criminalised harassment in general: 

‘anyone who has harassed another when he/she knew, or should have known, that 
he/she  would  seriously  affect  the  peace  of  mind  of  the  person  concerned  by  this 
behaviour.’ 

This provision has a general scope of application. 

Since the  entry into  force  of the Act of 22 May 2014 aiming to combat sexism in public 
spaces,135 forms of sexual harassment and street sexual harassment committed in public 
places  are  punishable.  The  law  states  that  any  person  who  behaves,  in  public  or  in  the 
presence of witnesses, in a way that tends to consider a person inferior or to despise this 
person because of his or her sex or even to reduce him or her to a sexual dimension may 
be punished.136 

In Belgium, harassment explicitly constitutes a form of discrimination.  

Both  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  (Article  12)  and  the  General  Anti-Discrimination 
Federal Act (Article 14) prohibit harassment as a form of discrimination and define it with 
the same wording as Directive 2000/43/EC and Directive 2000/78/EC.137 All regional anti-

132  Loi relative au bien-être des travailleurs lors de l'exécution de leur travail, last modified on 15 May 2014, OJ 

(Moniteur Belge), 18 June 2014, Article 32ter(2). 

133  To be applicable, this provision requires a relationship of authority between the parties concerned. 
134  Except if the victim can prove a relationship of authority (Article 2(1) to (4) of the Loi relative au bien-être 
des travailleurs lors de l'exécution de leur travail, last modified on 15 May 2014, OJ (Moniteur Belge), 
18 June 2014). 

135  Act of 22 May 2014 aiming to combat sexism in public space (Loi du 22 mai 2014 tendant à lutter contre le 
sexisme dans l'espace public et modifiant la loi du 10 mai 2007 tendant à lutter contre la discrimination 
entre les femmes et les hommes afin de pénaliser l'acte de discrimination), OJ (Moniteur belge) 24 July 
2014. 

136  Please note that nothing in the definition of the offence excludes individuals of the same sex. 
137  See also the Gender Equality Federal Act (Article 19). 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

discrimination  legislation  has  been  harmonised  with  the  federal  acts  (and  consequently 
with the directives) and prohibit harassment as a form of discrimination.  

It is worth keeping in mind the consistent interpretation of the Constitutional Court’s 2009 
ruling, in line with the principle of legality in criminal matters.138 Indeed, in this ruling, the 
Court states that Article 4(10) of the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and the Racial 
Equality  Federal  Act,  which  defines  the  notion  of  harassment,  does  not  specify  that  this 
behaviour could be punished if it has the consequence of creating an intimidating, hostile, 
degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, without any intention on the part of the 
offender to create such an environment. On this basis, it seems that the Court requires an 
intention to be proven more generally, i.e. in civil matters as well. This interpretation may 
raise an issue of lack of compliance with EU and national law since both define harassment 
as unwanted conduct related to a protected criterion. If behaviour has the effect of creating 
a  bad  environment  and  amounts  to  a  prohibited  harassment,  no  specific  intention  is 
required under EU and national law. Consequently, the interpretation of the Court should 
be strictly applied only to criminal matters – and not to civil matters – to be in compliance 
with EU law and national law.  

The coexistence of the notion of harassment in Federal anti-discrimination acts and in the 
Act of 4 August 1996 on the welfare of workers while carrying out their work  could have 
created  legal  uncertainty,  as  harassment  in  the  workplace  could  fall  under  either 
legislation. In order to solve the problem, the Racial Equality Federal Act (Article 6) and 
the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act  (Article  6)  provide  that  in  employment 
relationships,  only the  Act of 4 August 1996 is applicable.139 This exclusion was justified 
during legislative preparatory works on the basis that the 1996 Act puts in place detailed 
procedures  in  favour  of  victims  and  is  especially  tailored  to  tackle  harassment  at  the 
workplace. 

In its first report (2017)140 and its final report (2022),141 the Expert Commission for the 
Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Acts  stresses  that  the  definition  of 
harassment in the Act of 4 August 1996 on the welfare of workers is not in line with EU 
law,  as  it  requires  ‘several  acts’  (i.e.  a  pattern  of  repetitive  behaviour),  whereas  the 
equality directives do not require such a condition. The Expert Commission recommended 
the amendment of the Act of 4 August 1996 so as to bring it in line with EU law.  

b) 

Scope of liability for harassment 

Where  harassment  is  perpetrated  by  an  employee  in  Belgium,  the  employer  and  the 
employee are liable. 

Following the general principles of civil liability, the employer may be held liable when an 
employee commits a fault, which causes the damage for which the victim seeks reparation 
(the rule is codified in Article 1384(3) of the Civil Code). Thus, the employer would be liable 
for any discrimination practised by his/her employee following this general rule because of 
the existence of a hierarchical link between the employee and the employer, whether or 
not any fault had been committed by the  employer.  The purpose of this presumption of 
responsibility  by  the  employer  is  to  ensure  that  victims  of  the  faults  committed  by 
employees carrying out their jobs will be compensated, as the  employer will have to be 

138  Constitutional Court (Cour constitutionnelle), Decision of 12 February 2009, No. 17/2009, para. B.53.4; 

Decision of 11 March 2009, No. 39/2009, para. B.25.4; Decision of 2 April 2009, No. 40/2009, para. B.33.4. 

139  See also the Gender Equality Federal Act (Article 7). 
140  Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 

Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, p. 9 and para. 86 and Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 
2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. Combattre la discrimination, les discours de 
haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée. 

141  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
88. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

insured  against  the  risk  of  any  such  liability.  According  to  Article  18  of  the  Act  of 
3 July 1978 on  employment  contracts,142  the  employer  must  cover  the  cost  of  damages 
granted  to  the  victim  of  discrimination  caused  by  his/her  employee.  However,  if  the 
employer proves that the employee acted intentionally or recklessly, the employee might 
be held personally liable.  

As  to  criminal  liability,  Article  67(2)  of  the  Criminal  Code  provides  that  those  who  gave 
instructions to commit a criminal offence will be considered accomplices. Therefore, if the 
instruction given relates to the accomplishment of acts of harassment, the person giving 
the instruction may be considered to be complicit in the harassment. This provision is in 
principle applicable to the criminal offences currently described in both Federal Acts of 10 
May 2007, but the scope of applicability remains very limited. Moreover, under both Federal 
Acts of 10 May 2007 (Article 23), where discrimination is carried out by a public servant in 
the  exercise  of  his/her  functions,  in  obedience  to  an  order  received  from  a  hierarchical 
superior, criminal liability of the individual public servant who committed the discriminatory 
act (including harassment) is excluded. If discrimination (including harassment) is indeed 
established,  only  the  superiors  will  be  fined  or  imprisoned  in  the  terms  provided  by  the 
law. The regional and community anti-discrimination legislation contain similar provisions. 

2.7  Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) 

a) 

Prohibition of instructions to discriminate 

In  Belgium,  instructions  to  discriminate  are  prohibited  in  national  law.  Instructions  are 
defined.  

Article  12  of  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  Article  14  of  the  General  Anti-
Discrimination Federal Act prohibit instructions to discriminate. Instructions are defined as 
‘any  behaviour  to  instruct  anyone  to  discriminate  on  the  basis  of  one  or  more  of  the 
protected criteria, against an individual, a group, a community or one its members’ (Article 
4(12) of the Racial Equality Federal Act and Article 4(13) the General Anti-Discrimination 
Federal Act). 

Under  Article  20  of  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  Article  22  of  the  General  Anti-
Discrimination Federal Act, incitement to commit discrimination and incitement to hatred, 
violence or segregation against a person or against a group, a community or its members, 
on the basis of a protected ground of discrimination, is a criminal offence, if it is done under 
public  conditions,  as  defined  by  Article  444  of  the  Criminal  Code.  In  this  respect,  the 
Constitutional  Court  held  that  the  offence  contained  in  Article  20  of  the  Racial  Equality 
Federal  Act  requires  a  special  mens  rea  (dol  special),  i.e.  the  intent  of  inciting  or 
encouraging hatred or discriminatory or violent behaviours.143 The French Community ET 
Decree (Article 52), the Walloon ET Decree (Article 23), the German Community ET Decree 
(Article 25) and the Cocof ET Decree (Article 20) contain similar provisions to the federal 
acts.  

In Belgium, instructions explicitly constitute a form of discrimination. 

Both  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  (Article  12)  and  the  General  Anti-Discrimination 
Federal  Act  (Article  14)  list  instructions  to  discriminate  as  a  form  of  prohibited 
discrimination.  At  the  level  of  the  regions  and  communities,  all  the  anti-discrimination 
legislation provides that an instruction to discriminate should be considered as a form of 
discrimination.  

142  Federal Act of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts (Loi du 3 juillet 1978 relative aux contrats de travail), 
OJ (Moniteur belge), 22 August 1978, last modified on 26 December 2013 (Moniteur belge), 31 December 
2013. 

143  Constitutional Court (Cour constitutionnelle), Decision No. 40/2009 of 11 March 2009. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

b) 

Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate 

In Belgium, the instructor and the discriminator are liable.  

As explained above (in section 2.6.b), according to the general principles of civil liability, 
the employer may be held liable when an employee commits a fault that causes the damage 
for  which  the  victim  seeks  reparation  (the  rule  is  codified  in  Article  1384(3)  of  the  Civil 
Code).  Thus,  the  employer  would  be  liable  for  any  discrimination  practised  by  his/her 
employee following this general rule because of the existence of a hierarchical link between 
the  employee  and  the  employer,  whether  or  not  any  fault  may  be  found  to  have  been 
committed  by  the  employer.  The  purpose  of  this  presumption  of  responsibility  by  the 
employer is to ensure that victims of the faults committed by employees carrying out their 
jobs will be compensated, as the employer will have to be insured against the risk of any 
such liability. According to Article 18 of the Act of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts, 
the employer will have to cover the cost of damages granted to the victim of discrimination 
caused by his/her employee. However, if the employer proves that the employee has acted 
intentionally or recklessly, the employee might be held personally liable.  

As to civil liability of service providers for the acts of third parties, although Article 1384(1) 
of the Civil Code provides in principle that anyone may be held civilly liable not only for the 
damage caused by his/her own behaviour, but also for the damage caused by persons for 
whom he/she is responsible, service providers will only be liable for the acts of third parties 
in  the  specific  instance  of  education.  Schoolteachers  may  be  held  responsible  for  the 
damage caused by their pupils when under their watch (Article 1384(4) of the Civil Code). 
This does not, for instance, extend to a landlord for discriminatory acts of tenants, or to a 
restaurant owner for discriminatory acts of his/her patrons, with whom no relationship of 
subordination exists.  

As  to  criminal  liability,  Article  67(2)  of  the  Criminal  Code  provides  that  those  who  give 
instructions to commit a criminal offence will be considered accomplices. This provision is 
in principle applicable to the criminal offences currently described in both Federal Acts of 
10 May 2007, but the scope  of applicability  remains very limited.  Moreover, under both 
Federal Acts of 10 May 2007 (Article 23), with respect to discrimination committed by a 
public servant in the exercise of his/her functions, obedience to an order received from a 
hierarchical superior excludes the criminal liability of the individual public servant who has 
committed the discriminatory act. If discrimination is indeed established, only the superiors 
will  be  fined  or  imprisoned  in  the  terms  provided  by  the  law.  The  regional  anti-
discrimination pieces of legislation contain similar provisions. 

2.8  Reasonable  accommodation  duties  (Article  2(2)(b)(ii)  and  Article  5 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Implementation of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation for persons with 
disabilities in the area of employment 

In Belgium, the duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodation for persons with 
disabilities is included in the law and is defined. 

The definition adopted at the federal and regional levels is very close to that of Article 5 of 
the  Employment  Equality  Directive  (unless  specified  otherwise).  The  major  difference  is 
that the duty to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities extends far 
beyond  the  field  of  employment  and  relies  on  the  scope  of  competence  of  each 
legislature.144 

144  The material scope of each piece of ET legislation is described above, in the introduction to this report. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

− 

Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

For the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act, the definition is provided in Article 
4(12) of the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act. 
For the Flemish Framework ET Decree, the definition is provided in Article 19. In the 
Decree  adopted  on  8  May  2002  by  the  Flemish  Region/Community,  reasonable 
accommodation  is  described  as  a  requirement  entailed  by  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment, however the reasonable accommodation mentioned in Article 5(4) does 
not  appear  under  the  definitions  of  either  direct  discrimination  or  indirect 
discrimination,145  which  may  be  attributed  both  to  the  vague  character  of  the 
‘reasonable accommodation’ (‘redelijke aanpassingen’) called for by this Decree, and 
to  the  broad  definition  of  the  concept  of  reasonable  accommodation,  which  is 
mentioned without specific  reference to disability, but as a  general requirement of 
equal treatment. According to Article 5(4) of the Decree, the concept means that the 
employer to whom the Decree applies (or persons or organisations acting as labour 
market  intermediaries)  should  take  appropriate  measures  where  needed  in  a 
particular  case  to  enable  a  person  to  have  access  to,  participate  in,  or  advance  in 
employment,  or  to  undergo  training,  unless  such  measures  would  impose  a 
disproportionate  burden  on  the  employer.  This  burden,  according  to  the  same 
provision, must not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by existing 
measures.  The  wording  of  this  provision  is  of  course  borrowed  from  Article  5  of 
Directive 2000/78, except for its extension beyond persons with disabilities. 
In  the  French  Community,  Article  3(9)  of  the  French  Community  ET  Decree 
reproduces  almost  word  for  word  the  definition  enshrined  in  Article  5  of 
Directive 2000/78/EC.  
The Walloon ET Decree defines the denial of reasonable accommodation for persons 
with disabilities in line with Directive 2000/78/EC (Article 15(6)).  
In  the  Brussels-Capital  Region,  the  Brussels  ET  Ordinance,  the  Brussels  ET 
Employment Ordinance, the Brussels Local Civil Service Ordinance, the Ordinance of 
the  Joint  Community  Commission  on  diversity  and  discrimination  and  the  Brussels 
Regional Civil Service Ordinance define reasonable accommodation for persons with 
disabilities  in  line  with  EU  requirements  (Articles  5(11),  4(8),  4(18),  3(15)  and 
4(12)).  
The  Cocof  Vocational  Training  ET  Decree  correctly  defines  the  duty  of  reasonable 
accommodation  for  persons  with  disabilities  (Article  7).  The  Cocof  ET  Decree  also 
provides  that  denying  reasonable  accommodation  to  a  person  with  a  disability 
amounts  to  discrimination  (Article  9(2)).  Moreover,  Article  26(4)  of  the  Decree  on 
the social and professional integration of persons with disabilities146 provides that the 
executive of the Cocof will stipulate the conditions under which its administration will 
be authorised to  compensate the employer for  the costs of any accommodation  of 
the employee that is considered necessary. The compensation should cover the full 
cost  of  the  accommodation  provided,  if  it  is  deemed  necessary  (Article  31).  This 
legislation makes it possible for employers to draw upon public grants for providing 
reasonable accommodation, and they could indirectly impact on the employer’s level 
of obligation to provide this kind of accommodation resulting from the other decree. 
Indeed, generally speaking, the burden imposed on the employer as a result of the 
obligation 
to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  will  not  be  considered 
disproportionate if the employer may apply for public funds. 

Due to the fact that the concept of reasonable accommodation appears in different laws, 
the Federal Government, the regions and the communities have sought to reach a common 
understanding of this notion, in order to ensure its uniform implementation throughout the 
country, whatever the legal basis on which the person with a disability may seek to rely. A 
cooperation  agreement  (which  is  legally  binding)  was  concluded  between  the  relevant 
public authorities.147 It defines the concept of  reasonable accommodation as a ‘concrete 

145  Compare with Article 2(2)(b)(ii) of the Employment Equality Directive.  
146  Décret relatif à l'intégration sociale et professionnelle des personnes handicapées, adopted on 4 March 

1999, OJ (Moniteur belge), 3 April 1999.  
147  OJ (Moniteur belge), 20 September 2007. 

42 

 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

measure aimed to neutralise the limiting impact of a non-appropriate environment on the 
participation  of  a  person  with  disabilities’.  The  agreement  gives  examples  and  further 
explanations of such measures, which could be material or otherwise, as well as collective 
or individual. It also provides that the reasonable accommodation must be efficient, must 
ensure  equal  participation  of  the  person  with  disabilities  as  well  as  autonomous 
participation,  and  must  ensure  the  safety  of  the  person.  The  agreement  then  defines  a 
non-exhaustive list of criteria to determine whether the measure is reasonable. This takes 
into account the financial impact of the measure (assessed on the basis of possible financial 
interventions  by  the  State  and  the  financial  capacity  of  the  employer),  as  well  as  its 
organisational  impact,  the  frequency  of  use  of  the  accommodation,  the  impact  on  the 
quality of life of other persons with disabilities, the impact on the general environment or 
other  people,  the  lack  of  appropriate  alternatives,  and  the  non-application  of  current 
compulsory rules. Finally, the agreement puts in place a monitoring mechanism, requiring 
each authority to collect information on reasonable accommodation and examples of best 
practice. 

Finally,  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  new  Article  22ter  of  the  Constitution  (March  2021) 
explicitly refers to the right to ‘reasonable accommodations’. The travaux préparatoires of 
this new provision do not elaborate further on the precise meaning of the concept.148  

b) 

Case law 

On  30  June  2020,  the  Council  of  State  referred  a  preliminary  ruling  to  the  CJEU  on  the 
obligation to provide reasonable accommodation, asking the Court whether a trainee who 
is no longer able to perform the function he previously held, as a result of his disability, 
must  be  reassigned  to  another  function  or  not.149  The  case  concerned  a  maintenance 
worker  employed  by  HR  Rail  who  was  recognised  as  having  a  disability  in  June  2018 
following the fitting of a pacemaker (a device sensitive to electromagnetic fields, which are 
present on railway tracks). Shortly afterwards, he was examined at the company’s regional 
medical centre and declared permanently unfit to perform the duties for which he had been 
recruited, with the specification that, pending the decision to dismiss him, he could occupy 
an appropriate post meeting the following requirements: ‘moderate activity, no exposure 
to  magnetic  fields,  not  at  altitude  or  exposed  to  vibrations’.  The  applicant  was  then 
assigned to a position as a warehouseman. He appealed against the declaration of unfitness 
before the company’s medical appeals commission, which confirmed the decision. He was 
then dismissed and brought an action for annulment of the dismissal before the Council of 
State. In its Judgment of 10 February 2022,150 the CJEU answered the question, and ruled 
that Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 
‘reasonable accommodation’ for persons with disabilities, within the meaning of that Article 
requires that a worker, including someone undertaking a traineeship following his or her 
recruitment, who, owing to his or her disability, has been declared incapable of performing 
the essential functions of the post that he or she occupies, be assigned to another position 
for which he or she has the necessary competence, capability and availability, unless that 
measure imposes a disproportionate burden on the employer. In May 2022, the contested 
decision of dismissal was withdrawn, as a consequence of which, the procedure in front of 
the Council of State lost its object.151 

148  See Hachez, I. (2022) ‘La consécration constitutionnelle du droit à l’inclusion des personnes en situation de 

handicap’, Journal des Tribunaux, 2022, pp. 17-24. 

149  Council of State (administration section), Gonzalez Lopez v. HR Rail, 30 June 2020, Judgment No. 247.959. 
150  CJEU, Judgment of 10 February 2022, XXX v. HR RAIL S.A, C-485/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:85. 
151  Council of State (administration section), Gonzalez Lopez v. HR Rail, 10 November 2022, Judgment 

No. 247.959. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

In an important decision of 2 April 2021,152 the Mons Labour Appeal Court (Cour du travail 
de Mons) ruled that the  

‘“refusal”  to  make  reasonable  accommodations  –  which  constitutes  prohibited 
discrimination – should not only be understood as the failure to respond favourably 
to an express request for accommodation made by the worker with a disability, but 
also  refers  to  any  behaviour  of  an  employer  who  does  not  agree  to  do  what  is 
expected or required of him by virtue of an obligation and, in particular, of a legal 
obligation’.  

In  this  case,  the  employer  was  contacted  in  2011  by  two  persons  responsible  for  the 
employee’s  professional  integration  or  for  monitoring  her  career  path.  According  to  the 
Labour Appeal Court, the employer could not have been unaware that the purpose of the 
approaches made by the two persons was to help the employee (a teacher) to continue 
teaching despite her disability. By refraining, for  several  years, from  taking such simple 
measures, notably in order to avoid excessive heat (class exposed to the sun and without 
curtains)  or  unnecessary  fatigue  (class  located  upstairs  and  accessible  only  by  stairs  or 
prolonged standing), the employer behaved in a discriminatory manner. The fact that the 
employee  herself  had  not  made  an  express  request  for  reasonable  accommodation  was 
not, in such a context, a justification. 

A judgment of the Labour Court of Hainaut of 21 April 2023153 provides an illustration of 
what was considered an ‘unreasonable’ accommodation. A nurse employed in a maternity 
unit  suffered  an  accident  at  work.  The  occupational  health  doctor  (médecin  du  travail) 
decided that she could return to work provided she did not have to lift heavy loads for six 
months.  The  following  reasonable  adjustments  were  proposed:  (1)  assignments  with 
reduced heavy lifting (for example, only doing consultations) and (2) help from a colleague 
for  assignments  involving  heavy  lifting  However,  the  Labour  Court  stated  that  the 
maternity unit works according to the principle of ‘integrated nursing’: all nurses must be 
multi-skilled  and  able  to  carry  out  all  nursery-related  tasks  independently.  The  Labour 
Court  ruled,  as  a  consequence  that  the  reasonable  accommodation  requested  would 
impose  a  disproportionate  burden  on  the  employer.  The  nurse’s  request  for  reasonable 
accommodation was rejected. 

c) 

Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection 

In the equal treatment legislation adopted at both federal and regional levels, there is no 
specific definition of disability for the purpose of claiming reasonable accommodation or for 
the purpose of claiming protection from other forms of discrimination (see above, 2.1.c). 
It is worth noting that, while various provisions of Belgian law prohibit discrimination on 
related grounds – e.g. state of health or genetic status – the reasonable accommodation 
duty  only  applies  to  persons  with  a  disability.  However,  it  has  been  accepted  that  the 
consequences of an illness – such as cancer or a burn-out (see 2.1.c)– can be classified as 
a ‘disability’. 

d) 

Failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities 

In  Belgium,  failure  to  meet  the  duty  of  reasonable  accommodation  in  employment  for 
persons with disabilities is recognised as a form of discrimination. 

As  regards  fields  of  employment  that  are  a  federal  competence,  the  failure  to  meet  the 
duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  is  explicitly  assimilated  to  a  form  of 

152  Mons Labour Appeal Court (Cour du travail de Mons), 2 April 2021, available at www.unia.be. 
153  Labour Court of Hainaut, 21 April 2023, available at: https://www.unia.be/fr/jurisprudence-
alternatives/jurisprudence/tribunal-du-travail-du-hainaut-division-tournai-21-avril-2023-1.  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

discrimination.154  In  the  federal  as  well  as  in  the  regional  and  community  anti-
discrimination laws (which apply, e.g. to the employment in regional or community public 
service,  or  to  vocational  guidance),  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for 
persons with disabilities is required unless such measures would impose a disproportionate 
burden  on  the  bearer  of  such  a  duty,  but  this  burden  is  not  disproportionate  when  it  is 
sufficiently  remedied  by  measures  existing  within  the  framework  of  the  public  policy  on 
disability. The potential sanctions and remedies in the event of a failure to meet the duty 
of reasonable accommodation are the same as those imposed for unlawful discrimination: 
payment of damages either on the basis of the ‘effective’ damage, or on the basis of the 
lump sums defined in the law; judicial injunction (action en cessation);155 the decision may 
be posted publicly; and the defendant may be subject to financial penalties (astreintes) in 
the case of non-compliance with a judicial order.156  

At  the  federal  level,  Articles  27  and  28  of  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act 
provide expressly for the shift of the burden of proof when claiming the right to reasonable 
accommodation. This is also the case for the regional and community anti-discrimination 
decrees that were drafted in line with the Federal Act in this respect.  

In  a  judgement  of  24  October  2023,157  the  Liège  Labour  Court  held  that  the  refusal  of 
reasonable  accommodation  could  not  be  justified  on  the  sole  ground  that  its 
implementation  would  be  contrary  to  a  collective  labour  agreement.  In  accordance  with 
the  principle  of  the  hierarchy  of  norms,  this  agreement  must  be  in  conformity  with 
legislation and, above that, European Union law, and must not be applied in the event of 
non-compliance. 

e)  Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in areas other than employment for 

persons with disabilities 

In Belgium, there is a legal duty to provide reasonable accommodation for  persons with 
disabilities outside the area of employment. This obligation was previously only based on 
legislative texts; it is now explicitly anchored in the Constitution (Article 22ter).  

At  the  federal  level,  the  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  for  persons  with 
disabilities  extends to all the  fields to  which the  General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act 
applies  (Article  4(12)),  which  go  far  beyond  employment.158  The  definition  is  the  same 
whether  reasonable  accommodation  is  implemented  within  or  outside  the  employment 
field. The Flemish Framework ET Decree, the French Community ET Decree, the German 
Community ET Decree and the Cocof ET Decree similarly define the scope of the duty of 
reasonable accommodation as applying to all the material areas they cover. The Walloon 
ET  Decree  also  seems  to  extend  the  duty  of  reasonable  accommodation  beyond 
employment  (Article  4(13)).  The  Walloon  Government  is  in  charge  of  defining  more 
precisely  the  notion  of  reasonable  accommodation  and  its  modality  of  application 
(Article 13). However, it has not yet done so. 

A recent illustration of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation outside the field of 
employment, can be found in a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Antwerp159 (5 
December 2023), in which the court ruled that the Flemish public transport company (De 
Lijn) had not made sufficient reasonable accommodations to its transport service for the 
benefit of people with disabilities, and had therefore failed to comply with the Framework 

154  See Article 14 of the GAFA. For more details and for a description of the law in the regions and 

communities, see section 2.6.a of this report. 

155  This could involve ordering a party to provide a specific reasonable accommodation. 
156  See below, in section 6.5 of this report. 
157  Labour Court of Liège, 24 October 2023, available on 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2023_10_24__Trib._Trav._Li%C3%A8ge.pdf.  

158  See above, introduction to this report. 
159  Court of First Instance of Antwerp, 5 December 2023, available on 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2023_12_05__Rb._Antwerpen.pdf.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Decree for the Flemish equal opportunities and equal treatment policy of 10 July 2008. It 
should  be  noted  that  the  decision  bases  its  reasoning  on  a  combination  of  individual 
circumstances  specific  to  the  claimants  -  who  are  wheelchair  users  -  and  more  general 
observations about the  defendant’s failure to provide accessible transport.  The decision, 
however, refrains from issuing general injunctions against the defendant. 

Another  field  where  reasonable  accommodation  is  required  is  education,  in  which  there 
have  been  several  important  developments  in  landmark  decisions.  These  decisions 
concerned, in particular, the lack of sufficient measures for the inclusion of deaf children 160 
or children with Down’s syndrome in ‘mainstream’ schools.161 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  European  Committee  of  Social  Rights  (ECSR)  condemned 
Belgium twice, in 2018 and in 2020, because of the Belgian State’s failure to guarantee 
the right to inclusive education for children with intellectual disabilities within the Flemish 
Community162  and  the  French  Community163  (both  cases  are  reported  below  in 
section 3.2.7 of this report). 

On  31  March  2006,  the  Council  of  Ministers  (at  federal  level)  adopted  a  legislative  bill 
seeking to ensure, as a matter of principle, the admittance of guide dogs to public places.164 
In June 2006, the Council of State considered that the Federal State was not competent to 
deal  with  the  matter.  Since  then,  some  pieces  of  legislation  have  been  adopted  at  the 
regional level. For instance:  

- 

- 

- 

in the Walloon Region, the matter is now regulated by the Decree of 16 July 2021 on 
accessibility  to  public  places  for  people  accompanied  by  assistance  dogs  and 
amending the Walloon Code of Social Action and Health.165  
the  Brussels-Capital  Region  adopted  an  ordinance  to  the  same  effect  on 
18 December 2008,166 followed by an executive regulation on 22 October 2009;167  
the Flemish Community/Region also passed a Decree on 20 March 2009168 and the 
executive regulation to that Decree was finally adopted on 29 March 2013.169 

160  Judgment of 15 July 2009 of the President of the First Instance Court (Tribunal de première instance – 

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg) of Ghent (emergency proceedings). This judgment was confirmed on appeal: 
www.unia.be/fr/jurisprudence-alternatives/jurisprudence/cour-dappel-de-gand-7-septembre-2011. 

161  Court of First Instance of Antwerp, Judgment of 7 November 2018, (in Dutch), 

www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/Rechtbank_Eerste_aanleg_Antwerpen_7_november_2018.pdf. 

162  European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR), Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (MDAC) v. Belgium, No. 

109/2014, decision on the merits, 29 March 2018. 

163  ECSR, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) and Inclusion Europe v. Belgium, No. 

141/2017, decision on the merits, 9 September 2020. 

164  For a brief presentation in English of the regulatory framework applicable in Belgium as to guide dogs, see 

the website of the Belgian Assistance Dog Federation: www.badf.be/EN/toegangsrechtEN.html. 

165  OJ (Moniteur belge), 27 July 2021.  
166  Ordinance concerning the accessibility of persons with disabilities accompanied by a guide dog to public 
places (Ordonnance relative à l'accès des chiens d'assistance aux lieux ouverts au public), OJ (Moniteur 
belge), 14 January 2009, p. 1527 (last modified on 25 April 2019, OJ, 24 May 2019). 

167  Executive Regulation of Ordinance concerning the accessibility of persons with disabilities accompanied by a 
guide dog to public places (Arrêté portant exécution de l'ordonnance du 18 décembre 2008 relative à l'accès 
des chiens d'assistance aux lieux ouverts au public), OJ (Moniteur belge), 9 December 2009. 

168  Decree concerning the accessibility of persons with disabilities accompanied by a guide dog to public places 
(Decreet houdende de toegankelijkheid van publieke plaatsen voor personen met een assistentiehond), OJ 
(Moniteur belge), 8 May 2009, last modified on 2 February 2018, OJ, 23 February 2018. 

169  Executive Regulation of the Flemish Government defining the modalities of the certification procedure of 
guide dogs, provided by Article 4 of the Decree of 20 March 2009 concerning the accessibility of persons 
with disabilities accompanied by a guide dog to public places (Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering betreffende 
de regels inzake de attestatie van assistentiehonden, vermeld in artikel 4 van het decreet van 20 maart 
2009 houdende de toegankelijkheid van publieke plaatsen voor personen met een assistentiehond), OJ 
(Moniteur belge), 13 May 2013. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

In  a  landmark  judgment  of  10  December  2018,170  the  Liège  Court  of  First  Instance 
(confirmed in 2020 by the Liège Court of Appeal)171 ruled that a ban on all dogs – including 
assistance dogs for person with a disability - in a zoo is discriminatory. Indeed, it is quite 
possible to allow access to assistance dogs while ensuring the safety of all, animals and 
humans.172 In a judgment of 27 December 2023, the Court of First Instance of Liège applied 
the same reasoning to the refusal of access to a campsite.173 

f) 

Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds 

In Belgium, there is no legal duty to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other 
grounds in the public and the private sector. 

However,  the  Flemish  Decree  of  8  May  2002  on  proportionate  representation  of  target 
groups  in  employment174  does  not  restrict  the  notion  of  reasonable  accommodation  to 
persons with disabilities and could therefore also apply in principle to grounds other than 
disability. It has not yet been applied with respect to other grounds.  

It might also be worth mentioning that on 16 September 2016, the Brussels Labour Court 175 
found that a company had directly discriminated, on the ground of the current or future 
state of health, against a worker who had tendonitis and who had asked for a part-time 
position for medical reasons. The employer refused this request and dismissed the worker 
a few weeks later. According to the labour court, the worker had no right to reasonable 
accommodation  since  there  was  not  sufficient  evidence  of  the  sustainable  nature  of  her 
disease  and  she  was  not  held  as  having  a  disability.  The  firing  was  nevertheless 
discriminatory, and the employer was sentenced to pay compensation of EUR 20 000 to 
the former employee. An a contrario reasoning could lead to the possibility of a reasonable 
accommodation duty on the ground of current state of health where the long-term nature 
of the disease is proved. That was the reasoning behind the judgment of 20 February 2018 
(reported above in section 2.1.c) where the consequences of a cancer were recognised as 
constituting a disability requiring reasonable accommodation.176 

Regarding specific issues such as days off work for religious reasons, workers do not have 
the right to take an extra day off for a holiday of a philosophical or religious nature outside 
the 10 official public holidays in Belgium. However, they can take occasional leave in very 
particular cases (there are different regimes in the public and private sectors).177 

170  Liège Court of First Instance (Tribunal de première instance de Liège), 10 December 2018, published on 

www.unia.be. 

171  Liège Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Liège), 16 June 2020, published on www.unia.be. 
172  On the same problem, but concerning access to a restaurant, see Judgment No. 2010/AR/264 of 

6 December 2012 of the Court of Appeal of Ghent, available at www.unia.be/en. 

173  Court of First Instance of Liège, 27 December 2023, available on 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2023_12_27__Trib._Li%C3%A8ge.pdf.  

174  Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt, OJ (Moniteur belge), 26 July 2002, last 

modified on 10 December 2010, OJ 29 December 2010. 

175  Labour Court of Brussels, Judgment of 16 December 2016 (in French), 

www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/Tribunal_du_travail_francophone__16_septembre_2016.pdf. 

176  Labour Court of Brussels, Judgment of 20 February 2018 (in Dutch), 

www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/Arbeidshof_Brussel_20_februari_2018.pdf.  
177  See Unia’s factsheet, ‘Jours de congé et diversité religieuse’ (Days off and religious diversity), 

https://www.unia.be/fr/criteres-de-discrimination/convictions-religieuses-ou-philosophiques/pratiques-
religieuses/jours-de-conge. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

3  PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE  

3.1  Personal scope 

3.1.1  EU  and  non-EU  nationals  (Recital  13  and  Article  3(2),  Directive  2000/43 

and Recital 12 and Article 3(2), Directive 2000/78) 

In Belgium, there are no residence or citizenship/nationality requirements for protection 
under the relevant national laws transposing the directives. 

It  is  notable  that  there  is  no  obstacle  to  the  anti-discrimination  legislation  applying  to 
persons with irregular status.178 

3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16, Directive 2000/43) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In Belgium, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons 
for the purpose of protection against discrimination.  

The anti-discrimination legislation explicitly addresses situations where the victim is a legal 
person  in  the  provisions  on  the  admissibility  of  the  action  of  an  interest  group,  which 
requires in principle the victim’s agreement (the agreement of the victim is needed in both 
situations: natural or legal person). This is provided in Article 5(1) of both Federal Acts of 
10 May 2007) and also in all the regional and community pieces of legislation. 

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

In Belgium, the personal scope of anti-discrimination legislation covers natural and legal 
persons for the purpose of liability for discrimination. 

Both natural and legal persons are prohibited from committing the types of discrimination 
defined in the instruments implementing the directives (Article 5(1) of both  Federal Acts 
of  10  May  2007).  This  requires  no  specific  explanation  where  civil  liability  is  concerned. 
Although the applicable acts are silent on this issue, this seems to be the only plausible 
interpretation in line with the courts’ existing practice. Under the criminal clauses contained 
in the relevant instruments, Belgian criminal law has extended to legal persons all offences, 
which could be committed by natural persons through the Federal Act of 4 May 1999. 179 
All  regional  and  community  pieces  of  legislation  also  impose  their  obligations  on  both 
natural and legal persons. 

3.1.3  Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In Belgium, the personal scope of national anti-discrimination law covers the private and 
public sectors, including public bodies, for the purpose of protection against discrimination 
and  for  the  purpose  of  liability  for  discrimination,  except  the  Brussels  ET  Employment 
Ordinance, the Cocof ET Decree for the public sector and the Brussels Local Civil Service 
ET Ordinance for the private sector.  

The Federal Anti-Discrimination Acts of 10 May 2007 apply, in their fields of competence, 
to both the private and public sectors, including public bodies (Article 5(1) of both Federal 

178  See for example Court of Appeal of Brussels, 26 May 2011, available at: www.unia.be.  
179  On the sanctions, which can be imposed on legal persons where they are criminally liable, see Article 7bis of 

the Criminal Code, inserted by the Act of 4 May 1999. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Acts).  All  regional  and  community  pieces  of  legislation  also  apply,  in  their  fields  of 
competence, to both the private and public sectors, including public bodies. 

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

In Belgium, the personal scope of national anti-discrimination law covers the private and 
public sectors, including public bodies, for the purpose of liability for discrimination, except 
the Brussels ET Employment Ordinance, the Cocof ET Decree for the public sector and the 
Brussels Local Civil Service ET Ordinance for the private sector.  

3.2  Material scope 

3.2.1  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, 
including  selection  criteria,  recruitment  conditions  and  promotion, 
whatever  the  branch  of  activity  and  at  all  levels  of  the  professional 
hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a))  

In Belgium, national legislation prohibits discrimination in relation to conditions for access 
to  employment,  self-employment  or  occupation,  including  selection  criteria,  recruitment 
conditions  and  promotion,  whatever  the  branch  of  activity  and  at  all  levels  of  the 
professional hierarchy, for the five grounds180 and, in both private and public sectors, as 
described in the directives (Articles 4(1) of the REFA and 5(2) of the GAFA), except the 
Cocof  Vocational  Training  ET  Decree  for  access  to  employment,  self-employment  and 
occupation  and  the  German-speaking  Community  Decree  for  self-employment.  There  is 
now, through the BDCDO, a transposition of the Directives on those aspects of access to 
employment  that  fall  within  the  competence  of  the  Joint  Community  Commission  (e.g. 
recruitment to the Joint Community Commission’s administration). 

The current situation is the following:  

Regarding  criminal  provisions,  Article  25  of  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  defines 
discrimination as a criminal offence, whether deliberate or not, which consists notably of 
denying a person access to employment or to occupational training, on the basis of alleged 
race, colour, origin, national or ethnic origin, and nationality. This extends to public and 
private employment and occupation, without any restriction.  

Regarding  civil  provisions,  the  legislative  instruments  adopted  in  order  to  implement 
Directives  2000/43/EC  and  2000/78/EC  have  a  scope  of  application  limited  to  the 
respective competences of each entity (Federal State, region or community).  

- 

- 

The  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act 
prohibit  direct  and  indirect  discrimination,  inter  alia,  with  regard  to  access  to 
employment  or  self-employment,  in  both  the  private  and  the  public  sector 
(Article 5(1)(5)).181  
The prohibition of discrimination enshrined in the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002 on 
proportionate  participation  in  the  employment  market  extends  ratione  materiae  to 
access  to  employment  (including  self-employment)  and  vocational  guidance  and 
training.  However,  this  Decree  applies  only  to  situations  that  fall  under  the 
competence of the Flemish Region or Community.182  

180  Gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics are covered by the Federal Act of 10 May 2007 
pertaining to fight discrimination between women and men (Article 4). This Act applies, among others, to 
conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria, 
recruitment conditions and promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional 
hierarchy. See the report of Nathalie Wuiame, European Commission, Wuiame, N. (2022) Country report, 
gender equality – Belgium 2023, European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-
discrimination.  

181  Both Acts refer to ‘working relationships’, as described in their Articles 5(2). 
182  For more details, see the introduction, above. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The French Community ET Decree also applies to access to employment regarding its 
own  public  service  (Article  8).  More  precisely,  it  applies  to:  (1)  the  statutory  and 
contractual employment relationships in the public bodies created or funded by the 
French  Community;  (2)  the  education  institutions;  and  (3)  the  civil  service  and 
governmental institutions.  
The  Walloon  ET  Decree  has  a  scope  of  application  limited  to  the  Walloon  Region’s 
competence  in  the  area  of  employment  policy  and  retraining.  The  prohibition  of 
discrimination applies, inter alia, to access to employment and placing of workers, in 
the public and the private sectors (Articles 4(1) and 5). It also applies to statutory 
and  contractual  employment  relationships 
in  departments  of  the  Walloon 
Government,  public  authorities  depending  on  the  Walloon  Region,  decentralised 
bodies  (such  as  provinces,  municipalities,  etc.),  and  public  centres  for  social 
assistance (Article 5(2)).  
The  German  Community  ET  Decree  applies  to  labour  relations  regarding  its  own 
public service and to employment (including access to employment) (Article 4(1) and 
(3)),  with  regard  to  public  bodies  created  or  funded  by  the  German-speaking 
Community, education institutions and the civil service and governmental institutions 
of the German-speaking Community (Article 3(11)). It also covers the employment 
policy of the German-speaking Community (Article 3(13)).  
In the Brussels-Capital Region, the Brussels ET Employment Ordinance covers worker 
placement  policies  and  the  policies  aimed  at  unemployed  persons  (as  defined  in 
Article 4(9)). The Brussels Local Civil Service ET Ordinance relates to the promotion 
of  diversity  and  the  fight  against  discrimination  in  the  local  civil  service  of  the 
Brussels-Capital Region. It applies to the employment field in the  local civil service 
of the Brussels-Capital Region and covers (as defined in Article 4(10)) notably access 
conditions. Article 4(1) defines the specific public institutions of the Brussels-Capital 
Region falling within the scope of the  Ordinance. The BRCSO of 4 September 2008 
provides for the same protection with regard to the Brussels regional public services. 
The  Cocof  Vocational  Training  ET  Decree  covers  vocational  guidance,  learning, 
advanced  vocational  training  and  retraining  in  the  Brussels-Capital  Region 
(Article 11).  The  Cocof  ET  Decree  relates  to  the  fight  against  certain  forms  of 
discrimination and to the implementation of the principle of equal treatment in the 
fields of competences of the Cocof, including labour relations within public institutions 
of  the  Cocof  (Article  4(2)),  which  covers  access  to  employment  and  vocational 
guidance, etc. (Article 5(9)). Article 5(19) defines the specific public institutions of 
the Cocof falling within the scope of the Decree. 
The  Ordinance  of  the  Joint  Community  Commission  of  30  June  2022  to  promote 
diversity  and  combat  discrimination  in  the  institutions,  centres  and  services  within 
the competence of the Joint Community Commission and in the Services of the United 
College of the Joint Community Commission (Joint Community Commission – Cocom 
–  Brussels)  applies,  among  other  things,  to  the  ‘the  working  relationships  that 
develop within the Services of the Joint Community Commission’ (Article 4(5)), which 
include access to employment in these Services. 

On 10 February 2015, the Brussels Appeal Court handed down a landmark decision in an 
important  case  relating  to  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  race  and  ethnic  origin 
concerning access to temporary work.183 The applicants (the French NGO, SOS Racisme, 
and  the  Belgian  leftist  trade  union  organisation,  the  FGTB)  claimed  that  the  well-known 
temporary work agency, Adecco, was listing jobseekers depending on their race and ethnic 
origin. Native Belgian people without foreign roots were registered in the computer system 
under the code ‘BBB’, by reference to the Belgian breed of Cattle ‘Blanc Bleu Belge’ (‘White 
Blue Belgian’). The system was put in place to please  some clients who did not want to 
hire  people  with  a  foreign  origin.  The  court  of  first  instance  sentenced  Adecco  to  pay 
EUR 25 000  of  damages  to  the  first  applicant  and  EUR  1  to  the  second  applicant.184  On 

183  Court of Appeal of Brussels, 10 February 2015, www.unia.be/en. 
184  Note that this difference between the two applicants could be explained by their respective claims. The 
Belgian leftist trade union organisation, the FGTB, had only required one euro as symbolic damages.  

50 

 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

appeal, the Court upheld the decision and also held Adecco liable for discrimination. The 
liability was assessed under a provision  of the  Civil Code (Article 1384(3)), according to 
which  an  employer  is  liable  for  his/her  employees’  civil  offences  committed  during  the 
employment relationship (irrefutable presumption of liability). As to damages, the Brussels 
Appeal  Court  sentenced  Adecco  to  pay  a  much  higher  compensation  (EUR  25 000  to  all 
applicants),  stressing  that  a  mere  symbolic  sentence  of  EUR  1  does  not  meet  the 
requirement  of  an  effective  and  dissuasive  sanction  as  imposed  by  European  law.  The 
conviction is important, as the practice was first denounced by Unia more than a decade 
before and the first attempt to denounce the discriminatory practice before the courts had 
failed for procedural reasons. 

Concerning access to employment in the Brussels regional public service, one can refer to 
the judgment of the Brussels Labour Court of 3 May 2021 (see above, section 2.2). 

A judgment of the East Flanders Court of First Instance of 17 February 2021185 is also of 
particular  importance  in  that  it  exposed  the  stereotypes  that  can  underlie  structural 
discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin. In this case, the defendant tried to 
justify the non-recruitment of a person of foreign origin by the fact that people of foreign 
origin  would  not  have  a  good  command  of  the  Dutch  language.  According  to  the  court, 
however,  the  language  requirements  cannot  justify  the  categorical  and  unreserved 
exclusion of all persons of foreign origin from the recruitment process. To use the words 
of the court:  

‘Diversity in the workplace is crucial in a democratic society. This is only possible with 
a correct recruitment procedure that screens for competencies and not one that starts 
from stereotyping, racism and exclusion of certain people or groups of people. The 
behaviour of the defendant shows an anti-social attitude and cannot be tolerated’.  

On this basis, the court found the existence of direct discrimination prohibited by the REFA. 

3.2.2  Employment  and  working  conditions,  including  pay  and  dismissals 

(Article 3(1)(c)) 

In Belgium, national legislation prohibits discrimination in working conditions, including pay 
and  dismissals,  for  all  five  grounds  and  for  both  private  and  public  employment 
(Article 5(2) REFA and Article 4(1) GAFA).186 

Under  the  same  conditions  as  for  access  to  employment,  to  self-employment  or  to 
occupation  detailed  above  (section  3.2.1),  the  federal,  community  and  regional  anti-
discrimination laws (except for the Cocof Vocational Training ET Decree) prohibit direct and 
indirect  discrimination,  inter  alia,  with  regard  to  employment  and  working  conditions, 
including pay and dismissals, as required by the directives. 

185  East Flanders Court of First Instance, judgment of 17 February 2021, published on the website of Unia: 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2021_02_17_Corr._Gent.pdf. See also Antwerp Labour 
Court of 16 June 2019, published on the website of Unia: 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/Arbeidshof_Antwerpen__16_januari_2019.pdf. 

186  Gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics are covered by the Federal Act of 10 May 2007 
pertaining to fight discrimination between women and men (Article 4). This Act applies, among others, to 
employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals. See the report of Nathalie Wuiame. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

3.2.3  Access to all types and all levels of vocational guidance, vocational training, 
advanced  vocational  training  and  retraining,  including  practical  work 
experience (Article 3(1)(b)) 

In Belgium, national legislation prohibits discrimination in vocational training outside the 
employment  relationship,  such  as  adult  lifelong  learning  courses  or  vocational  training 
provided by technical schools or universities.187  

In  the  Belgian  federal  system,  vocational  guidance  (as  part  of  employment  policy)  is  a 
competence of the regions,188 although the Walloon Region transferred that competence 
to the German-speaking Community for the territory of the German-speaking Region on 
1 January 2000. The Flemish Region/Community (Decree of 8 May 2002 on proportionate 
participation  in  the  employment  market),  the  Walloon  Region  (Walloon  ET  Decree),  the 
German-speaking Community (German Community ET Decree) and the Region of Brussels-
Capital (Brussels ET Employment Ordinance) prohibit discrimination in vocational guidance. 
The German Community ET Decree does not explicitly prohibit discrimination in vocational 
guidance, but it applies to employment policy, which should include vocational guidance. 

Vocational  training  extends  presumably,  to  advanced  vocational  training  and  retraining, 
but probably not to practical work experience, which is a competence of the regions under 
employment policy. Vocational training is a competence of the communities.189 The French 
Community has nevertheless transferred that competence (in the Belgian interpretation of 
the  term,  which  differs  from  the  European  concept  of  vocational  training  that  has  been 
extended to university courses or technical courses) to, respectively, the Walloon Region 
(for the population of that region) and the Commission Communautaire française (Cocof) 
of the Brussels-Capital Region (for the French-speaking population of the Brussels-Capital 
Region).  This  latter  body  adopted  the  Cocof  Vocational  Training  ET  Decree  on 
22 March 2007  in  order  to  implement  the  relevant  European  directives  in  the  field  of 
vocational training – including vocational guidance, learning, advanced vocational training 
and retraining. The Walloon ET Decree covers vocational training and validation of skills in 
its  material  scope  (Article  5(8)).  The  French  Community  ET  Decree  also  includes,  in  its 
material  scope,  vocational  training  but  in  the  European  understanding  of  the  term 
(Article 3(14)). 

Finally,  education  is  a  competence  of  the  communities.  In  2008,  the  Flemish 
Community/Region  and  the  French  Community  adopted  legislation  in  order  to  prohibit 
discrimination in this field, at all levels of education, including the university level. In the 
German-speaking  Community,  the  German  Community  ET  Decree  expressly  prohibits 
discrimination in the field of education (see 3.2.7). 

In view of the above, it can be considered that the directives have been fully transposed 
in Belgium in the field of access to all types and all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 
training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including practical work experience. 

3.2.4  Membership  of,  and  involvement  in,  an  organisation  of  workers  or 
employers,  or  any  organisation  whose  members  carry  on  a  particular 
profession,  including  the  benefits  provided  for  by  such  organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) 

In Belgium, national legislation prohibits discrimination in relation to membership of and 
involvement in workers’ or employers’ organisations, as formulated in the directives for all 
five grounds and for both private and public employment. 

187  Gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics are covered by the Regional and Community 

decrees, explicitly (see e.g. Article 3(1) of the Decree of 12 December 2008 of the French Community) or 
implicitly, as grounds related to ‘sex’. See the report of Nathalie Wuiame. 

188  Article 6(1), IX of the Special Federal Act of 8 August 1980 on institutional reforms. 
189  Article 4(15) and (16) of the Special Federal Act of 8 August 1980 on institutional reforms. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

This is an area in which the federal level is competent to a large extent. The Racial Equality 
Federal  Act  and  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act190  explicitly  include  the 
membership  of,  and  involvement  in,  an  organisation  of  workers  or  employers,  or  any 
organisation  whose  members  carry  out  a  particular  profession,  including  the  benefits 
provided  by  such  organisations  (Article  3(1)(d)  of  the  Directive),  in  their  scope  of 
application (Article 5(1)(7) of both Federal Acts).  

In order to fully implement the directives, it is necessary to include, in the material scope 
of the regional decrees, ‘membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers 
or employers or any organisation whose members carry on a particular profession’ that is 
financed by the relevant community or region. This has only been done expressly by the 
French Community in its Decree of 12 December 2008 (Article 4(5)), and by the Cocof in 
its  Decree  of  9  July  2010  (Article  5(9)).  In  respect  of  the  Walloon  Region,  the  Flemish-
speaking Community and the Joint Community Commission, one could consider that it is 
implicitly included in ‘the access, participation or whatever exercise of an economic, social, 
cultural or political activity open to the public’, which are referred to in all three pieces of 
legislation. However, that has not yet been confirmed or interpreted as such through case 
law. 

In view of the above, it could be considered that the directives have been fully transposed 
in Belgium in the field of membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers 
or  employers,  or  any  organisation  whose  members  carry  on  a  particular  profession, 
including the benefits provided for by such organisations. 

3.2.5  Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) 

Directive 2000/43) 

As already mentioned (see the introduction to this report), the fight against discrimination 
is not a ‘matter’ in itself, which would fall within the exclusive competence of the Federal 
State, the communities or the regions, but is a shared competence: it is exclusively up to 
the  Federal  State,  the  communities  or  the  regions  to  adopt  the  measures  necessary  to 
prevent and punish discrimination in their areas of competence.191 

‘Social protection’, within the meaning of Directive 2000/43/CE, is not, as such, a matter 
for  which  Belgian  constitutional  law  makes  an  explicit  division  of  powers  between  the 
Federal State, the communities and the regions.  

In Belgium, federal, community and regional192 legislation prohibits discrimination in social 
protection, as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive, except for the following pieces of 
legislation (which are absolutely  out of the  scope of  ‘social protection’): the Brussels ET 
Employment Ordinance, Brussels Local Civil Service ET Ordinance and the Cocof Vocational 
Training ET Decree. Discrimination in social protection is not only prohibited on grounds of 
alleged  race,  colour, descent, ethnic and national origin and nationality, but also on the 
other  protected  grounds  in  the  different  pieces  of  anti-discrimination  legislation  (age, 
sexual  orientation,  civil  status,  birth,  property  (‘fortune’,  in  French),  religious  or 
philosophical  belief,  actual  or  future  state  of  health,  disability,  political  opinion  and 

190  Gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics are covered by the Federal Act of 10 May 2007 
pertaining to fight discrimination between women and men (Article 4). This Act applies, among others, to 
membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or employers, or any organisation whose 
members carry on a particular profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations. See the 
report of Nathalie Wuiame. 

191  Gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics are covered by the federal, regional and 

community legislation, explicitly (see e.g. Article 4 of the Federal Act of 10 May 2007 pertaining to fight 
discrimination between women and men) or implicitly, as grounds related to ‘sex’. See the report of Nathalie 
Wuiame. 

192  ‘Social protection’, within the meaning of the Directive, encompasses matters which normally fall within the 
jurisdiction of communities. However, the French Community has transferred some of its competence in 
these matters to the Walloon Region and to the Cocof, on the basis of Article 138 of the Constitution. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

language,  physical  or  genetic  features,  social  origin  and  condition,  and  trade  union 
opinion). 

One  must  note,  however,  that  in  the  Brussels-Capital  Region,  some  aspects  of  ‘social 
protection’ fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission Communautaire commune (Joint 
Community  Commission),  which  has  jurisdiction  over  ‘bi-personal’  matters  in  Brussels 
(Article 135  of the Constitution).193 Compared to the situation described in the previous 
country  reports,  there  is  now,  through  the  BDCDO,  a  transposition  of  the  directives  on 
those aspects of ‘social protection’ that fall within the competence of the Joint Community 
Commission. 

‘Social  security’  is  in  principle  regulated  by  legislation  adopted  at  federal  level 
(Article 6(1)(VI)(4)(12)  of  the  Special  Federal  Act  of  8  August  1980  for  institutional 
reforms), except for family allowances (competence of the communities). Healthcare and 
social  aid,  on  the  other  hand,  are  essentially  a  competence  of  the  communities 
(Article 5(1)(I)(1) and II(2) of the Special Federal Act of 8 August 1980), but some aspects 
of  those  matters  remain  within  the  federal  jurisdiction.  If  discrimination  in  these  fields 
results  from  a  statutory  scheme  adopted  by  an  act  (federal),  a  decree  (community  or 
region),  or  an  ordinance  (Brussels-Capital  Region  or  Commission  Communautaire 
commune),  the  Constitutional  Court  may  find  that  it  violates  Articles 10  and  11  of  the 
Constitution  and,  if  necessary,  can  overrule  the  discriminatory  provision.  The  Council  of 
State has the  same competence with respect  to executive  regulations implementing the 
relevant legislation.  

The  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act  state 
explicitly  that  they  apply  to  social  security  (Article  5(3)  of  both  Acts).  The  Flemish  ET 
Decree, the French Community ET Decree, the Walloon ET Decree, the German Community 
ET Decree and the Cocof ET Decree cover healthcare and social aid. However, the practical 
impact of this may be limited by the ‘safeguard provision’ (referred to in the introduction 
to this report), which states that any measures contained in a law or adopted by virtue of 
a  law  should  not  be  subordinated  to  the  anti-discrimination  legislation,  but  only  to  the 
Constitution and international law. Therefore, only administrative practices are covered by 
the prohibitions contained in both Federal Acts of 2007. To the extent that any disputed 
measure in the field of social security is contained in a legislative instrument or implements 
a legislative provision, it need only be checked that it complies with Articles 10 and 11 of 
the Constitution, as well as with equality clauses of international instruments. Although the 
Constitutional  Court  can  punish  both  direct  and  indirect  forms  of  discrimination,  it  is 
uncertain whether the broad clauses of the Constitution present the required clarity and 
precision that an adequate implementation of the directives would require. 

In the Brussels-Capital Region, some aspects of ‘social security’ (family allowances) and 
healthcare (in public hospitals, for example) fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission 
Communautaire  commune,  which  has  jurisdiction  over  ‘bi-personal’  matters  in  Brussels 
(Article 135 of the Constitution). Compared to the situation described in the country reports 
until 2022, there is now, through the  BDCDO, a transposition of the  directives on those 
aspects of ‘social security’ and ‘healthcare’ which fall within the competence of the Joint 
Community Commission. 

In a landmark case decided on 9 July 2020, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 2 of 
the  Federal  Act  of  27  February  1987  on  allowances  for  persons  with  disabilities  was  in 
breach  of  the  principle  of  equality  and  non-discrimination  (Articles  10  and  11  of  the 
Constitution).  This  provision  does  not  allow  entitlement  to  allowances  for  persons  with 
disabilities  (income  replacement  allowance  and  integration  allowance)  to  be  granted  to 
adults who have not reached the age of 21. According to the Constitutional Court, this is 

193  For instance, ‘social aid’ provided by the Centres publics d’Aide Sociale. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

an  unjustified  distinction  between  adults  with  disabilities,  depending  on  whether  or  not 
they have reached the age of 21.194 

a) 

Article 3(3) exception (Directive 2000/78) 

In Belgium, national law does not rely on the exception in Article 3(3).  

3.2.6  Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) 

‘Social advantages’, within the meaning of Directive 2000/43/EC, is not, as such, a matter 
for which Belgian constitutional law makes an explicit division of powers between the State, 
the communities and the regions.  

In Belgium, federal, community and regional legislation prohibits discrimination in  social 
advantages, as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive.195 

Social  advantages  are  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  the 
General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act  (Article  5(1)(3)).  As  a  result  of  the  safeguard 
provision included in both federal equality acts (Article 11, see the introduction above), the 
prohibition  of  discrimination  applies  only  to  administrative  practices  (i.e.  the 
implementation, by the public authorities, of existing regulations), and not to statutory law 
or regulations that stipulate the level of advantages that each individual or family will be 
allowed.  

The Flemish Community/Region, the French Community, the Walloon Region, the Brussels-
Capital  Region  and  the  German-speaking  Community  all  explicitly  refer  to  social 
advantages  in  the  material  scope  of  their  ET  decrees.  The  Cocof  also  included  social 
advantages in the material scope of its 2010 Decree, but only regarding labour relations 
within public institutions of the Cocof. For the sake of full implementation of EU law, ‘social 
advantages’  should  be  added  to  the  material  scope  of  the  Cocof  Vocational  Training  ET 
Decree. One must note, in addition, that in the Brussels-Capital Region, some aspects of 
‘social advantages’ could fall within the jurisdiction of the  Joint Community Commission, 
which  has  jurisdiction  over  ‘bi-personal’  matters  in  Brussels  (Article  135  of  the 
Constitution). There is now, through the BDCDO, an (albeit implicit) transposition of the 
directives on those aspects of ‘social advantages’ which fall within the competence of the 
Joint Community Commission. 

3.2.7  Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) 

In Belgium, national legislation prohibits discrimination in education as formulated in the 
Racial Equality Directive.196 

Education  is  a  competence  of  the  communities  in  the  Belgian  federal  system. 197  The 
communities  are  therefore  exclusively198  competent  to  adopt  legislation  prohibiting 
discrimination in education.  This  concerns not  only the provision  of the public education 
service itself, but also the employment relationship with educational staff. 

194  Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 103/2020 of 9 July 2020, https://www.const-

court.be/public/f/2020/2020-103f.pdf. 

195  Gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics are covered by the federal, regional and 

community legislation, explicitly (see e.g. Article 4 of the Federal Act of 10 May 2007 pertaining to fight 
discrimination between women and men) or implicitly, as grounds related to ‘sex’. See the report of Nathalie 
Wuiame. 

196  Gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics are covered by the community decrees, explicitly 

(see e.g. Article 3(1) of the Decree of 12 December 2008 of the French Community) or implicitly, as 
grounds related to ‘sex’. See the report of Nathalie Wuiame. 

197  Article 127, Section 1(1) and (2) of the Constitution. 
198  Minor aspects of the matter remain federal, but they are not relevant to this report.  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Since  2008,  the  field  of  education  (which  comprises  primary,  secondary  and  higher 
education) has been covered by the Anti-Discrimination Framework Decree of 10 July 2008 
adopted  by  the  Flemish  Community/Region  (Article  20(1)(5))  and  by  the  French 
Community Decree of 12 December 2008 (Article 3(13) and (16)). In the German-speaking 
Community, the field of education has only been explicitly covered since the adoption of 
the German-speaking Community ET Decree in 2012. 

In 2018, Unia published its Diversity Barometer: Education,199 which is based on a study 
made by three Belgian universities identifying the risks of discrimination of pupils on the 
ground of their social or ethnic origin, disability or sexual orientation at school. The study 
focuses on compulsory  education (6-18 years)  and is based on interviews with teachers 
and  school  directors,  surveys  and  behaviour  tests.  It  points  out  important  systemic 
deficiencies in Belgian educational systems resulting in discrimination against some groups 
of pupils (pupils from a lower socio-economic background, pupils of foreign origin, pupils 
with  disabilities).  These  deficiencies  are  notably  caused  by  the  organisation  of  the 
education system (public funding, freedom for parents to choose the school, and budget 
allowed according to the number of students), which often results in a distribution of the 
pupils among the different schools according to their socio-economic background. Another 
factor explaining inequalities at school in Belgium is the existence of different educational 
programmes, some of which are more valued than others. Early orientation to one of them 
often further enhances inequality.  

Unia recommended measures in favour of an inclusive education system, such as:  

- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 
- 

the  adoption  of  measures  to  increase  the  objectivity  of  methods  of  examining  the 
existence of discrimination at school;200 
a  registration  procedure  which  better  contributes  to  social  diversity,  including  the 
adoption of quotas for ‘priority’ students (target groups victim of discrimination) in 
each school;  
providing  additional  clarity  regarding  the  powers,  role  and  capacity  of  the  ‘class 
councils’,  which  are  composed  by  teachers,  with  regard  to  decisions  related  to 
orientation; 
taking seriously the question of harassment at school;  
a longer common core programme at schools for pupils to avoid orientation based on 
the social or ethnic origin;  
the introduction of measures combating harassment of LGBTIQ students;  
adopting general measures for more accessibility at school and a better adoption by 
schools of reasonable accommodation measures for students with a disability. 

These recommendations are important in practice and in supporting inclusive education. 

These  initial  recommendations  have  recently  been  supplemented  by  Unia,201  which  has 
invited  those  responsible  for  designing  and  implementing  initial  teacher  training 
programmes to structurally implement the acquisition of competences related to managing 
diversity and promoting inclusion in the classroom. According to Unia, in order to counter 
stereotyped  educational  trajectories  and  to  strengthen  equity  between  students 
throughout their school career, it is crucial, that teachers develop their ability to identify 
and act on their own stereotypes and prejudices, which are often unconscious. 

In  Belgium,  the  general  approach  to  education  for  pupils  with  disabilities  gives  rise  to 
problems. 

199  Unia (2018) Diversity Barometer: Education, available at: https://www.unia.be/en/publications-

statistics/publications/diversity-barometer-education-2018. 

200  Please note that the school inspection is organised at the level of the communities as the federal level is not 
competent as to education. Recommendations are ‘soft law’ but they could guide the school inspection while 
checking the implementation on the Decree on inclusive education.  

201  Unia (2022) Recommendation No. 303, 26 April 2022.  

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

In 2018 and in 2020, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) condemned Belgium 
because  of  the  Belgian  State’s  failure  to  guarantee  the  right  to  inclusive  education  for 
children  with  intellectual  disabilities  within  the  Flemish  Community202  and  the  French 
Community (Wallonia-Brussels Federation).203 In both cases, Unia filed an amicus brief. In 
both cases, the ECSR found a violation of Articles 15 (right of persons with disabilities to 
independence,  social  integration  and  participation  in  the  life  of  the  community)  and  17 
(right  of  children  and  young  persons  to  social,  legal  and  economic  protection)  of  the 
Revised European Social Charter. Conversely, the Committee decided that there  was no 
violation of Article E in conjunction with Articles 15 and 17. According to the Committee, 
Articles 15 and 17 encompass discrimination on the ground of disability. The allegations of 
discrimination  on  the  basis  of  socio-economic  origin  (‘low-income  families  would  not  be 
able  to  mobilise  adequate  resources  to  enable  the  pupil  to  be  directed  to  mainstream 
education’)  were  not  upheld  by  the  Committee  due  to  the  lack  of  ‘specific  evidence’  to 
support them.204 

These European condemnations illustrate the extent to which the legislative reactions are 
still insufficient.205 This is clear from Constitutional Court ruling 85/2023, in which the Court 
essentially  ruled  that  the  difference  in  funding  for  the  inclusion  of  pupils  with  sensory-
motor disabilities, on the one hand, and the inclusion of pupils with intellectual disabilities, 
on the other, was discriminatory. It is remarkable to note that, in support of its decision, 
the Constitutional Court expressly relied on the ‘case law’ of the European Committee of 
Social Rights cited above. According to the Court: 

‘Although  the  decisions  of  the  European  Committee  of  Social  Rights  and  the 
recommendations of the Committee of Ministers are not binding on Belgium, it is 
nevertheless  appropriate  to  have  regard,  in  the  context  of  the  case  under 
consideration,  to  the  aforementioned  decision  and  the  recommendation  arising 
therefrom, since the European Committee of Social Rights is an independent body 
specially  established  to  supervise  the  application  of  the  revised  European  Social 
Charter and has examined the case  of intellectually disabled pupils in the French 
Community, which is precisely the subject of “the case under examination.”’206 

Issues with inclusive education occur not only within primary and secondary schools, but 
also in the university environment. For example, on 25 October 2018, the Council of State 
suspended a university-college examination board’s decision, because it was discriminatory 
and against the Constitution.207 The case concerned a student who was about to graduate 
as a natural science teacher but eventually failed because of his low score in French, even 
though the university had been aware for years of his dyslexia and dysorthographia.208  

a) 

Trends and patterns regarding Roma pupils 

In  Belgium,  there  are  specific  patterns  existing  in  education  regarding  Roma  pupils. 
Although  these  patterns  do  not  formally  amount  to  segregation,  but  rather  to  indirect 
discrimination, the boundaries between the two are significantly blurred in this case. 

202  ECSR, Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (MDAC) v. Belgium, No. 109/2014, decision on the merits, 29 

March 2018. 

203  ECSR, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) and Inclusion Europe v. Belgium, No. 

141/2017, decision on the merits, 9 September 2020. 

204  ECSR, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) and Inclusion Europe v. Belgium, No. 

141/2017, decision on the merits, 9 September 2020, paras. 195-197 and 210. 

205  See also Unia (2021) Parallel report on the second and third periodic reports submitted by Belgium to the 

UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, pp. 15-17, available at: 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/21-12-03-parallel_report_-_CRPD_-EN.pdf. 
206  Constitutional Court, No. 85/2023, 1 June 2023, B. 32.3 (available at: https://www.const-court.be)  
207  Council of State (administration section), Baijot v. la Haute Ecole Galilée, 25 October 2018, Judgment 
No. 242.794, www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/Conseil_detat__25_octobre_2018.pdf. 
208  The decision is particularly interesting because the student concerned had never formally requested 

reasonable accommodation under the applicable procedure. However, the Council of State considered it 
sufficient that the Haute Ecole was aware of the student’s disability. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

According  to  surveys  carried  out  in  1994,209  2001  and  2004,210  school  absenteeism  and 
dropout  rates  constituted  a  serious  problem  among  the  Roma,  Sinti  and  Traveller 
communities  in  Belgium,  particularly  in  secondary  education.  A  large  number  of  Roma 
children did not complete secondary school. Moreover, the majority of children from these 
communities were directed towards technical and vocational education, in the way in which 
children  from  disadvantaged  social  backgrounds  are  generally  directed.  The  figures 
remained  patchy  and  made  it  difficult  to  identify  the  precise  causes  of  the  dropout  and 
absenteeism of pupils from Roma communities, although they did suggest that the lack of 
measures to assist Roma children in mainstream educational institutions might be the main 
reason why the dropout figures are so high.211 In a report from 2009, the Delegate General 
for the Rights of the Child, an independent public body appointed by the Wallonia-Brussels 
Federation, expressed his concerns about the extreme poverty of Traveller children, which 
is one of the reasons why these children are not being brought to school regularly. 

‘the exclusion of the families is reflected in the children at various levels: they cannot 
wash in the morning, they miss heating during winter, they are victims of the stress 
caused by forced evictions and their environment is unhealthy (...).’212 

These issues have been confirmed by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council 
of  Europe  in  his  2016  report  following  his  visit  to  Belgium  in  September  2015.  The 
Commissioner  expressed  his  deep  concerns  about  the  low  participation  of  Roma  and 
Traveller children in education. He highlighted the following issues:213  

- 

- 

- 
- 

the very high dropout and absenteeism rates as well as a growing number of children 
not attending school at all; 
the  constant  risk  of  housing  eviction  which  seriously  affects  the  access  of  an 
increasing number of children to education; 
enrolment denials; 
the  disproportionately  high  rate  of  Roma  and  Traveller  children  enrolled  in  special 
education,  due  among  other  factors,  to  a  lack  of  proficiency  in  the  language  of 
education.214 

In  May  2016,  based  on  an  initiative  of  the  Belgian  national  contact  point  for  Roma,  the 
Social Integration Federal Public Service launched the Belgian National Roma Platform. The 
platform (or forum) is supervised by a steering committee made up of staff of the federal 
and regional administrations, NGOs active at the local level and Unia. The aim of this forum 
is to trigger dialogue between stakeholders and Roma communities in Belgium. The Belgian 
National Roma Platform benefits from EU and federal funding.215  

There is still little information available on school attendance or the level of education of 
the Traveller community. The few studies and reports carried out on this subject showed 
specific  patterns  factually  (not  formally)  amounting  to  segregation,  including  an  over-

209  Machiels, T. (2002) Keeping the Distance or Taking the Chances, Roma and Travellers in Western Europe, 

Brussels, ENAR, March 2002, p. 17. 

210  Regional Integration Centre (2004) Les Roma de Bruxelles, Foyer Bruxelles asbl, September 2004, pp. 36ff. 
211  For a study on the schooling of Roma children in Belgium, see King Baudouin Foundation (2009) ‘Schooling 

of Roma children in Belgium. The parent’s voice’, www.kbs-
frb.be/~/media/Files/Bib/Publications/Older/PUB2009-1857-SchoolingRomaChildren.pdf. 

212  Délégué Général aux Droits de l’Enfant (2009), ‘Rapport relatif aux incidences et aux conséquences de la 
pauvreté sur les enfants, les jeunes et leurs familles’ (Report on the incidences and effects of poverty on 
children, young people and their families), 2009, pp. 30-32. 

213  Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (N. Muižnieks) (2016) Report of the Commissioner 
for Human Rights following his visit to Belgium from 14 to 18 September 2015, Strasbourg, 28 January 
2016, pp. 28-29 and 31-32.  

214  According to a 2010 study carried out in the city of Leuven, 27 % of the Roma and Traveller children 

surveyed were enrolled in specialised schools. 

215  Federal Public Planning Service for Social Integration (2019) ‘Report 2018-2019’ https://www.mi-

is.be/fr/themes/pauvrete/integration-des-roms/plateforme-nationale-belge-pour-les-roms/annee-activite-3-
2018. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

representation in the special educational system.216 This is why Unia conducted a survey 
to determine the participation of Traveller children in education.217 This survey, published 
at  the  beginning  of  2018,  recommends  promoting  inclusive  education,  improving  the 
housing situation of this community and investing in research related to those issues.218 A 
2020  survey  conducted  by  the  European  Union  Agency  For  Fundamental  Rights  (FRA) 
showed that the school enrolment rate is 70 % among Roma children aged 4-6 years and 
95 %  among  Roma  children  aged  6-15  years,  while  it  is  39 %  among  Travellers  of  the 
same age.219 

In  its  Concluding  observations  on  the  combined  twentieth  to  twenty-second  periodic 
reports of Belgium, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination220 underlined 
‘the  persistence  of  social  exclusion  and  poverty  experienced  by  Roma  and  Travellers,  in 
particular  children’,  and  recommended  that  Belgium  ‘take  effective  measures  to  combat 
poverty  among  Roma  and  Travellers,  with  particular  attention  devoted  to  children, 
including within the framework of the federal poverty reduction plan’. As a response, the 
new  version  of  the  National  Strategy  for  Roma  Integration,  submitted  to  the  European 
Commission  in  2022221  states  that:  ‘The  Belgian  national  strategy  will  be  based  on  the 
different policy areas that make the social and economic integration of Roma possible, such 
as combating discrimination in employment, education, housing and access to healthcare’. 

3.2.8  Access to and supply of goods and services that are available to the public 

(Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In Belgium, national legislation prohibits discrimination in access to and the supply of goods 
and services as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive.222 

- 

- 

- 

At the federal level – civil provisions: the Racial Equality Federal Act and the General 
Anti-Discrimination Federal Act apply, inter alia, to the access to and supply of goods 
and services available to the public (Article 5(1)(1)).  
At the federal level – criminal provisions: Article 24 of the Racial Equality Federal Act 
criminalises discrimination when committed in the provision of goods and services.  
At  the  regional  level:  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  available  to  the 
public  are  also  partly  covered  at  the  regional  level  by  the  Flemish  Framework  ET 
Decree  (Article  20(1)(6)),  the  French  Community  ET  Decree  (Article  4(6)),  the 
Walloon  ET  Decree  (Article  5(1)(9)),  the  Cocof  ET  Decree  (Article  4(1er)(7)),  the 
German  Community  ET  Decree  (Article  4(7)),  the  Brussels  ET  Ordinance 
(Article 4(3)) and the Ordinance of the Joint Community Commission of 30 June 2022 
(Article 4(4)). 

In Belgium, as in other countries of Europe, there has been some debate on the legality of 
the  burkini  ban  (body-covering  swimwear)  in  swimming  pools.  This  debate  is  directly 

216  Unia (2018) Annual Report for 2017, www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Jaarrapport/UNIA-rapport2017_FR-

AS.pdf.  

217  Unia (2017) ‘Participation à l’enseignement des enfants des Gens du voyage en Belgique’, December 2017. 
218  Those recommendations were reiterated in the 2019 memorandum drafted by Unia in view of the federal, 

regional and European elections of 26 May 2019; Unia (2019) S’engager pour les droits humains 61 
propositions d’Unia pour les élections 2019 (Commit to human rights: 61 proposals for the 2019 elections). 

219  European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2020), ‘Roma and Travellers in Belgium – Key 

results from the Roma and Travellers survey 2019’, p.3, 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2020-roma-and-travellers-survey-country-sheet-
belgium_fr.pdf. 

220  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2021) Concluding observations on the combined 

twentieth to twenty-second periodic reports of Belgium, CERD/C/BEL/CO/20-22, 21 May 2021, 
paragraphs 22-23. 

221  Stratégie nationale pour l’Intégration des Roms (2022) https://www.mi-is.be/fr/strategie-nationale-

dintegration-des-roms. 

222  Gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics are covered by the federal, regional and 

community legislation, explicitly (see e.g. Article 4 of the Federal Act of 10 May 2007 pertaining to fight 
discrimination between women and men) or implicitly, as grounds related to ‘sex’. See the report of Nathalie 
Wuiame. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

related  to  the  access  of  Muslim  women  to  goods  and  services,  in  this  case  to  public 
swimming  pools.223  There  is  currently  no  consensus  in  the  case  law  on  the  topic.  Some 
courts  have  established  that  such  a  ban  is  discriminatory.224  Others  have  reached  the 
opposite conclusion.225  

In some of its most recent annual reports, published in 2020, 2021 and 2022, Unia stresses 
that there has been an increase in complaints from women who are banned from practising 
sport  in  sports  halls  because  of  their  headscarves.226  The  most  recent  report  (published 
2023) does not contain specific data on this theme.227 

a)  Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately 

In Belgium, national law distinguishes between goods and services that are available to 
the public (e.g. in shops, restaurants and banks) and those that are only available privately 
(e.g. those restricted to members of a private association). 

Where they cover access to and supply of goods and services, all the different ET federal 
and  regional  laws  in  Belgium  refer  to  the  access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services 
available to the public.228 There is no specification as to what this expression refers to, but 
it  is  clear  from  the  preparatory  works  that  this  refers  to  all  situations  where  goods  or 
services are offered on the market, i.e. not reserved to a closed group.229 

However, regarding the criminalisation of discrimination when committed in the provision 
of goods and services (Article 24 of the Racial Equality Federal Act), it does not seem that 
the  goods  and  services  concerned  are  only  those  that  are  available  to  the  public.  For 
instance, it is likely that private leases are included. 

3.2.9   Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In Belgium, federal and regional legislation prohibits discrimination in the area of housing, 
as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive.230 

Social housing has been part of the responsibilities of the regions for many years.231 Since 
the 2014 sixth Belgian state reform, private housing has also become a competence of the 
regions.  Discrimination  in  housing  (private  rental  market)  falls  under  the  Flemish 
Framework ET Decree (Article 20(1er)(6)), the Walloon ET Decree (Article 5(1er)(3)) and 

223  On this dispute and the contrasting positions to which it gives rise, see: Unia (2021) ‘Avis juridique remis 

aux responsables des piscines publiques en Wallonie sur le port du maillot de bain intégral’, 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Aanbevelingen-
advies/2021_Avis_juridique_sur_le_port_du_maillot_de_bain_intégral.pdf. 

224  Ghent Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Gand), 24 June 2021, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2021_06_24_Hof_Gent.pdf, 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2020_Arrest_burkiniverbod.pdf. 

225  Antwerp Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel d’Anvers) 23 November 2020. 
226  Unia (2020), Annual Report for 2019 (Contributing to a more equal society for all), p. 34, see its website: 

www.Unia.be/en; Unia, Annual Report for 2020 (Vulnerable Human Rights in time of crisis), p. 44, 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Jaarrapport/Unia_rapport_égalité_2020_FR_AS.pdf. 

227  See Unia (2023) Annual Report 2022, https://www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-

statistiques/publications/rapport-annuel-2022.  

228  Access to and supply of goods is not covered by the following legislation: Brussels ET Employment 

Ordinance, Brussels Local Civil Service ET Ordinance, Cocof Vocation Training ET Decree. 

229  To the knowledge of the author of the report, there is still no case law clarifying the notion precisely. See, 
however, for an interesting application about the charitable activities of an association helping mothers in 
financial difficulties, Court of First Instance of Antwerp (Tribunal de Première instance d’Anvers), 7 January 
2021, available at: www.unia.be. 

230  Gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics are covered by the federal, regional and 

community legislation, explicitly (see e.g. Article 4 of the Federal Act of 10 May 2007 pertaining to fight 
discrimination between women and men) or implicitly, as grounds related to ‘sex’. See the report of Nathalie 
Wuiame. 

231  Article 6(1er)(IV) of the Special Act of 8 August 1980; Article 4(1) of the Special Act of 12 January 1989 on 

the institutions of Brussels. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

the Housing Code of the Brussels-Capital Region.232 A recent Decree (30 November 2023) 
has been adopted by the Walloon Region in order to supplement the Walloon ET Decree in 
the  field  of  housing,  providing  new  types  of  administrative  sanctions  and  means  of 
investigation (e.g. testing).233 

Apart from the anti-discrimination legislative framework adopted at regional level, there 
are  numerous  initiatives  in  Belgium  to  promote  the  availability  of  housing  accessible  to 
persons with disabilities and older people. It is nevertheless impossible to describe them 
in  this  report  because  the  measures  differ  from  one  community/region  to  another.  It  is 
worth  mentioning  the  National  Association  for  Housing  of  Persons  with  Disabilities 
(Association nationale pour le logement des personnes handicapées), which is very active 
on the ground.  

In  Belgium,  the  anti-discrimination  legal  framework  applies  to  everyone,  irrespective  of 
their nationality, and discrimination on the ground of nationality is prohibited. However, in 
practice,  there  are  patterns  of  housing  discrimination  against  people  with  a  migrant 
background. However, it is difficult to affirm that discrimination is because of their migrant 
background, rather than on the grounds of property (‘fortune’, in French), social condition 
or ethnic origin.  

It  is  notable  that  access  to  housing  is  particularly  difficult  for  recognised  refugees  who, 
once they obtain their status, have two months to find housing and leave the centre for 
asylum  seekers.  Refugees  face  language  problems  as  well  as  refusals  related  to  their 
refugee  status  or  lack  of  income.  In  response  to  this  situation,  a  Belgian  NGO,  Caritas 
International,  is  carrying  out  various  activities  to  facilitate  their  access  to  housing, 
especially  by  encouraging  private  owners  to  become  supportive  owners  (propriétaires 
solidaires) and by organising ‘housing-cafés’ to encourage meetings between owners and 
refugees. 234 

The Diversity Barometer: Housing, published by Unia in 2014,235 gives a better picture of 
the situation at that time. Furthermore, the Unia report concerning discrimination based 
on  religious  belief  linked  to  the  consequences  of  the  terrorist  attacks,236  shows  that  the 
rise  of  anxiety  vis-a-vis  the  Muslim  community  in  Belgium  leads  to  more  discriminatory 
behaviour reported to Unia, especially in the employment and housing markets.237  

Finally,  it  is  worth  mentioning  the  Views  adopted  by  the  United  Nations  Committee  on 
Economic,  Social  and  Cultural  Rights  in  the  case  Lorne  Joseph  Walters  v.  Belgium,238  in 
which  the  Committee  found  that  the  Belgian  law  on  rental  contracts  in  the  field  of 
housing,239  insofar  as  it  allowed  unilateral  termination  without  sufficient  guarantees  of 
motivation and rehousing, violated Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, 
Social  and  Cultural  Rights.  In  particular,  the  Committee  accepted  the  argument  of  the 
Equality Law Clinic of the Université Libre de Bruxelles (amicus curiae), according to which 

232  Brussels Housing Code, 17 July 2003, last modified on 21 December 2018, OJ (Moniteur belge), 31 January 

2019. 

233  Decree of 30 November 2023 on the fight against discrimination in access to housing (Walloon Region), OJ 

(Moniteur belge), 22 December 2023 

234  See, for more details, Caritas International’s website: hwww.caritasinternational.be/fr/projects/asile-et-

migration/refugies/logement/housing-cafe-trouver-un-logement/. 

235  Unia (2014) Diversity Barometer: Housing, www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-

statistiques/publications/barometre-de-la-diversite-logement. 

236  See above, in section 2.1.1. 
237  Unia (2017), Mesures et climat: conséquences post-attentats, June 2017, (www.unia.be/en). 
238  UNCESCR (2021), ‘Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International 

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, concerning communication No. 61/2018’, 12 October 
2021, E/C.12/70/D/61/2018. 
239  With a private entity/individual.  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

the  legal  provisions  at  issue  could  create  indirect  intersectional  discrimination  based  on 
age and social status.240 According to the Committee: 

‘(…) people over the age of 64 are more affected by lease terminations than the rest 
of the population (…). Therefore, the inflexible application of this law, in the specific 
context of rising rents in the Brussels-Capital Region (…) and taking into account the 
specific needs of older persons (…), could have a disproportionately negative impact 
on low-income older people. This disproportionate impact may be caused jointly by 
specific market conditions and the inflexible application of the regulatory framework. 
(…) Consequently, the possibility of a disproportionate impact of such a policy on the 
right to adequate housing of certain groups in vulnerable situations entails a double 
obligation for any State party that chooses such a regulatory framework. Firstly, the 
State party must establish a mechanism to monitor the impact of the application of 
the  legal  framework  on  the  most  vulnerable  and  marginalized  groups  in  order  to 
introduce the necessary adjustments to avoid a disproportionate impact that could 
imply a violation of the right to adequate housing for a specific group, such as older 
persons  in  socio-economic  difficulty.  Second,  the  policy  must  include  mechanisms 
and flexibility to ensure that the application of the legal framework does not have a 
disproportionate impact in certain cases.’241 

a) 

Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation for Roma 

In Belgium, there are patterns of housing discrimination against the Roma. 

Belgium has chosen to go beyond the scope of the  directives in the area of housing and 
services available to the public. National anti-discrimination law is used to prevent Roma 
and Travellers from ending up with a shortage of stopping sites, which would be considered 
to be discrimination under national law. 

Case law involving discrimination against Roma and Travellers in housing is scarce. There 
is not much information on the situation of Roma in the field of housing, except that they 
usually  live  in  very  poor  areas  and  in  miserable  conditions.  There  are  cases  related  to 
difficulties encountered by Travellers in finding a place to stop with their caravan, either 
temporarily, during the travelling period, or permanently. Given the shortage of sites where 
Travellers  are  allowed  to  stop  (especially  in  the  Brussels-Capital  and  Walloon  Regions), 
they  are  regularly  evicted  from  lands  where  they  have  parked  their  caravan  without 
authorisation. The core of the problem is that the specific lifestyle of Travellers is not (or 
not  sufficiently)  taken  into  account  in  planning  regulations.  Moreover,  many  local 
authorities are unwilling to accommodate Travellers in their territory.  

When Travellers lodge complaints, courts generally hold that their location at a site was 
illegal and the eviction therefore justified; therefore the International Federation of Human 
Rights  (FIDH)  lodged  a  collective  complaint  in  2010  before  the  European  Committee  of 
Social Rights (ECSR) to challenge the overall situation of Travellers in Belgium by alleging 
a violation of Article 16 (the right of the family to social, legal and economic protection), 
Article 30 (the right to protection against poverty and social exclusion) and Article E (non-
discrimination  clause)  of  the  Revised  European  Social  Charter.242  In  2012,  the  ECSR 
concluded  that  there  is  a  violation  of  the  Charter  because  of:  the  failure  to  recognise 
caravans  as  dwellings;  the  lack  of  sites  for  Travellers;  the  State’s  inadequate  efforts  to 
solve the problem; and the failure  of policy-makers to sufficiently take into account the 

240  UNCESCR (2021), ‘Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International 

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, concerning communication No. 61/2018’, Point 6.4. 

241  UNCESCR (2021), ‘Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International 

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, concerning communication No. 61/2018’, Points 12.2 and 
3. 

242  ECSR, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) v. Belgium, complaint No. 62/2010, 

decision on admissibility, 1 December 2010. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

specific circumstances of Traveller families. In its latest available follow-up report on the 
decision  in  2018,  the  ECSR  still  considered  Belgium  to  be  failing  to  comply  with  the 
Charter.243 

As  to  legislative  developments,  caravans  are  now  recognised  as  dwellings  in  the  three 
regions. In Flanders, caravans are explicitly taken into consideration since their inclusion 
in the Flemish Housing Code in 2004.244 With regard to the Brussels Region, an ordinance 
amending the Brussels Housing Code was enacted on 1 March 2012. The Government of 
the  Brussels-Capital  Region  had  to  define  the  specific  rules  for  this  kind  of  dwelling  by 
executive regulation. It also had to define the minimum requirements that the sites made 
available  to  Travellers  should  meet  and  to  identify,  in  particular,  what  safety  standards 
would apply to itinerant homes. In 2023, this executive regulation had still not been fully 
adopted. Therefore, although the amended ordinance is applicable, it is of no legal effect 
as the law presupposes an executive regulation to produce its effects.  In May 2019, the 
Walloon Housing Code was amended in order to expand residential facilities for Travellers, 
so as to include mobile homes (such as caravans) and tiny houses (‘habitations légères’) 
as  legal  types  of  housing.245  The  executive  regulations  necessary  for  the  new  law  to 
produce  its  effects  were  adopted  on  3  December  2020  (entered  into  force  June  2021). 
These  regulations  define  the  minimum  requirements  and  safety  standards  that  these 
dwellings  should  meet,  the  criteria  for  rental  permits,  etc.  According  to  the  Walloon 
Government these dwellings could be an answer to the challenge of housing for all.  

In its 2020 report, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance once again 
criticised Belgium for the lack of sites for Travellers. While the Flemish Region offers five 
well-equipped active transit sites,  

‘the  only  short-term  transit  site  in  the  Brussels-Capital  Region  was  closed  in  July 
2012  and  there  are  just  27  residential  places.  In  the  Walloon  Region,  there  is  a 
specially equipped site in Namur while two other sites (…) are not yet ready. Eight 
other municipalities (…) offer reception facilities on one or more sites, with varying 
standards of layout and equipment’.246  

ECRI considered that there is still a shortage of transit and permanent sites. The Belgian 
authorities have informed ECRI that measures are being taken to improve the situation: 
‘For the period 2016-19, the Flemish Region has made grants for the  acquisition, fitting 
out, extension and renovation of transit sites’ and ‘the Walloon Region awards grants to 
local authorities wishing to provide sites for Travellers’.247 Although Brussels established a 
grants policy similar to that of the Flemish Region, ECRI considered that  

‘a satisfactory way of ensuring an adequate number of residential places has still not 
been found. As a result, between 2003 and 2018 the number of long-term places, 
public and private, for Travellers fell from 60 to 27. Yet the number of such families 

243  ECSR (2018), Follow-up to Decisions on the Merits of Collective Complaints, Findings 2018, 

rm.coe.int/findings-2018-on-collective-complaints/168091f0c7. On the same line, see Commissioner for 
Human Rights of the Council of Europe (N. Muižnieks) (2016) Report of the Commissioner for Human Rights 
following his visit to Belgium from 14 to 18 September 2015, p. 30 and seq.  

244  Decree of 19 March 2004 (Decreet tot wijziging van het decreet van 15 juli 1997 houdende de Vlaamse 
Wooncode en van het decreet van 4 februari 1997 houdende de kwaliteits- en veiligheidsnormen voor 
kamers en studentenkamers), OJ (Moniteur belge), 13 July 2004. 

245  Decree of 2 May 2019 amending the Walloon Housing and Sustainable Housing Code and the Decree of 15 
March 2018 relating to residential leases with a view to including the notion of ‘habitations légères’ (Décret 
du 2 mai 2019 modifiant le Code wallon du Logement et de l'Habitat durable et le décret du 15 mars 2018 
relatif au bail d'habitation en vue d'y insérer la notion d'habitation légère), OJ (Moniteur belge), 11 July 
2019. 

246  ECRI (2020), Sixth report on Belgium, paragraphs 87-91, https://rm.coe.int/ecri-sixth-report-on-belgium-

/16809ce9f0.  

247  ECRI (2020), Sixth report on Belgium, paragraph 88. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

who live in Brussels for various reasons, such as birth, education or employment, and 
who are in need of a place, has doubled from about 70 to 140’.248 

In 2019, a large-scale police intervention occurred in which the caravans of 90 families of 
Travellers were seized. In June 2019, several UN special rapporteurs questioned Belgium 
about the disproportionate effects of these seizures, especially in relation to housing.249 In 
July 2019, the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) submitted a summary complaint with 
a request for an interim measure to the ECSR ‘given the flagrant nature of the breaches of 
the European Social Charter (Revised), and the irreparable harm that is taking place’. The 
immediate measures requested include returning ‘the caravans seized (…) to their owners 
who have been left homeless, or to provide adequate accommodation for the families who 
have been left homeless as a result’.250 The Committee declared the complaint admissible 
on 14 May 2020 and decided to indicate immediate measures such as ‘to guarantee that 
persons whose caravans have been seized are not rendered homeless or forced to live in 
unacceptable living conditions’.251 

In  its  final  decision  of  8  December  2022  (published  in  June  2023),  the  Committee 
concluded, with respect to the Traveller families affected by the police operations that led 
to the seizure of caravans and to the criminal proceedings in question in this complaint, 
that  there  has  been  a  violation  of  Article  E  taken  in  conjunction  with  Article  16  of  the 
Charter. The Committee stated ‘that even within the framework of police operations and 
criminal proceedings, the authorities, when proceeding to seize the caravans of a group of 
persons  for  whom  those  caravans  effectively  constitute  housing,  should  give  due 
consideration to the particular vulnerability of the persons concerned. Not doing so, as in 
the present case, negatively impacts these persons’ fundamental rights in such a way as 
to give rise to discrimination’.252 

In April 2020, another police intervention occurred at two Traveller sites in Wallonia, during 
which caravans and property were seized. The ERRC submitted a new summary complaint 
with a request for interim measures to the ECSR, claiming that ‘these actions were carried 
out  without  consideration  of  the  proportionality  of  the  measure  and  without  offering  an 
alternative solution in return (…) and have placed the affected families in direct exposure 
to hardships and health risks associated with COVID-19 in breach of (…) provisions of the 
Charter’.253 The immediate measures requested include stopping the seizing of caravans 
during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  and  returning  the  caravans  already  seized  or  providing 
adequate alternative accommodation.  According to  the Belgian Government, the interim 
measures requested should all be rejected.254 The ECSR declared the complaint admissible 
on 29 June 2021255 and decided that it was not necessary to indicate to the Government 
any immediate measures. 

In  its  Concluding  observations  on  the  combined  twentieth  to  twenty-second  periodic 
reports of Belgium, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination256 stressed 

248  ECRI (2020), Sixth report on Belgium, paragraph 88. 
249  Puras, D., Farha, L., De Varennes, F., and Tendayi Achiume, E. (2019) Doc No. UA BEL 2/2019, available at: 

https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24630. 

250  ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Belgium, pending complaint No. 185/2019. 
251  ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Belgium, pending complaint No. 185/2019: decision on 

admissibility and on immediate measures. According to the Committee's decision on the merits, the freezing 
of bank assets has been suspended. Some of the seized caravans were sold by the public authorities; others 
were returned to their owners when title could be established. 

252  ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Belgium, complaint No. 185/2019: decision on the merits. 
253  ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Belgium, pending complaint No. 195/2020. 
254  ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Belgium, pending complaint No. 195/2020: case document 

No. 2, Observations by the Government on admissibility and request for immediate measures, 
https://rm.coe.int/cc195casedoc2-fr-observations-du-gvt-sur-la-recevabilite-et-la-demande/16809f1592. 

255  ECSR, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Belgium, pending complaint No. 195/2020, decision on 

admissibility 29 June 2021 (https://laweuro.com/?p=16254). 

256  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2021) Concluding observations on the combined 

twentieth to twenty-second periodic reports of Belgium, CERD/C/BEL/CO/20-22, 21 May 2021, 
paragraphs 22-23. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

the need to ‘increase the number of transit and residential sites for Travellers and put an 
end to the evictions that they face’. As a response, the new version of the National Strategy 
for  Roma  Integration,  submitted  to  the  European  Commission  in  2022257  states  among 
other  things  that  the  Walloon  Region  will  continue  its  efforts  to  increase  the  number  of 
sites for the temporary stay of Travellers, and that the Brussels-Capital Region will finalise 
the executive regulations implementing the ordinance amending the Brussels Housing Code 
in order to recognise the habitat of Travellers, taking into account the new urban planning 
regulations. 

257  Stratégie nationale pour l’Intégration des Roms (2022): https://www.mi-is.be/fr/strategie-nationale-

dintegration-des-roms. 

65 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

4  EXCEPTIONS 

4.1  Genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirements  (Article  4  Directive 

2000/43, Article 4(1) Directive 2000/78)) 

In  Belgium  (federal  level),  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act  and  the  Racial 
Equality  Federal  Act  provide  for  an  exception  for  genuine  and  determining  occupational 
requirements  (Article  8).  To  the  extent  that  no  exhaustive  list  of  such  requirements  is 
specified, it is left to the judge to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the conditions 
are satisfied in order for the exception to apply. It remains debatable whether this is a fully 
satisfactory  solution.  However,  the  Federal  Government  is  authorised  to  adopt  a  royal 
decree providing a list of examples in order to offer guidance to courts.258 In its 2022 final 
report, the Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal 
Acts suggests that consideration be given to the opportunity to adopt one or several royal 
decrees providing such a list.259 To date, these royal decrees have not yet been adopted. 

The instruments adopted by the regions and communities contain similar provisions that 
are in line with the EU requirements.260 

There  is  very  little  case  law  on  the  question  of  genuine  and  determining  occupational 
requirements.  

Belgian case law offers various examples of what may  – or may not – be considered as 
‘genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirements’.261  One  of  the  most  significant 
examples is provided by a decision of the Brussels Labour Appeal Court of 15 June 2021.262 
A  professional  basketball  player  did  not  inform  his  employers  at  the  time  of  signing  his 
contract that he suffered from Crohn’s disease. He was dismissed and brought an action 
based on discrimination because of his disability. In the first instance court his claim was 
rejected. The Labour Appeal Court confirmed the judgment of the first instance court that 
the  disability  has  the  consequence  that  the  genuine  and  determining  occupational 
requirement cannot be fulfilled, i.e. high-level sports performance. 

4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) Directive 

2000/78) 

− 

General overview 

In Belgium (federal level), the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act contains a provision 
(Article 13), which follows almost word for word Article 4(2) of the Employment Equality 

258  Recital 18 of the Preamble to the Racial Equality Directive and Recital 23 of the Preamble to the 

Employment Equality Directive state that ‘In very limited circumstances, a difference of treatment may be 
justified where a characteristic related to religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation constitutes a 
genuine and determining occupational requirement, when the objective is legitimate, and the requirement is 
proportionate. Such circumstances should be included in the information provided by the Member States to 
the Commission’ (on the requirement that the Member States report to the European Commission, see 
Article 18 of the Framework Directive ). This last sentence suggests that the notion of ‘genuine and 
determining occupational requirement’ should not be left to case-by-case identification under judicial 
control, but should be given a precise definition beforehand, such situations being described by the Member 
State as part of the reporting requirements of the implementation of the Framework Directive. The 
implementation of Article 6 of the Flemish Framework ET Decree shows that the requirement to identify with 
precision, ex ante, the occupational requirements, which fall within the exceptions of Article 4 of the Racial 
Equality Directive and of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive, is achievable.  

259  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
91. 

260  See, for instance, Article 7(2) of the Walloon ET Decree. 
261  See previous editions of the country reports for Belgium, produced by the European network of legal experts 

in gender equality and non-discrimination. 

262  Brussels Labour Appeal Court (Cour du Travail de Bruxelles), 15 June 2021, C.C.R v. L.B. VZW, 

www.unia.be/en. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Directive  in  all  its  aspects  (occupational  requirements  duty  of  good  faith  and  loyalty). 
Without prejudging its interpretation by the courts, it should therefore in principle be seen 
as compatible with the Directive. 

Most of the communities/regions have introduced the exception provided in Article 4(2) of 
Directive  2000/78/EC  as  drafted  at  the  federal  level  (German-speaking  Community, 
Walloon  Region,  French  Community,  Flemish  Community/Region  but  with  a  less  precise 
formulation,  nevertheless  in  line  with  the  EU  requirements).  Neither  the  decrees  of  the 
Cocof of 22 March 2007 and 9 July 2010, nor the ordinances applicable in the Brussels- 
Capital  Region  (Brussels  ET  ordinances  and  BDCDO)  contain  any  clause  relating  to  the 
exception provided in Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC.  

Although  the  concept  of  an  employer  with  an  ethos  based  on  religion  or  belief  is  not 
expressly  referred  to,  some  decisions  relating  to  the  prohibition  of  religious  symbols  at 
work in the name of neutrality are worth discussing here. They illustrate the blurred lines 
between direct and indirect discrimination as well as between a genuine and determining 
occupational  requirement  (Article  4(1)  of  Directive  2000/78/EC)  and  the  exception  for 
employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC). 
These decisions concern both the private sector and the public sector. 

Private sector 

The first landmark case is the Hema case decided by the Tongres Labour Court in January 
2013.263  The  Hema  store  (belonging  to  the  Dutch  discount  retail  chain)  in  Genk 
(Flanders)264 had forbidden a Muslim employee who wore a headscarf from working with 
customers after some had complained. In its ruling of 2 January 2013, the court held that 
terminating  labour  relations  by  reason  of  the  wearing  of  a  headscarf  constituted  direct 
discrimination on the grounds of belief.265 

The  second  landmark  case  is  the  well-known  Achbita  case  which  concerned  a  Muslim 
woman  who  worked  as  a  permanent  contract  receptionist  at  G4S  Security  Services  and 
decided, in April 2006, three years after her hiring, to wear the Islamic headscarf during 
working hours. According to the Antwerp Labour Appeal Court, which decided the case on 
23 December 2011, the employer could prohibit the wearing of any religious signs by all 
employees  in  order  to  preserve  the  neutral  image  of  the  company,  even  though  the 
company did not have any clear regulation  on neutrality in the workplace at the time of 
hiring.266  

The applicant then brought the case before the Belgian Court of Cassation267 which decided 
to submit the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. The question referred to the CJEU 
only  concerned  the  issue  of  direct  discrimination.  The  CJEU  rendered  its  judgment  in 
Achbita  on  14  March  2017.268  The  Court  considered  that  the  general  ban  on  wearing 
religious  symbols  did  not  constitute  direct  discrimination  since  it  was  applicable  to  all 
employees  regardless  of  their  religion.  It  nevertheless  stressed  that  it  could  constitute 
indirect discrimination if it was demonstrated that people with a particular  religion were 
more disadvantaged by this measure. In a ruling of 9 October 2017, the Belgian Court of 

263  Labour Court (Arbeidsrechtbank) of Tongres (Flanders), 2 January 2013, Joyce V. O. D. B. v. R. B. NV and 

H. B. BVBA, Judgment No. A.R. 11/2142/A, available on the website of the Centre, www.unia.be/en. 

264  Genk is a much smaller town than Ghent, which is also mentioned in the report. 
265  Such a ruling is in line with the decision of the Labour Court of Appeal of Brussels in the decision E.F. v. Club 

corp. of 15 January 2008. 

266  Judgment Nos. A.R. 2010/AA/453 and A.R. 2010/AA/467 of 23 December 2011 of the Labour Court of 

Appeal (Arbeidshof) of Antwerp. 

267  Court of Cassation, 9 March 2015, S.12.0062.N, www.unia.be/en. 
268  CJEU (GC), Judgment of 14 March 2017, Achbita, C-157/15, ECLI: EU:C:2017:203. It is worth noting that 

the CJEU issued another ruling in Grand Chamber on the same day in the Bougnaoui French case C-188/15. 
It considered that a policy requiring an employee to remove her Islamic headscarf when in contact with 
clients (to please the will of clients not to see any headscarf) was unlawful direct discrimination. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Cassation269 overturned the decision of the Antwerp Labour Court, except with regard to 
the consideration that there was no direct discrimination in the case at hand, following the 
interpretation of the CJEU in this respect. The case was then referred to the Ghent Labour 
Court as the Court of Cassation is not competent to decide the case on the facts. Unia, the 
equality body, was still a party to the proceedings, acting in support of Mrs Achbita. 

The Ghent Labour Appeal Court270 had to determine whether a dismissal motivated by the 
wearing of a headscarf, in application of a neutrality policy of the company, was likely to 
constitute  indirect  discrimination  based  on  religion  or  belief.  On  12  October  2020,  the 
Ghent Labour Appeal Court ruled that the policy of general neutrality did not disadvantage 
Muslim women more than others. All G4S workers are required to refrain from revealing 
their religious, political or philosophical beliefs. In any case, the separation between state 
and  church  does  not  allow  the  court  to  distinguish  these  beliefs  according  to  their 
importance. In the end, the Ghent Labour Appeal Court decided that there was no indirect 
discrimination because it was not proved that people with a particular religion were more 
disadvantaged by this neutrality policy of the company. Since no indirect distinction could 
be  established  in  the  absence  of  a  particular  disadvantage  for  a  protected  group,  there 
would  not  even  be  a  need  for  justification.  Nevertheless,  the  Court  carried  out  the 
justification test (referred to as the Bilka test), which consists in determining whether or 
not an indirect distinction is justified in the pursuit of a legitimate aim. According to the 
Court, the policy of neutrality is a legitimate aim and the measure is appropriate, necessary 
and proportionate to this aim. The appeal court also held that the employer did not have 
to  consider  alternatives  such  as  the  wearing  of  a  neutral  headscarf  or  the  transfer  to 
another position where the employee would not be in contact with clients.  

The  decision  of  the  Ghent  Labour  Appeal  Court  could  be  criticised  in  the  light  of  its 
reasoning  regarding  its  definition  of  the  protected  group  (not  taking  into  account  the 
particular  situation  of  Muslim  women  who  wish  to  wear  a  headscarf  at  work)  and  its 
definition of indirect discrimination (which means taking into account the actual effects of 
the measure despite the fact that it applies equally to all). This decision is final as Unia 
decided not to bring the case before the Court of Cassation one last time. 

It is worth noting that during the proceedings of the Achbita case, other similar cases were 
decided. For instance, on 18 May 2015, the Brussels Labour Court dismissed an applicant 
claiming that she had been discriminated against on the ground of religion/belief because 
her employer refused to allow her to wear the Islamic headscarf.271  

Finally, the year 2021 brought a number of new decisions about the wearing of religious 
symbols  by  private  sector  employees.  Thus,  in  two  decisions  dated  respectively 
30 April 2021272 and 20 December 2021,273 the Liège Court of Appeal held that a pharmacy 
could prohibit its employees from wearing the veil, in order to preserve its neutral image 
and, referring to the  WABE case,274 to preserve equality between co-workers and ‘social 
peace’ among them. Also relevant is the SCRL case, which resulted in a judgment of the 
CJEU of 19 October 2022.275 The case originated from a request for a preliminary ruling 
issued by Brussels Labour Court. The proceedings concerned the failure by a company to 
take into consideration the unsolicited application for an internship submitted by Ms LF, on 
account  of  her  refusal  to  comply  with  the  prohibition,  imposed  by  the  company  on  its 

269  Court of Cassation, decision of 9 October 2017, S 12.062.N1. 
270  Labour Court of Appeal (Arbeidshof) of Ghent, Judgment No. 2019/AG/55 of 12 October 2020 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2020_10_12__Arbh._Gent.pdf.  

271  Brussels Labour Court (Tribunal du travail), 18 May 2015, A.R. 14/218/A, www.unia.be/en. See also 

Brussels Labour Court, Judgment of 28 May 2018, 
www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/Tribunal_du_travail_Bruxelles__28_mai_2018.pdf. 

272  Liège Court of Appeal, 30 April 2021, www.unia.be/en. 
273  Liège Court of Appeal, 20 December 2021, www.unia.be/en. 
274  CJEU, Judgment of 15 July 2021, IX v WABE eV and MH Müller Handels GmbH v MJ, joined cases C-804/18 

and C-341/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:594, paragraph 76. 

275  CJEU, Judgment of 19 October 2022, L.F. v. SCRL, Case C-344/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:774. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

employees,  on  manifesting,  in  particular  through  their  clothing,  their  religious, 
philosophical or political beliefs. Confirming the acquis of the Achbita and WABE cases, the 
judgment of the CJEU in SCRL adds something relatively new:  

‘Article 1  of  Directive  2000/78  must  be  interpreted  as  precluding  provisions  of 
national legislation, which are intended to ensure the transposition of that directive 
into  national  law  and  which  are  construed  as  meaning  that  religious  belief  and 
philosophical  belief  constitute  two  separate  grounds  of  discrimination,  from  being 
taken into account as “provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the 
principle of equal treatment than those laid down in [that directive]” for the purposes 
of Article 8(1) thereof.’ 

Public sector 

In a ruling handed down on 16 November 2015, the President of the First Instance Court 
of  Brussels276  ruled  that  the  working  regulation  of  Actiris  –  the  Government  body 
responsible  for  employment  in  the  Brussels-Capital  Region  –  prohibiting  the  wearing  of 
visible philosophical symbols amounted to indirect discrimination against the applicant who 
was  wearing  the  Islamic  veil  (headcovering).  According  to  the  Court,  the  prohibition  at 
stake was not legitimate since the regional legislature itself did not impose an ‘exclusive 
neutrality’. Moreover, Actiris did not show that the measure was appropriate and necessary 
to achieve the aim of neutrality pursued. Finally, the President considered that it was not 
necessary to wait for the CJEU ruling in the Achbita case since there was indeed indirect 
discrimination in the Actiris case, while Achbita was not about indirect discrimination but 
was only related to direct discrimination.277  

There are also numerous judicial rulings of the Belgian Council of State in cases concerning 
the  wearing  of  visible  religious  symbols  by  teachers,  showing  that  the  issue  of  religious 
symbols (and in particular, the wearing of the Islamic veil) is controversial at every level. 

The question was debated before the Council of State in a case involving two Flemish public 
schools  that  refused  to  appoint  teachers  of  Islamic  religion  because  of  their  refusal  to 
remove their headscarf outside the classroom, after teaching their religion courses.278 The 
two religion teachers filed an action for suspension and annulment of the decision of refusal 
of  their  appointments  before  the  Council  of  State.  In  two  decisions  on  the  actions  in 
suspension handed down on 5 February 2014, the Council of State held that the religious 
beliefs – and thus related religious symbols – of a religion teacher are inherent to his/her 
function. It concluded that, prima facie, by refusing to appoint an Islamic religion teacher 
only because she wears a headscarf as a religious symbol and refuses to remove it outside 
the  classroom,  after  class,  the  schools  have  breached  Article  24  of  the  Constitution 
concerning the neutrality of public education. The Court did not rule this question under 
the anti-discrimination provisions.279 The Council of State based its rulings on the decision 
adopted  on  17  April  2013,280  in  which  it  annulled  the  sentence  ‘when  they  are  in  the 
premises  where  they  give  their  courses’,  which  was  part  of  the  public  schools’  internal 
regulation adopted by the city council of Grâce-Hollogne (in the French-speaking part of 
Belgium). Following these rulings, the wearing of political, ideological or religious symbols, 
granted to teachers of  religion  or moral education, is not limited to the premises where 

276  Court of First Instance of Brussels, 16 November 2015, No. 13/7828/A. 
277  On this question see Chr. Horevoets, S. Vincent (2016) ‘Concepts et acteurs de la lutte contre les 

discriminations’, footnote 134, in E. Bribosia, I. Rorive, S. Van Drooghenbroeck (coord.), Droit de la non-
discrimination: avancées et enjeux, Morceaux choisis et développements récents à la lumière du droit belge, 
européen et international, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2016.  

278  Council of State, 5 February 2014, Nos. 226.345 and 226.346, www.raadvst-consetat.be/. 
279  However, the Council of State refused to suspend the execution of the challenged decisions and thus 

rejected both actions in suspension because the applicants did not manage to prove the risk of serious 
irrevocable prejudice. 

280  Council of State, 17 April 2013, No. 223.201, www.raadvst-consetat.be/. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

they teach their philosophical courses. The Council of State confirmed this case law in a 
ruling of 25 September 2015 in a similar case.281 

It is worth noting that the case law of the Council of State discussed above is applicable 
only to teachers of religion. As a reminder,282 on 27 March 2013,283 the administrative court 
(sitting  en  banc  –  assemblée  générale)  dismissed  a  maths  teacher  on  her  action  for 
annulment (merits of the case) against a regulation adopted by the city council of Charleroi 
prohibiting the wearing of religious signs by public school teachers. 

In a judgment of 3 May 2021,284 the President of the Brussels Labour Court found that the 
refusal of the STIB (Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles) to hire a woman 
wearing  a  headscarf  who  had  the  necessary  technical  skills  for  internal  administrative 
functions, which was repeated on two occasions, constituted both direct discrimination on 
the basis of her religious beliefs, prohibited by the Brussels Ordinance of 4 September 2008 
to promote diversity and combat discrimination in the civil service (BRSCO) and indirect 
discrimination on the basis of her gender, prohibited by the same Ordinance.  

Last but not least, the recent decision of the CJEU in the Commune d’Ans case must also 
be  mentioned.  The  request  for  a  preliminary  ruling  concerns  the  interpretation  of 
Article 2(2)(a)  and  (b)  of  Council  Directive  2000/78/EC.  The  request  has  been  made  in 
proceedings  between  OP,  a  member  of  the  contract  staff  of  the  Commune  d’Ans  (the 
municipal authority of Ans), concerning the latter’s prohibition on its workers wearing any 
visible  sign  that  might  reveal  their  ideological  or  philosophical  affiliation  or  political  or 
religious beliefs. In its judgment of 28 November 2023,285 the grand chamber concluded 
the provision of the Directive  ‘must be interpreted as meaning that an internal rule of a 
municipal authority prohibiting, in a general and indiscriminate manner, the members of 
that authority’s staff from visibly wearing in the workplace any sign revealing, in particular, 
philosophical  or  religious  beliefs  may  be  justified  by  the  desire  of  the  said  authority  to 
establish,  having  regard  to  the  context  in  which  it  operates,  an  entirely  neutral 
administrative  environment  provided  that  that  rule  is  appropriate,  necessary  and 
proportionate in the light of that context and taking into account the  various  rights and 
interests at stake’. 

It is clear from all these contrasting positions (some of which are open to criticism in terms 
of the methodology of their reasoning) that the issue should be clarified by one or more 
legislative  interventions.286  In  the  meantime,  we  note  that  in  its  recommendations  of 
December 2019 on the Periodic Report of Belgium, the UN Committee for Human Rights 
says it is  

‘concerned about the prohibition against the wearing of religious symbols at work, in 
certain  public  bodies  and  by  teachers  and  students  at  public  schools,  which  could 
result  in  discrimination  and  the  marginalization  of  certain  persons  belonging  to 
religious minorities (arts. 2, 3, 18 and 26).’  

It recommends that Belgium  

‘reconsider its legislation on the wearing of religious symbols and clothing in public, 
at  work  and  in  schools,  in  accordance  with  its  obligations  under  the  Covenant,  in 

281  Council of State, 25 September 2015, No. 232.344, www.raadvst-consetat.be/. 
282  Bribosia, E. and Rorive, I. (2014), Belgium country report on measures to combat discrimination – 2013, 

available at: www.equalitylaw.eu/country/belgium. 

283  Council of State, 27 March 2013, No. 223.042.  
284  Brussels Labour Court (Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles), 3 May 2021, published on www.unia.be. 
285  CJUE, judgment of 28 November 2023, Commune d’Ans, C-148/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:924. 
286  A proposal for an ordinance has been introduced in the Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region to ban the 

wearing of religious symbols in the Brussels civil service. However, it was not adopted, see: 
http://www.parlement.brussels/weblex-doc-det/?moncode=PC791&montitre=A-380/1-
20/21&base=1&taal=fr. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

particular in respect of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and 
the right to equality before the law.’287 

− 

Conflicts between rights of organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief and 
other rights to non-discrimination 

In  Belgium,  there  are  specific  provisions  relating  to  conflicts  between  the  rights  of 
organisations  with  an  ethos  based  on  religion  or  belief  and  other  rights  to  non-
discrimination in the context of employment. 

In Belgium, there are specific provisions concerning religious educational institutions. To a 
certain extent, these institutions are free to choose the curriculum and values at the core 
of their teaching. This implies a corresponding obligation for members of these institutions 
to  respect these  curricula and values.  However, the distinction between the private and 
the professional spheres should be respected, and disproportionate restrictions should not 
be imposed on the fundamental freedoms of the staff.288  

In its landmark rulings on several actions in annulment launched against the Federal Anti-
Discrimination Acts of 10 May 2007, the Constitutional Court289 – with respect to Article 13 
of  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act,  which  makes  an  exception  to  prohibited 
distinctions of treatment for public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on 
religion or belief – issued a consistent interpretation in line with the principle of legality in 
criminal  matters.  The  Court  asserts  first  that,  in  the  fields  of  “employment”, 
“complementary  social  security  schemes”  and  “membership  in  trade  unions”,  those 
organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief can make a distinction on the ground 
of religion or belief if that is necessary in regard to the context or the nature of the activity. 
As to the context, the Court says that it equates to ‘the character linked to the ethos of 
the organisation’ (le caractère lié à la tendance de l’organisation). The Court carries on by 
stating  that  a  distinction  on  the  ground  of  religion  or  belief  implemented  by  such  an 
organisation can be considered as objectively and reasonably justified having in mind the 
basis (fondement) of the organisation. 

The courts have only very rarely been given the opportunity to decide on these issues, and 
they have not established a clear boundary between these conflicting requirements. 

In  a  landmark  case  involving  the  Christian  Congregation  of  Jehovah’s  Witnesses,  the 
applicant, who had been expelled from the Congregation, put into question, not his ban as 
such, but the instructions given to the members of the Congregation to refrain as much as 
possible from seeing expelled members, even if they are family members. According to the 
applicant, community members affected by the ban found themselves without social fabric, 
as they were required not to develop any relation with the external world while being part 
of the Congregation. Confirming the decision of the Liège Court of Appeal,290 which was 
quashed by the Court of Cassation291 for the reason that it was in breach of the principle 
of the reversal of the burden of proof, the Mons Court of Appeal held that the applicant did 
not invoke any relevant element to presume the existence of discrimination as he was in 

287  UN Human Rights Committee (2019), Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Belgium, 

CCPR/C/BEL/CO/6, 6 December 2019, paragraphs 17-18. 

288  For instance, Article 21 of the Decree adopted on 1 February 1993 by the French Community (Décret de la 

Communauté française du 1er février 1993 fixant le statut des membres du personnel subsidiés de 
l’enseignement libre subventionné, Decree of the French-speaking Community of 27 July 1992 on the status 
of subsidised staff in free, subsidised education) provides that the personnel of educational institutions must 
comply with the obligations defined in their employment contract, which result from the specific character of 
the curriculum of the teaching institution in which they are recruited; however, the same decree states in 
Article 27 that the right to respect for private life of the employees should not be interfered with. 
289  Constitutional Court, Judgments Nos. 17/2009, 39/2009, 40/2009, 64/2009, delivered on 12 February 

2009, 11 March 2009 and 2 April 2009. 

290  Appeal Court (Cour d’appel) of Liège, 6 February 2006, Jurisprudence Liège, Mons et Bruxelles, 2006/15, 

p. 661664. 

291  Court of Cassation, Judgment of 18 December 2008. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

a similar situation to that of any person properly banned from a group or association. The 
Court also noted that the  State’s obligations in respect  of neutrality  and impartiality did 
not  allow  it  to  assess  the  legitimacy  of  religious  beliefs  or  the  way  that  religious  beliefs 
manifest themselves as part of the principle of the personal autonomy of believers.  

4.3  Armed  forces  and  other  specific  occupations  (Article  3(4)  and  Recitals  18 

and 19, Directive 2000/78) 

In Belgium, national legislation does not provide for an exception for the armed forces in 
relation to age or disability discrimination (Article 3(4), Directive 2000/78).  

However, although the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act is silent on this matter, it 
appears  from  the  explanatory  memorandum  (exposé  des  motifs)  that  the  Government 
accepts  that  the  preservation  of  the  fighting  force  in  the  army  might  be  a  legitimate 
objective  when  defining  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirements  within  the 
army. Therefore, the general understanding is that this exception is covered under Article 8 
of the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act (mentioned above in section 4.1). 

4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) 

a)  Discrimination on the ground of nationality 

In  Belgium,  national  law  does  not  include  exceptions  relating  to  difference  of  treatment 
based on nationality.  

In Belgium, nationality (as in citizenship) is explicitly mentioned as a protected ground in 
national anti-discrimination law. 

The Racial Equality Federal Act enshrines nationality as a prohibited ground. However, the 
nature of this prohibition is slightly more  flexible than for the  other grounds covered by 
the act (alleged  race,  colour,  descent,  ethnic or national origin). Whereas, for the latter 
grounds,  differences  in  treatment  may  only  be  justified  in  certain,  limited  and  specified 
situations, differences of treatment based on nationality may be justified if they seek to 
fulfil  legitimate  objectives  by  means  that  are  both  appropriate  and  necessary. 
Nevertheless, this provision explicitly states that direct discrimination based on nationality 
prohibited by European law will never be justifiable (Article 7(2)).  

All the pieces of legislation adopted at community and regional level now explicitly outlaw 
discrimination based on nationality. Similar to the Racial Equality Federal Act, there is an 
open  system  of  justification  of  direct  discrimination  based  on  this  discrimination  ground 
(nationality). The Cocof Vocational Training ET Decree292 does not provide for a justification 
system of direct discrimination based on nationality. 

The Constitutional Court has ruled in cases where the applicant claimed being discriminated 
against on the ground of nationality because of legislative provisions. A lot of these cases 
are linked to the freedom of movement within the EU and the conditions required to gain 
access to social, cultural and economic rights.293  

There  have  also  been  a  fair  number  of  cases  related  to  discrimination  on  the  ground  of 
nationality  in  the  field  of  social  security.  In  these  cases,  the  Constitutional  Court294  and 

292  Note that the Cocof ET Decree of 2010 provides that differences of treatment based on nationality may be 

justified in the case of a genuine and determining occupational requirement (Article 10). 

293  See among others the case ruled by the Constitutional Court concerning the language conditions that 

employees of nurseries financed by the Flemish Community have to comply with, Decision No. 97/2014 of 
30 June 2014. 

294  See among others the following cases: Constitutional Court, Decision No. 82/2016 of 2 June 2016, Decision 

No. 155/2014 of 23 October 2014 and Decision No. 12/2013 of 21 February 2013 available on the website 
of the Court: www.const-court.be/. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

national courts usually apply the criterion of ‘strong consideration’, on the basis of the case 
law of the European Court of Human Rights.295 

Articles  10  and  11  of  the  Constitution  protect  non-nationals  only  for  differences  of 
treatment  between  non-nationals.296  Concerning  differences  of  treatment  between 
nationals and non-nationals, Article 191 guarantees that any foreigner who is on Belgian 
territory  enjoys  the  protection  related  to  goods  and  people,  apart  from  the  exceptions 
enshrined in the law. As a consequence, any difference of treatment between Belgians and 
non-nationals should be reasonably and objectively justified – i.e. justified as a measure 
necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and proportionate to that aim (in some cases, the 
illegality of the residence on the territory will be deemed to put non-nationals in a different 
situation).  

Nonetheless,  there  are  some  exceptions  that  concern  the  exercise  of  political  rights 
(Article 8(2)  of  the  Constitution)  and  access  to  public  services  (Article  10  of  the 
Constitution), as well as access to the national territory and the right to reside. Moreover, 
specific  administrative  authorisations  must  be  obtained  by  a  third-country  national  who 
wishes  to  enter  a  profession,  either  in  the  context  of  an  employment  contract  or  self-
employment. Nevertheless, regarding public services, it must be pointed out that most of 
the  regions/communities  have  opened  access  to  employment  in  their  civil  service  to  EU 
citizens and third-country nationals, except for certain functions related to the exercise of 
public  power  (puissance  publique)  and  the  protection  of  national  sovereignty  (Brussels-
Capital Region, 2002 and 2004; Flemish Community/Region, 2006; Walloon Region, 2012; 
French Community, 2012 and 2013).  

b) 

Relationship between nationality and ‘racial or ethnic origin’ 

To  the  knowledge  of  the  author  of  the  report,  there  is  no  relevant  case  law  where 
nationality discrimination constitutes ethnic discrimination as well. This could be due to the 
fact that, since 1981, the Racial Equality Federal Act also prohibits discrimination based on 
nationality.  

However, in March 2012, six NGOs – including the French-speaking and the Flemish human 
rights leagues – decided to apply to the Constitutional Court for annulment of the Belgian 
Act  of  8  July  2011  on  family  reunification  (Article  9).  They  argue  that,  by  imposing  on 
Belgian citizens who have not made use of their free movement rights the same conditions 
(in terms of income and housing) as non-EU citizens in order to get family reunification, 
and  thus  by  imposing  stricter  conditions  on  Belgian  citizens  than  other  EU  citizens,  the 
legislation  introduces  discrimination  between  Belgian  citizens  and  EU  citizens  (reverse 
discrimination). According to the six organisations, it is particularly Belgians of Turkish and 
Moroccan origin who will be most badly hit by the legislation, which is therefore considered 
to be discriminatory on the ground of ethnic origin. Individuals or couples asking for family 
reunification have brought 36 similar actions in annulment before the Constitutional Court. 
On 26 September 2013, the Constitutional Court handed down a decision on the merits in 
which it held that Article 40ter of the Act of 15 December 1980, as modified by the Belgian 
Act of 8 July 2011 on family reunification, does not infringe the right to equality and non-
discrimination enshrined in Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. According to the Court, 
the principle of equality and non-discrimination between Belgian citizens and EU citizens 
may  permit,  by  reason  of  the  specific  situation  of  both  categories  of  persons,  certain 
differences  of  treatment.  The  Court  noted  that  the  fact  that  the  Belgian  legislature 
transposes EU legislation with regard to EU citizens, by virtue of EU obligations, without 

295  See Haumont, G. (2020), ‘Sa langue vers l’autre – itinéraires de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des 
droits de l’homme dans le raisonnement du juge constitutionnel belge en matière de droits fondamentaux 
des étrangers’, 2, Revue belge de droit constitutionnel, pp. 119-168; Bouckaert, S. (2012) ‘Influence de la 
jurisprudence de la CEDH sur le droit et la jurisprudence belges’, in CIECLR, Différences de traitement en 
fonction de la nationalité ou du statut de séjour: justifiées ou non?, p. 17. 

296  See notably Belgian Constitutional Court, case No. 82/2012, 28 June 2012, B.2.  

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

simultaneously extending this legislation to a category of persons not subject to it (Belgian 
citizens who have not made use of their free movement rights), does not in itself infringe 
the principle  of  equality and non-discrimination. Furthermore, the Court considered that 
the differences in treatment between Belgian citizens who have not made use of their free 
movement rights and EU citizens, regarding the conditions imposed on family reunification 
in terms of age, income and housing, are based on an objective criterion, are justified by 
the legitimate aim of controlling migratory flows and do not constitute a disproportionate 
infringement  upon  the  right  to  equality  and  non-discrimination.  As  a  consequence,  the 
Constitutional  Court  held  that  these  grounds  for  annulment  were  not  established  and 
rejected the claim regarding these specific grounds.297  

4.5  Health and safety at work (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In Belgium, there are no exceptions in relation to disability and health and safety as allowed 
under Article 7(2) of the Employment Equality Directive. 

Nevertheless, the regulation on health and safety at work in Belgium makes it an obligation 
for the occupational physician to identify what solutions may be devised in order to promote 
access  to  employment  for  workers  whose  physical  condition  makes  them  unsuitable  for 
certain jobs or for work on certain premises, and therefore the question of whether health 
and safety exceptions could be invoked by an employer to justify a difference in treatment 
on grounds of disability or health will depend exclusively on the attitude of the occupational 
physician, not on that of the employer.298 It is not possible in the context of this report to 
enter into the details of this regulatory framework. 

Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning the exceptions relating to health and safety contained 
in  the  regional  decrees  on  the  admittance  of  guide  dogs  to  public  places  (mentioned  in 
section 2.8 above).  

In 2011, Unia made recommendations to the federal Ministers for Public Health and Equal 
Opportunities on the access of guide dogs to hospitals. Unia recommended that the  

‘Superior  Health  Council  develop  a  uniform  procedure  regulating  the  access  to 
hospitals  and  healthcare  establishments.  The  general  rule  should  be  that  persons 
accompanied by a guide dog should have free access to consultation places, hospital 
rooms, cafeteria. It is essential to establish a list of places where guide dogs are not 
admitted. The procedure must also mention the hygiene precautions to be respected 
and the way in which the hospital staff can be sensitised to these questions’.299  

As a follow-up, the Superior Health Council adopted an opinion, in May 2014, on access to 
guide dogs to hospitals, where it reiterated that access to premises, or parts of premises, 
devoted to intensive care and invasive medical interventions should be prohibited, unless 
otherwise stated by the Hospital Hygiene Committee.300 

297  Constitutional Court, Judgment No. 121/2013 of 26 September 2013. This decision of the Constitutional 
Court could be criticised in the light of the case law of the ECtHR according to which only very weighty 
reasons could justify a difference of treatment on the grounds of nationality (see ECtHR, Gaygusuz v. 
Austria, No. 17371/90, 16 September 1996).  

298  See especially Arrêté royal du 28 mai 2003 relatif à la surveillance de la santé des travailleurs (Royal Decree 

of 28 May 2003 on monitoring the health of workers), OJ (Moniteur belge), 16 June 2003. 

299  Recommendation available on the website of Unia. 
300  This opinion is available in French and Dutch: www.health.belgium.be/en/node/20840. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

4.6  Exceptions  related  to  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  age  (Article  6 

Directive 2000/78) 

4.6.1  Direct discrimination 

a) 

Exceptions to the prohibition of direct discrimination on grounds of age 

In Belgium, national law provides for specific  exceptions for direct discrimination  on the 
ground of age in the field of Directive 2000/78/EC. At the federal level, the General Anti-
Discrimination Federal Act provides for such an exception (Article 12(1)), which is in line 
with Article 6(1)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC.  

At the level of the regions and communities, the Flemish Framework ET Decree (Article 23), 
the  Walloon  ET  Decree  (Article  11),  the  French  Community  ET  Decree  (Article  12),  the 
Brussels Local Civil Service ET Ordinance (Article 12), the Brussels Regional Civil Service 
ET Ordinance (Article 10), the Brussels ET Employment Ordinance (Article 13), the German 
Community ET Decree (Article 8), the Cocof Vocational Training ET Decree (Article 8) and 
the Cocof ET Decree (Article 11) have all made use of this option to allow proportionate 
different treatment which is provided by Article 6(1)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC, in their 
implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC. The wording of these instruments follows, at least 
in substance, that of Article 6(1)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC. The Brussels ET Ordinance 
of 2017 and the Ordinance of the Joint Community Commission of 30 June 2022 do not 
provide for this specific exception. This makes sense for the first Ordinance, as it does not 
transpose Directive 2000/78 because employment is excluded from its scope, given there 
already  is  a  specific  ET  Ordinance  on  employment.  For  the  Ordinance  of  the  Joint 
Community  Commission  of  30  June  2022,  this  lack  of  mention  of  a  specific  exception 
concerning age is more remarkable, as it also applies to employment relationships within 
the services of the Joint Community Commission. It implies that – except for the situation 
of  genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirements  and  positive  action  –  there  is  no 
justification possible for direct distinction based on age within the framework of the new 
ordinance. 

b) 

Justification of direct discrimination on the ground of age 

In  Belgium,  federal,  community  and  regional  law  provides,  under  certain  conditions,  for 
justifications for direct discrimination on the ground of age. 

The wording of all the provisions referred to at the beginning of this section (4.6.1.a) follow 
Article 6(1)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC and appear to be in conformity with the approach 
adopted by the CJEU in Mangold301 and Kucukdeveci:302  

‘(…) direct distinctions on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination if they 
are  objectively  and  reasonably  justified  by  a  legitimate  aim,  including  legitimate 
employment  policy,  labour  market  and  vocational  training  objectives,  and  if  the 
means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary’.  

For instance, Article 12(1) of the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act does not provide 
for  age  limits,  but  instead  requires  a  case-by-case  examination  of  any  difference  of 
treatment  based  on  age,  which  may  be  justified  as  appropriate  or  necessary  for  the 
attainment of a legitimate objective. Despite the lack of case law interpreting this provision, 
Belgian law seems compatible with the Mangold and Kucukdeveci approach. 

301  CJEU, Judgment of 22 November 2005, Mangold, C-144/04, ECLI:EU:C:2005:709. 
302  CJEU, Judgment of 19 January 2010, Kucukdeveci, C-555/07, ECLI:EU:C:2010:21. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

c) 

Permitted differences of treatment based on age 

In Belgium, federal, community and regional law permits differences of treatment based 
on age for any activities within the material scope of Directive 2000/78.  

In Belgium, the number of items of legislation and regulations that refer to age within the 
material scope of Directive 2000/78 is still significant. 

Salary  schemes  used  to  progress  with  age.  Since  September  2009,  all  sectors  have 
progressively  replaced  the  age  criterion  by  a  criterion  taking  into  account  the  years  of 
experience accumulated that are relevant for the job in question.  

In 2020, the number of opened age discrimination cases in the field of employment was 
85, which was an increase compared to 2019 (67 opened cases).303 There was a decrease 
in such cases in 2020 (66 files opened)304 and the situation remained stable in 2022.305 

d) 

Fixing of ages for admission to occupational pension schemes 

In Belgium, national law allows occupational pension schemes to fix ages for admission to 
the  scheme,  taking  up  the  possibility  provided  for  by  Article  6(2).  As  a  result  of  the 
implementation  in  Belgium  of  the  EU  Pension  Portability  Directive  2014/50,  the  Belgian 
Government  made  changes  to  occupational  pension  schemes:  as  of  1  January  2019, 
companies could no longer restrict access to employees aged at least 25 or with at least 
one  year  of  seniority.  Employees  will  immediately  enter  into  their  workplace  pension 
scheme upon employment. In addition, in the event that the worker ceases to work for the 
company,  they  may  request  the  transfer  of  the  reserves  acquired  in  respect  of  their 
occupational pension scheme.306  

The legislation is extremely complex and has been modified on  many occasions, but the 
basic rule is that, since 1 January 2009 and until 2025, men and women have been able 
to take their pension at 65 (see section 4.6.4.b below).307  

4.6.2  Special conditions for younger or older workers  

In Belgium, there are special conditions set by law for older and younger workers in order 
to promote their vocational integration.  

The labour market is harder to access for younger and older workers. Employers tend to 
doubt the efficiency of older workers. The economic activity rate of people aged between 
55  and  64  is  particularly  low  in  Belgium.308  Unia’s  Diversity  Barometer:  Employment, 

303  Unia (2021) Rapport Chiffres 2020, p. 47, available on its website, www.unia.be/en/. 
304  Unia (2022) Rapport Chiffres 2021, p. 70, available on its website, www.unia.be/en/. There are currently no 

figures available for 2022. 

305  Unia (2023) Annual Report for 2022. 
306  Belgian Federal Act of 27 June 2018 on the transposition of Directive 2014/50/EU of the European 

Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on minimum requirements for increasing the mobility of 
workers between Member States by improving the acquisition and preservation of supplementary pension 
rights (Loi du 27 juin 2018 relative à la transposition de la directive 2014/50/UE du Parlement européen et 
du Conseil du 16 avril 2014 relative aux prescriptions minimales visant à accroître la mobilité des 
travailleurs entre les Etats membres en améliorant l'acquisition et la préservation des droits à pension 
complémentaire), OJ, 5 July 2018. 

307  Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 23 December 1996 executing Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Act of 26 July 

1996 on the modernisation of social security and assuring the viability of the legal pension schemes (Arrêté 
royal portant exécution des articles 15, 16 et 17 de la loi du 26 juillet 1996 portant modernisation de la 
sécurité sociale et assurant la viabilité des régimes légaux des pensions), amended most recently by the 
Acts of 28 December 2011 and of 20 July 2012. 

308  Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 23 December 1996 executing Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Act of 26 July 

1996 on the modernisation of social security and assuring the viability of the legal pension schemes (Arrêté 
royal portant exécution des articles 15, 16 et 17 de la loi du 26 juillet 1996 portant modernisation de la 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

published  in  September  2012,  as  well  as  subsequent  statistical  reports,  show  that 
discriminatory practices in the Belgian labour market during the first stage of the selection 
process  mainly  affect  older  people  (those  over  45).309  On  27  June  2012,  the  National 
Labour Council agreed Collective Labour Agreement No. 104 concerning the creation of a 
plan  for  the  employment  of  older  workers.  This  CLA  was  made  mandatory  by  the  Royal 
Decree of 28 October 2012. The measure is consistent with the objective set by Belgium 
in  the  implementation  of  the  Europe  2020  strategy310  to  achieve  by  2020  a  50 % 
participation rate of workers aged 55 to 65. In 2019, this rate was 52.1 %.311 To address 
the issue further, all regions (employment policy being a competence of the regions) are 
putting in place schemes ensuring a smooth transition from full-time active employment 
to  retirement.  These  schemes  include  financial  incentives  to  remain  active  part  time; 
‘tutoring’  initiatives,  encouraging  older  workers  to  transmit  their  knowledge  to  younger 
workers (a task for which older workers may be trained); and ‘landing jobs’, the purpose 
of which is to encourage older workers to remain active in the voluntary sector as well as 
training  younger  workers  (this  latter  formula  was  devised  by  the  Flemish  Region  for 
workers above 45 years of age). A number of efforts,  which include financial incentives, 
have been made in order to encourage the continued vocational training and retraining of 
older workers. These schemes and incentives are generally available to workers over 45 
or 50 years of age. Other financial measures aim at encouraging older workers to return 
to work. 

In  2022,  an  average  of  6.6 %  of  young  people  between  15  and  24  years  old  (9.1%  in 
Brussels,  8.4 %  in  Wallonia  and  4.9%  in  Flanders)  were  NEET  (not  in  education, 
employment or training).312 

4.6.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements 

In Belgium, there are exceptions permitting minimum and/or maximum age requirements 
in relation to access to employment and training. 

The  list  of  exceptions  where  minimum  or  maximum  age  requirements  are  imposed  in 
relation to access to employment is a very long one. A full recital of the list of exceptions 
is beyond the scope of this report. As an example, labour court judges must be at  least 
25 years  old,  labour  courts  of  appeal  judges  and  non-professional  judges  sitting  in 
commercial courts must be at least 30 years old, juges de paix (lowest-level judges) and 
Police Tribunal judges must be at least 35 years old and Constitutional Court judges must 
be at least 40 years old when they take office. However, these conditions of age are linked 
to other conditions, such as professional experience.  

One  should  also  highlight  in  this  respect  the  landmark  decision  of  the  Brussels  Labour 
Appeal  Court  (Arbeidshof)  of  29  February  2008  in  a  case  on  the  age  limit  fixed  to  be 
admitted to a training course to become a football referee in the first division.  The court 
ruled that unjustified discrimination on the ground of age had occurred.313 

sécurité sociale et assurant la viabilité des régimes légaux des pensions), amended most recently by the Act 
of 19 December 2014, OJ (Moniteur belge), 29 December 2014. 

309  See Unia (2012) Diversity Barometer: Employment, www.unia.be/en/, and the latest statistical report of 

2018, www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Jaarrapport/Rapport_Chiffres_2018_FR.pdf. 

310  See: https://emploi.belgique.be/fr/themes/emploi-et-marche-du-travail/politique-de-lemploi/la-strategie-

europeenne-pour-lemploi. 

311  National Reform Programme 2020, April 2020, p. 30, 

https://www.be2020.eu/uploaded/files/202005061414290.NRP_2020_Belgium_EN.pdf.  

312  Statbel (Belgian Office for Statistics), https://statbel.fgov.be/fr/nouvelles/en-2022-66-des-15-24-ans-

etaient-sans-travail-ni-formation.  

313  Labour Appeal Court (Arbeidshof) of Brussels, 29 February 2008, Barbry Geert v. VZW Koninklijke Belgische 

Voetbalbond, No. 087518. This decision is available in Dutch: www.unia.be/fr/jurisprudence-
alternatives/jurisprudence/cour-du-travail-de-bruxelles-29-fevrier-2008. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

In  an  important  judgment  of  27  October  2022,314  the  Council  of  State  ruled  that  the 
maximum  age  limit  of  25  years  applied  by  Skeyes315  for  the  selection  of  air  traffic 
controllers  was  not  objectively  justified.  In  substance,  Skeyes  had  argued  that  ‘several 
studies’ had shown that the age limit of 25 years was justified. However, the Council of 
State found that none of these ‘scientific findings’ were supported by the documents in the 
file. The Council of State did not understand why the alleged scientific findings should lead 
to an age limit of exactly 25 years and why other data such as previous experience could 
not be taken into account. 

In a judgment of 2 August 2023, the Labour Court of Antwerp held that the requirement 
to be a  ‘digital native’ in a job advertisement led to a distinction in treatment based on 
age, which, in this case, was not justified.316 

4.6.4  Retirement  

a) 

State pension age 

In Belgium, there is no state pension age at which individuals must begin to collect their 
state pensions.  

If an individual wishes to work beyond the state pension age, the pension can be deferred.  

An individual can collect a pension and still work (under certain conditions which go beyond 
the scope of this report).317 

Since 2009, the legal pensionable age  – at  which individuals become  entitled to a state 
pension – has been 65 years for both women and men.318 The legal pensionable age will 
be raised to 66 in 2025 and to 67 in 2030. 

Other age limits apply in specific sectors, such as underground mining (55 years) or surface 
mining (60 years). As a result of a reform adopted in 2015,319 the age for early retirement 
has been increased to 63 years in 2019 if the employee can prove a minimum number of 
years of employment (from 41 to 42 by 1 January 2017). 

b)  Occupational pension schemes 

In Belgium, there is a standard age (65 years old, the state pension age) when people can 
begin to receive payments from occupational pension schemes and other employer-funded 
pension arrangements.  

314  Council of State, Judgment of 27 October 2022, No. 254.911, Leys v. Skeyes, available at: 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/Raad_van_State_27_oktober_2022.pdf. 

315  Skeyes is the autonomous public company in charge of the Belgian air traffic control. 
316  Labour Court of Antwerp, 2 August 2023, https://www.unia.be/files/2023_08_02_Arbsrb._Antwerpen.pdf.  
317  See the website of the federal Ministry for Pensions (Service public fédéral des pensions) - in French: 

www.sfpd.fgov.be/fr. 

318  Article 2 of the Royal Decree of 23 December 1996 executing Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Act of 26 July 

1996 on the modernisation of social security and assuring the viability of the legal pension schemes (Arrêté 
royal portant exécution des articles 15, 16 et 17 de la loi du 26 juillet 1996 portant modernisation de la 
sécurité sociale et assurant la viabilité des régimes légaux des pensions), amended most recently by the Act 
of 27 December 2021 (OJ, 31 December 2021). 

319  Belgian Federal Act of 10 August 2015 aiming at increasing the minimum retirement age, setting up the 

access conditions to early retirement schemes (Loi du 10 Août 2015. - visant à relever l'âge légal de la 
pension de retraite, les conditions d'accès à la pension de retraite anticipée et l'âge minimum de la pension 
de survie), OJ (Moniteur belge), 21 August 2015. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

If an individual wishes to work longer, payments from such occupational pension schemes 
cannot be deferred. 

An individual can collect a pension and still work. 

Occupational  pension  schemes  are  based  on  a  contract  between  the  employer  and  an 
insurance company. When the employee reaches the state pension age, the employer stops 
contributing to their pension insurance.  

An individual may be in receipt of a pension and still work, within certain limits. One of the 
changes  brought  about  by  the  Federal  Act  of  23  December  2005  on  the  solidarity  pact 
between  generations  is  that  these  limits  have  been  relaxed  somewhat  in  order  to 
encourage  workers  receiving  a  pension  to  maintain  a  certain  level  of  economic  activity. 
Since 2015, the limits of income of a professional activity concurrent with pension rights 
has  been  completely  abolished  in  two  cases:  1)  the  individual  is  at  least  65  years  old; 
2) the career lasted for at least 45 years.320 In all other situations, the income is limited 
according to the age of the pensioner and the existence of dependent children. 

c) 

State-imposed mandatory retirement ages 

In Belgium, there is no state-imposed mandatory retirement age in the private sector.  

By contrast, regarding to the public sector, there is a state-imposed mandatory retirement 
age with a possibility to extend. Indeed, public servants retire automatically at 65 years. 
There are however some exceptions to the mandatory retirement age of 65 laid down in 
the public sector. For instance, as regards judges, the mandatory retirement age is 70 for 
Court of Cassation and Council of State judges and 67 for other judges of the judiciary. In 
addition,  at  the  federal  level,  a  civil  servant  might  carry  on  working  beyond  65  years 
providing that s/he addresses a formal request to her/his chief officer who agrees to a one-
year extension, which is renewable.321  

An  important  public  debate  surrounding  the  raising  of  the  pension(able)  age  to  67  (see 
4.6.4.a, immediately above) was the recognition of a list of ‘arduous occupations’, such as 
nurses,  police  officers,  construction  workers,  etc.  who  would  benefit  from  an  earlier 
retirement age due to the heavy toll that their job takes. This was one of the key elements 
to  be  decided  by  the  2014-2019  legislature.  However,  the  Government  and  the  social 
partners were unable to reach an agreement and the matter was pushed back for the next 
Government  to  decide.  However,  the  new  Federal  Government  formed  in  2020  has  not 
planned to do anything on this issue during the current legislative period (2019-2024). 

320  Royal Decree of 20 January 2015 modifying Article 64 of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 (Arrêté 
royal du 20 janvier 2015 modifiant l’article 64 de l’Arrêté royal du 21 décembre 1967 portant règlement 
général du régime de pension de retraite et de survie des travailleurs salariés portant règlement général du 
régime de pension de retraite et de survie des travailleurs salariés), OJ (Moniteur belge), 23 January 2015; 
Royal Decree of 18 January 2015 Modifying Article 107 of Royal Decree of 22 December 1967 (Arrêté royal 
du 18 janvier 2015 modifiant l’article 107 de l’ Arrêté royal du 22 décembre 1967 portant règlement général 
relatif à la pension de retraite et de survie des travailleurs indépendants), OJ (Moniteur belge), 23 January 
2015. See the website of the federal Ministry for Pensions (Service public fédéral des pensions) – in French: 
www.sfpd.fgov.be/fr. 

321  See the Ministerial Decree of 11 September 2012 to implement Article 3 of the Royal Decree of 12 May 1927 

on the age of retirement of officers, employees and service people of state administrations (Arrêté 
ministériel du 11 septembre 2012 portant exécution de l'article 3 de l'arrêté royal du 12 mai 1927 relatif à 
l'âge de la mise à la retraite des fonctionnaires, employés et gens de service des administrations de l'Etat). 
Details in French on the official website of the Federal Government: 
www.fedweb.belgium.be/fr/fin_de_carriere/travailler_apres_65_ans/#.UgNUmuCyuJl. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

d) 

Retirement ages imposed by employers 

In  Belgium,  national  law  does  not  permit  employers  to  set  retirement  ages  (or  ages  at 
which the termination of an employment contract is possible) by contract and/or collective 
bargaining and/or unilaterally. 

The  ‘normal’  pension(able)  age  referred  to  above  is  not  necessarily  the  age  where 
retirement is  required.  In the private sector,  workers may work beyond normal pension 
age, and their employer may not force them to retire. The employer may do so only by 
following  the  usual  procedure  of  dismissal.322  According  to  the  Act  of  3  July  1978  on 
employment contracts, contractual clauses providing that the mere fact of reaching normal 
pension(able) ages ends the contract are void (Article 36).  However,  Article 37/6 of the 
Act  provides  that,  in  the  event  of  dismissal,  where  the  employer  terminates  the 
employment contract concluded for an indefinite period of time as from the first day of the 
month  following  the  month  in  which  the  employee  reaches  the  legal  pension  age  (65 
years), the period of notice is a maximum of 26 weeks. In other words, where a longer 
notice  period  is  obtained  under  the  ‘normal’  rules,  it  will  be  reduced  to  26  weeks 
(Article 37/6 of the Act of 3 July 1978). 

Bear in mind that in the public sector, apart from some exceptions (see  4.6.4.c, above), 
retirement is automatic and compulsory, and fixed at 65 years for both men and women. 

e) 

Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age 

In Belgium, the law on protection against dismissal and other laws protecting employment 
rights apply to all workers irrespective of age as long as they remain in employment.  

According  to  Article  36  of  the  Act  of  3  July  1978  on  employment  contracts,323  clauses 
providing that the fact of having reached the age of state or occupational pension terminate 
the contract, are void. However in the event of dismissal, where the employer terminates 
the employment contract concluded for an indefinite period of time as from the first day of 
the  month  following  the  month  in  which  the  employee  reaches  the  legal  pension  age 
(65 years), the period of notice is a maximum of 26 weeks (see 4.6.4.d, above). 

Note that the payment of social benefits (sickness, unemployment, early retirement and 
so on) stops when the legal pension(able) age is reached. A beneficiary of social benefits 
is therefore forced to take his/her pension at the state pension age. 

f) 

Compliance of national law with CJEU case law 

In Belgium, national legislation is partially in line with the CJEU case law on age regarding 
mandatory retirement.  

Apart from the public sector, where retirement is automatic and compulsory at the age of 
65  years  (with  a  few  exceptions),  there  is  no  compulsory  retirement  age  in  the  private 
sector. In the private sector, workers may work beyond the pension(able) age of 65 years, 
and  their  employer  may  not  force  them  to  retire;  to  do  so  the  employer  still  has  to 
terminate the contractual relationship by giving formal notice, even if the notice period will 
be reduced in this case. Therefore, except for the public sector, which is likely to constitute 
one  of  the  items  for  discussion  in  the  process  of  screening  Belgian  legislation  and 
regulations for potential age-based discrimination, Belgian law is in line with the CJEU case 

322  An employer may dismiss a worker without giving a reason for termination, provided that he or she gives 
notice or pays the compensation prescribed by law. However, in the event of a contested termination of 
employment, it is for the employer to prove that the dismissal is not unfair.  

323  Federal Act of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts (Loi du 3 juillet 1978 relative aux contrats de travail), 

OJ (Moniteur belge), 22 August 1978. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

law on age regarding compulsory retirement as regards the private sector.324 However, the 
reduced notice period described in section 4.6.4.d might be discussed in the light of the 
CJEU case law. 

4.6.5  Redundancy 

a) 

Age and seniority taken into account for redundancy selection 

In Belgium, national law (indirectly) permits age or seniority to be taken into account in 
selecting  workers  for  redundancy.325  Indeed,  the  employer  must  make  available  a 
redundancy  plan,  indicating  in  particular  the  number  of  workers  concerned,  specifically 
divided by sex, age, and professional category, as well as the reasons for the decision. This 
means  that  the  impact  of  the  decision  on  older  workers  will  be  part  of  the  collective 
discussion, which takes place with workers’ representatives. 

b) 

Age taken into account for redundancy compensation 

In Belgium, national law provides compensation for redundancy. Such compensation is not 
strictly affected by the age of the worker. This compensation allocated to the workers who 
are laid off, covering a period normally of four months following the layoff (as defined by 
Collective  Agreement  No.  10  of  8  May  1973  on  collective  layoffs,  Collective  Agreement 
No. 24 of 2 October 1975), is calculated as 50 % of the difference between their previous 
remuneration and the unemployment benefit that the laid-off workers will receive. It will 
therefore probably be more expensive for the employer to lay off older workers because 
their  level  of  remuneration  will  on  average  be  higher,  but  strictly  speaking  the  level  of 
compensation is not linked to the age of the worker. 

4.7  Further exceptions necessary in a democratic society: Public security, public 
order,  criminal  offences,  protection  of  health,  protection  of  the  rights  and 
freedoms of others (Article 2(5) Directive 2000/78) 

In Belgium, national law does not include express exceptions (public security, public order, 
criminal  offences,  protection  of  health,  protection  of  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  others) 
that  seek  to  rely  on  Article 2(5)  of  the  Employment  Equality  Directive.  In  any  case,  the 
anti-discrimination  provisions  must  be  interpreted  in  line  with  other  fundamental  rights 
and  freedoms  enshrined  in  the  Belgian  Constitution  and  in  the  European  Convention  on 
Human Rights or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. 

The situation that gave rise to request for an advisory opinion No. P16-2023-001, on which 
the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  issued  a  ruling  on  14  December  2023,326  could 
possibly be linked to the situation referred to in Article 2(5). 

The question submitted by the Belgian Council of State in its judgment of 4 April 2023 327 
was worded as follows:  

324  See among others, CJEU, Judgment of 12 October 2010, Rosenbladt, C-45/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:601. 
325  Redundancy procedures are regulated in Belgian law by Collective Agreement (Convention collective du 
travail) No. 10 of 8 May 1973 on collective layoffs; Collective Agreement No. 24 of 2 October 1975 on 
informing and consulting workers’ representatives in collective layoffs; the Royal Decree (Arrêté royal) of 24 
May 1976 on collective layoffs; the Act of 13 February 1998 containing provisions promoting employment, 
and the Royal Decree (Arrêté royal) of 30 March 1998 implementing Articles 63 and 66(2) of chap. VII, 
Collective Layoffs, of the Act of 13 February 1998. Moreover, account should be taken of 
Directive 98/59/EEC of 20 July 1998 when interpreting these provisions. 

326  ECtHR, Advisory opinion as to whether an individual may be denied authorisation to work as a security 

guard or officer on account of being close to or belonging to a religious movement, Request No. P16-2023-
001, 14 December 2023.  

327  Council of State, No. 256.222, 4 April 2023, available on www.raadvst-consetat.be.  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

‘Does the mere fact of being close to or belonging to a religious movement that, in 
view of its characteristics, is considered by the competent administrative authority to 
represent a threat to the country in the medium to long term, constitute a sufficient 
ground,  in  the  light  of  Article  9  §  2  (right  to  freedom  of  thought,  conscience  and 
religion) of the Convention, for taking an unfavourable measure against an individual, 
such as a ban on employment as a security guard?’ 

The answer of the European Court of Human Rights reads as follows:  

‘The established fact that an individual belongs to a religious movement that, in view 
of  its  characteristics,  is  considered  by  the  competent  administrative  authority  to 
represent a threat to the State may justify a refusal to authorise that individual to 
work as a security guard or officer, provided that the measure in question: 
(1) has an accessible and foreseeable legal basis; 
(2) is adopted in the light of the conduct or acts of the individual concerned; 
(3) is taken, having regard to the individual’s occupational activity, for the purpose 
of averting a real and serious risk for democratic society, and pursues one or more 
of the legitimate aims under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention; 

(4) is proportionate to the risk that it seeks to avert and to the legitimate aim or aims 

that it pursues; and 

(5) may be referred to a judicial authority for a review that is independent, effective 
and  surrounded  by  appropriate  procedural  safeguards,  such  as  to  ensure 
compliance with the requirements listed above’ 

It should be noted that the European Court of Human Rights was not invited by the question 
to rule on the issue of possible discrimination. It is referred to only indirectly328 and without 
explicit reference to Directive 2000/78/EC. 

4.8  Any other exceptions 

In  Belgium,  there  are  no  other  specific  exceptions  in  the  General  Anti-Discrimination 
Federal  Act  and  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  regarding  the  criteria  covered  in  the 
directives. It is nevertheless worth highlighting that positive action measures are dealt with 
in  these  federal  acts  as  a  ‘general  motive  of  justification’  (see  below  in  section  5).  The 
‘safeguard  provision’,  as  referred  to  in  sections  8.2  and  11.1  below,  is  also  mentioned 
under the chapters on ‘general motives of justification’. 

328  See Para. 100 of the Advisory Opinion : ‘The existence of a risk that individuals employed as a security 
guard or officer might use the prerogatives and powers conferred on them by their duties for unlawful 
purposes cannot therefore be ruled out as a matter of principle. That risk must therefore be the subject of 
an individual and detailed assessment, in the light of the personal situation of the individual concerned (see 
paragraphs 13-16 above) and the religious “ideology” of which he or she is considered to be a follower, 
while avoiding any form of discrimination prohibited by Article 14 of the Convention in terms of access to 
employment, especially discrimination on grounds of religion, under the guise of protecting the values of a 
democratic society (…)’. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

5  POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Scope for positive action measures 

In Belgium, positive action is permitted under certain conditions in national law in respect 
of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.  

- 

Federal level 

The  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act  and  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  provide 
that  those  differences  in  treatment  based  on  a  protected  ground  do  not  amount  to 
discrimination when a measure of positive action is concerned (Article 10(1) of both acts). 
Such a measure has to respect  four  conditions, which are based on the case law of the 
Constitutional Court329 (Article 10(2) of both acts).  

First, any positive action should be a response to situations of  manifest inequality, i.e. it 
must be based on a demonstration that a clear imbalance between the groups will remain 
in the absence of such action.  

Secondly,  the  removal  of  this  inequality  should  be  identified  as  a  public  goal.  In  this 
respect, the Federal Government must authorise the adoption of positive action measures 
through a royal decree (Article 10(3) of both acts).330 In 2018, the Federal Government 
eventually took the initiative to adopt a royal decree setting out the conditions for positive 
action as  recognised in the three anti-discrimination  acts of 10 May 2007. This ancillary 
royal decree was adopted on 11 February 2019.331 It came into force on 11 March 2019. 
It is only applicable to positive action relating to employment in the private sector. Its main 
purpose  is  therefore  to  provide  private  employers  with  a  secure  legal  framework  within 
which  positive  action  may  be  undertaken.  A  positive  action  plan  may  be  adopted  either 
through  a  collective  agreement  or  through  an  employer’s  ‘deed  of  accession’  (acte 
d’adhésion),332 conditional on complying with a format annexed to the royal decree.333  

329  Constitutional Court (Cour d'Arbitrage), 27 January 1994, Case No. 9/94, recital B.6.2. The Council of State 
has aligned itself with this understanding of the constitutional limits imposed on positive action: see Opinion 
No. 28.197/1 on the Bill which subsequently became the Act of 7 May 1999 on equal treatment between 
men and women in conditions of occupation, access to employment and promotion, access to a self-
employed profession, and social security. It is clear from the jurisprudence of the Council of State that it will 
additionally apply the - in this case stricter - requirements of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on 
positive action (Council of State, advisory opinion No. 71.827/3; 24 November 2022, available on 
www.raadvst-consetat.be – about the parity between men and women in the composition of the 
Constitutional Court). 

330  In addition, where positive action measures are adopted in the field of work and employment, the social 
partners are consulted, via the competent bodies established respectively in the private and the public 
sectors (Article 10(4)).  

331  Royal Decree of 11 February 2019 setting out the conditions of positive actions (Arrêté royal du 11 février 

2019 ﬁxant les conditions de l’action positive), OJ (Moniteur belge), 1 March 2019, p. 21169.  

332  The deed of accession is adopted according to the following procedure: the draft deed of accession setting 
out the conditions relating to positive action must be brought to the attention of all the workers in the 
company. The employees then have a period of 15 days to record their comments in a register which the 
employer must make available to them. They can also send their observations directly to the social 
inspectorate. If there are observations, the competent social inspectorate must attempt conciliation and, if 
the disagreement persists, it is up to the Joint Committee (Commission paritaire) to settle the dispute, 
ruling by a qualified majority of at least 75 % of the votes cast by the employers’ representatives and the 
same percentage of votes cast by the representatives of the trade union organisations. 

333  Article 5 of the Royal Decree reiterates that positive action should only be adopted in the case of a manifest 
inequality (to be documented by any means by the company or the sector), should clearly describe the 
objectives, steps and expected outcome, may be pursued for a maximum of three years, should be 
submitted to a proportionality test and approved by the competent Minister (i.e. the Collective Relations 
Directorate of the Department of Employment). Employers may also devise positive action plans under 
forms other than a collective agreement or ‘deed of accession’; in that case they should communicate such 
plans for information to the Minister for Employment. The Royal Decree fails to provide a definition of the 
term ‘employers’, thereby causing uncertainty as to its scope, at least for autonomous public economic 
bodies covered by the Act of 21 March 1991. It seems that they can use that latter route to implement a 
positive action plan. Implementation of the Royal Decree will be assessed every two years by the Collective 
Relations Directorate jointly with the National Labour Council.  

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Thirdly,  the  ‘corrective  measures’  must  be  of  a  temporary  nature.  As  a  response  to  a 
situation of proven manifest imbalance, these measures must be abandoned as soon as 
their objective – to remedy this imbalance – is reached.  

Fourthly,  these  corrective  measures  should  not  disproportionately  restrict  the  rights  of 
others.  

To date, five positive action plans, established by ‘deed of accession’, have been submitted 
and  approved  at  the  federal  level.  Two  of  them  aim  to  increase  the  presence  of  either 
women  or  people  of  foreign  origin  (North  Africa,  sub-Saharan  Africa,  Middle  East)  in 
consulting firms, while the other three are intended to promote the hiring of newcomers 
and refugees in the healthcare and electricity sectors. Only one of these plans includes a 
recruitment quota among other actions (hiring four trainees  or assistants per year from 
the  target  group).  In  the  other  cases,  the  measures  adopted  tend  to  take  the  form  of 
various types of support for training and/or awareness campaigns.  

In its last annual report, Unia notes that positive action is a little known instrument, and 
recommends that resources be deployed to make it better known. On this point, echoing 
the  final  report  of  the  Expert  Commission  for  the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-
Discrimination Federal Acts,334 Unia also recommends the adoption of a general framework 
for positive action in the public sector. 

- 

Regions and communities  

Since  the  conditions  defined  by  the  Constitutional  Court  for  the  admissibility  of  positive 
action  are  derived  from  Articles  10  and  11  of  the  Constitution,  rather  than  from  rules 
specific  to  the  federal  level,  the  regions  and  communities  must  also  comply  with  them. 
Similar  to  the  federal  acts,  the  conditions  under  which  positive  action  is  admitted  are 
explicitly included in the Flemish Framework ET Decree (Article 26), the Walloon ET Decree 
(Articles  12  and  14),  the  French  Community  ET  Decree  (Article  6),  the  Brussels  ET 
Ordinance (Article 14), the Brussels Regional Civil Service ET Ordinance (Article 12), the 
Brussels  Local  Civil  Service  ET  Ordinance  (Article  15)  and  the  Brussels  ET  Employment 
Ordinance (Article 11), the Cocof ET Decree (Article 13) and the German Community ET 
Decree  (Article  11),  and  the  new  Ordinance  of  the  Joint  Community  Commission 
(30 June 2022) (Article 10). It is worth highlighting that the Brussels Local Civil Service ET 
Ordinance is not only dedicated to the fight against discrimination but also to the promotion 
of diversity in the public bodies of the Brussels-Capital Region, in particular through the 
preparation  of  diversity  action  plans  (Articles  6  to  11).  The  same  is  true  for  the  new 
Ordinance of the Joint Community Commission (30 June 2022) (Article 27). 

As in the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act, Article 6 of the French Community ET 
Decree provides that a direct or indirect difference of treatment is not discriminatory when 
it takes the form of a positive action measure. Article 6(2) defines the conditions under 
which such positive action can be adopted. The former paragraph 3 provided that it is for 
the  Government  (of  the  French  Community)  to  define  the  hypothesis  and  conditions  to 
implement  positive  action  measures  in  an  executive  regulation.  In  the  absence  of  the 
adoption  of  such  an  executive  regulation,  on  13  November  2015,  the  Parliament  of  the 
French Community amended the ET Decree by adding a fourth paragraph to Article 6. This 
paragraph provides that, in the absence of an executive regulation, a judge is competent 
to scrutinise the validity of positive action, except in the field of employment. Henceforth, 
even in the absence of an executive regulation, private and public actors can adopt positive 
action measures, which will be assessed case by case in court. An executive regulation was 

334  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, 
recommendations 69-70. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

finally adopted on 22 November 2023,335 but it only concerns the field of labour relations 
for which the French Community is competent. 

The Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002 on the proportionate representation of target groups in 
employment stands out in this respect. Its objective is achieved through action plans for 
diversity  and  annual  reporting.  One  of  its  guiding  principles,  therefore,  may  be  said  to 
constitute a form of positive action, in the broad sense of this expression as used in the 
Racial  Equality  and  Employment  Equality  Directives.  The  Cocof  Vocational  Training  ET 
Decree  (Article  9)  and  the  Ordinance  of  26  June  2003  of  the  Brussels-Capital  Region 
(Article 4(2)) do not adopt the same affirmative concept of equality as that of the Flemish 
Decree of 8 May 2002, but nevertheless provide for positive action measures, which are 
defined in conformity with the Employment Equality Directive. 

b)  Quotas in employment for persons with disabilities 

In  Belgium,  national  law  provides  for  quotas  for  the  employment  of  persons  with 
disabilities. Systems of quotas for recruiting workers who have been officially recognised 
or registered as having a disability only exist in the public sector. The  percentage of the 
workforce to be reached differs from one public body to another: 3 % within the federal 
public administration, 2.5 % in the Walloon Region, 2 % in the Brussels-Capital Region, 
5 % in the Cocof (Brussels) and 3 % in the Flemish Region.336 A common problem in this 
area,  underlined  by  Unia  (2021),337  is  that  of  effective  enforcement:  reports  show  that 
these quantitative objectives for the integration of persons with disabilities are usually not 
met (for example, in 2019, workers with disabilities made up only 1.22 % of the federal 
public service; in 2021, the situation remained the same).338 In its first report on Belgium 
in 2014, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities stressed its concern about 
the low number of persons with disabilities in regular employment: ‘The Committee also 
notes  the  Government’s  failure  to  reach  targets  for  the  employment  of  persons  with 
disabilities within its own agencies, as well as the lack of a quota in the private sector’. 339 
In order to increase this figure, the support committee for the recruitment of persons with 
disabilities  in  the  federal  public  service  recommends  the  application  of  sanctions  in  the 
event  of  non-compliance  with  the  employment  obligation,  such  as  forbidding  the 
recruitment of new staff until the quota is reached.340 

According to the latest figures from Statbel,341 the employment rate in Belgium of persons 
with disabilities is 23 % (compared to 65 % of the total population aged 15 to 64). These 
figures  are  corroborated  by  those  provided  by  the  ‘Federal  Disability  Action  Plan  2021-
2024’.342 In its 2019 memorandum drafted in view of the elections of 26 May 2019, Unia 

335  OJ (Moniteur belge), 2 February 2024. 
336  For a detailed presentation of this body of legislation, Belgium (2011) First report of Belgium to the UN 

Committee for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: 
tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD/C/BEL/1&Lang=en. 

337  Unia (2021) Parallel report on the second and third periodic reports submitted by Belgium to the UN 
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, p. 21 https://www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-
statistiques/publications/rapport-parallele-pour-le-comite-des-droits-des-personnes-handicapees-2021. 

338  Support committee for the recruitment of persons with disabilities in the federal public service (2019) 

Evaluation Report, available at: https://fedweb.belgium.be/fr/publications/carph-rapport-
d%C3%A9valuation-2019. 

339  UNCRPD (2014) Concluding observations on the first report of Belgium, para. 38, available at: 

tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD%2fC%2fBEL%2fCO%2f1
&Lang=en. The Committee has been preparing its second report on Belgium since 2019 (report not yet 
released on 31 December 2023).  

340  Support committee for the recruitment of persons with disabilities in the federal public service (2018) 

Evaluation Report, p. 11, available at: https://fedweb.belgium.be/fr/publications/carph-rapport-
d%C3%A9valuation-2018; https://handicap.belgium.be/docs/fr/plan-federal-handicap-2021-2024.pdf, p. 
21. 

341  Statbel (2022), ‘International Day of Disabilities’, https://statbel.fgov.be/fr/nouvelles/3-decembre-journee-

internationale-des-personnes-handicapees-1.  

342  Federal Disability Action Plan 2021-2024: https://handicap.belgium.be/docs/fr/plan-federal-handicap-2021-

2024.pdf, p. 21. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

called  for  the  creation  of  an  inter-ministerial  conference  on  the  employment  of  persons 
with disabilities to introduce structural measures to deal with this problem.343 This call was 
reiterated in 2021.344 The 2022 final report of the Expert Commission for the Assessment 
of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts makes suggestions in this direction.345 

It is worth noting that some regional funds that finance employment assistance measures 
do  not  give  subsidies  to  public  administrations  when  the  quota  requirements  are  not 
reached. This is an important issue since such a refusal to give subsidies may jeopardise 
the access to regular employment of persons with disabilities, creating a vicious circle. 

343  Unia (2019) S’engager pour les droits humains 61 propositions d’Unia pour les élections 2019 (Commit to 

human rights: 61 proposals for the 2019 elections). 

344  Unia (2021) Parallel report on the second and third periodic reports submitted by Belgium to the UN 
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, p. 21 https://www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-
statistiques/publications/rapport-parallele-pour-le-comite-des-droits-des-personnes-handicapees-2021. 
345  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
240. 

86 

 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

6  REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT  

6.1  Judicial  and/or  administrative  procedures  (Article  7  Directive  2000/43, 

Article 9 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Available procedures for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 

The  procedures  for  enforcing  the  principle  of  equal  treatment  (judicial  –  civil  and 
criminal – and, in most cases, alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation) in Belgium 
are set out below.  

− 

Judicial procedures at federal level 

The General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and the Racial Equality Federal Act provide for 
civil and criminal procedural protection of victims of discrimination that are nearly identical 
for all the prohibited grounds. Only some criminal offences that are not in the General Anti-
Discrimination  Federal  Act  were  maintained  in  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act 
(discrimination  in  the  provision  of  goods  or  a  service  –  Article  24  –  or  in  access  to 
employment, vocational training or in the course of a dismissal procedure – Article 25) and 
are  therefore  specific  to  discrimination  based  on  race  and  ethnic  origin.  Victims  of 
discrimination, under both acts, may  

- 

- 

- 

- 

seek a finding that discriminatory provisions in a contract are null and void (Article 15 
and Article 13 respectively); 
seek  reparation  (damages)  according  to  the  usual  principles  of  civil  liability 
(Articles 18 and 16 respectively), although the victim may choose a payment of the 
lump  sums  defined  in  the  act  rather  than  damages  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the 
‘effective’ damage. The lump sum consists of EUR 3 900, reduced to EUR 1 950 if the 
defendant provides evidence that the measure creating the disadvantage would have 
been adopted anyway, even in the absence of the discriminatory element; in the field 
of employment, this predefined sum amounts to six months’ salary, reduced to three 
months  if  the  employer  demonstrates  that  the  measure  creating  the  disadvantage 
would have been adopted anyway, even in the absence of the discriminatory element 
(see below in section 6.5).  
seek from the judge that he/she delivers an injunction imposing immediate cessation 
of  the  discriminatory  practice,  or  a  positive  injunction  preventing  its  repetition,346 
under  the  threat  of  financial  penalties  (Articles  19  and  20  and  Articles  17  and  18 
respectively).347  The  possibility  of  ‘positive  injunction’  has  been  introduced  by  the 
Federal Act of 28 June 2023, following a recommendation of the  final report of the 
Expert  Commission  for  the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-Discrimination  Federal 
Acts;348 
seek  from  the  judge  that  he/she  imposes  the  publication  of  the  judgment  finding 
discrimination,  by  the  posting  of  the  judicial  decision  on  the  premises  where  the 
discrimination occurred, or by the publication of the judicial decision in newspapers 
(Articles 20(3) and 18(3) respectively).  

These  actions  are  brought  before  courts  of  first  instance  (civil  section),  labour  courts 
(where  an  employment  relationship  is  concerned),  or  the  President  of  the  commercial 
courts  (tribunaux  de  l’entreprise)  (for  delivering  an  injunction  imposing  immediate 
cessation of the discriminatory practice in the commercial field). 

346  This could involve ordering a party to make a specific reasonable accommodation. 
347  It is a criminal offence to refuse to comply with a judgment delivered under this provision (Article 24). 
348  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, pp. 
134-136. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

In addition, the acts provide for criminal liability in limited circumstances. First – although 
this goes beyond the scope of the Racial Equality or the Employment Equality Directives – 
incitement to commit discrimination, or incitement to hatred or violence against a group 
defined by certain characteristics, is a criminal offence, if it is done under public conditions 
as defined by Article 444 of the Criminal Code (Articles 22 and 20 respectively). Secondly, 
civil  servants  who,  in  the  exercise  of  their  functions,  commit  discrimination  may  be 
criminally convicted (Article 23 in both acts).  

For  the  sake  of  completeness,  it  should  be  added  that  where  offences  defined  in  the 
Criminal Code are committed with an ‘abject motive’, i.e. with discriminatory intent (hate 
crimes),  this  might  be  held  as  an  aggravating  factor  (see  Article  78ter  of  the  Criminal 
Code349).350 In this respect, in May 2012, the horrific murder of a young homosexual man 
was the first murder treated as a homophobic hate crime by the Belgian judicial authorities 
under  anti-discrimination  law.351  In  reaction  to  an  increase  of  homophobic  violence 
reported by Unia, Article 405quater of the Criminal Code was amended in 2013, increasing 
the sanctions for crimes committed with an ‘abject motive’.352 

− 

Judicial procedures at regional and community level  

With the adoption of the various ET decrees and ordinances  since 2008, the  systems of 
remedies put in place in the regions and communities copy to a large extent those of the 
Federal Anti-Discrimination Acts (in their initial version) and are in line with the European 
requirements.353 Some of the innovations introduced into federal legislation by the Federal 
Act of 28 June 2023 have also been, or are about to be, implemented in certain federate 
legislations.  However,  the  picture  is  very  mixed.  For  example,  a  decree  of  the  Walloon 
Region  of  13  July  2023354  introduced  the  possibility  of  ‘positive  injunctions’,  but  did  not 
increase the amount of lump sums. 

− 

Nonjudicial procedures /Alternative dispute resolution 

In most of the situations involving criminal discriminatory acts, a procedure of ‘mediation 
and measures’ (Médiation et mesures) is also available, under Article 216ter of the Code 
of  Criminal  Procedure,  which  makes  mediation  possible  (on  the  initiative  of  the  public 
prosecutor) for all offences punishable by imprisonment of a maximum of two years. This 
‘mediation’  procedure  can  lead  to  various  types  of  measures:  1)  to  undergo  medical 
treatment or any other appropriate therapy; 2) to perform community service of up to 120 
hours; or 3) to undergo training of a maximum of 120 hours. In its 2022 final report, the 
Commission  for  the  Evaluation  of  Federal  Anti-Discrimination  Legislation355  gave  a 

349  According to Article 78bis of the Criminal Code, ‘If the law provides for aggravating factors, the judge must 
take them into account when choosing the sentence or measure and its severity, without being able to 
impose a sentence greater than the maximum penalty for the offence’. 

350  In certain cases, the abject motive is qualified as a ‘aggravating circumstance’, and not only an ‘aggravating 

factor’ which means that the judge can pronounce a sanction superior compared to the one normally 
provided by the law. See, for instance, Article 417/20 of the Criminal Code. 

351  Ihsane Jarfi case. Although the hate crime was only treated as a homophobic crime in court, the fact that 
the victim was a Muslim gay man of North African origin and 32 years old was stressed in every media 
report. The father of the victim wrote a book ‘Ihsane Jarfi, the corridor of mourning’ (Ihsane Jarfi, le couloir 
du deuil), in which he condemns intolerance, whether it affects homosexuals, Muslims or any other minority. 
This is very significant in the Belgian context. 

352  Loi du 14 janvier 2013 modifiant l'article 405quater du Code pénal et l'article 2 de la loi du 4 octobre 1867 

sur les circonstances atténuantes, OJ (Moniteur belge), 31 January 2013. 

353  The system of remedies put in place at regional level is described in detail in the flash reports of the 

European Equality Law Network. 

354  OJ, 14 September 2023. 
355  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, pp. 
109 and ff. 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

generally positive assessment356 of the use of this type of ‘mediation’.357 

Discrimination cases can also be resolved, in relation to civil proceedings, by the mediation 
procedure under the Judicial Code (Code judiciaire – hereafter CJ) (Articles 1723/1 to 1737 
of the CJ). According to Article 1724 of the CJ, ‘Any dispute of a patrimonial nature, whether 
or  not  it  is  cross-border,  including  disputes  involving  a  legal  person  governed  by  public 
law, may be the subject of mediation. The same applies to disputes of an extra-patrimonial 
nature that can be settled by transaction (…)’. Civil disputes concerning discrimination are, 
in the light of this broad scope, suitable for this kind of mediation. This mediation may be 
‘judicial’  (in  court),  in  the  sense  that  it  takes  place  within  the  framework  of  legal 
proceedings  already  initiated  by  being  ordered  by  the  judge,  or  ‘extra-judicial’  (out  of 
court), in the sense that it is implemented and takes place independently (or on the fringes) 
of  any  legal  proceedings  previously  initiated.  Successful  mediation  results  in  a  written 
agreement, which  the parties may ask the judge to  approve and confirm (homologation 
judiciaire). The judge is obliged to do so, unless the agreement is contrary to public order 
or  the  agreement  reached  in  family  mediation  is  contrary  to  the  interests  of  the  minor 
children. 

It  could  also  be  mentioned  that  the  cooperation  agreement  that  established  Unia  as  an 
interfederal  institution,  and  defined  its  tasks  and  organisation  (12  June  2013),  entrusts 
Unia  with  a  ‘conciliation  and  mediation  mission’  (Article  6(2)).  Some  regional  legislation 
expressly confirms this role of Unia in a conciliation/mediation mission (see Article 16 of 
the Walloon ET Decree and Article 30 of the Brussels Local Civil Service ET Ordinance). 

In addition, the labour inspectorate is entitled to report cases of discrimination at work. 

Finally, it is also worth highlighting that some Belgian municipalities have taken initiatives 
in order to protect  victims of discrimination. For  example, in 2013, the municipalities  of 
Ghent approved a regulation relating to the activities of doormen. All the clubs, bars and 
restaurants of the city have to display the phone number ‘8989’ on their front window. On 
this  basis,  victims  or  witnesses  of  any  discrimination  can  send  a  direct  text  message 
reporting  the  alleged  discrimination.  The  contact  points  (meldpunten)  will  study  any 
complaint and contact the victims/witnesses within the week. The police services must also 
follow up complaints.358 The city of Ghent is also the first municipality in Belgium to include 
a non-discrimination clause in the terms of all its public procurements. According to this 
clause,  the  successful  tenderer  commits  to  ban  any  form  of  discrimination  within  their 
company and with regard to their subcontractors, and to take active measures to prevent 
discrimination, whether intentional or due to negligence. If, in the course of the execution 
of  the  public  contract,  the  city  of  Ghent  finds  evidence  of  discrimination,  it  may  impose 
additional measures on the successful tenderer. If necessary, the city may impose a fine 
or even end the contract. It can also report the breach to Unia and/or to the Directorate of 
Labour Law Inspection.359 

b) 

Barriers and other deterrents faced by litigants seeking redress 

If the victim wants to file a complaint him/herself, along with or without Unia or another 
organisation  aimed  at  fighting  discrimination,  he/she  will  need  to  instruct  a  lawyer,  at 
his/her own expense. According to Article 508(1) and following of the Judicial Code, people 
with low incomes can benefit from legal aid, which is entirely or partially free. However, 
due to budget cuts and reduced public spending, getting legal aid is becoming increasingly 

356  See also, in 2012, https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/rapport_Mediation_FR_DEF.pdf. 
357  See Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 

Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, No. 46 ss. 

358  Unia (2014) 2013 Report, available on the website of the Centre, www.unia.be/en. 
359  Decision of the executive of the city of Ghent, 18 May 2017 (2017_CBS_05820). See City of Ghent (2017) 
‘Stad Gent Hanteert strikte anti-discriminatie aanpak bij overheidsopdrachten’ (City of Ghent takes strict 
anti-discrimination approach in contracts), press release, 21 March 2017, available at: 
https://persruimte.stad.gent/145680-stad-gent-zet-haarkoopkracht-in-voor-gelijke-kansen. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

difficult. Moreover, as Unia pointed out in its 2017 evaluation report, it is very difficult for 
applicants who do not fall within the conditions of legal aid to bring a claim before courts 
because of the numerous obstacles to such procedures (very high costs and the payment 
of a procedural indemnity in the case of dismissal).360 In its final report of 2022, the Expert 
Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts361 made some 
suggestions to diminish these costs. These suggestions have not been followed up to date. 

There is no difficulty in bringing a claim after the employment relationship has ended under 
Belgian anti-discrimination law. If there is no criminal aspect, the claim must be brought 
in the year following the ending of the employment relationship. 

There is no specific time limit prescribed by law to seek a judicial injunction imposing the 
cessation of a discriminatory practice (or a positive injunction), which therefore does not 
seem to be a deterrent to seeking redress. There was nevertheless a controversy as to the 
possibility of bringing an action in cases where the breach has already been accomplished 
and has exhausted its effects (e.g. the author of the discrimination has already rented the 
goods after  refusing to  rent them to the victim of discrimination). However, case law in 
this matter seem to adopt a broad conception of the interest that must be demonstrated 
by the victim in order to take action, particularly when there is a danger that the violation 
will be repeated.362  

In its 2017 evaluation report, Unia recommended fixing a reasonable time limit, such as 
five years, for all labour law actions based on the Racial Equality Federal Act or the General 
Anti-Discrimination Federal Act.363 In 2017, the Expert Commission for the Assessment of 
the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts stressed the potential difficulties linked with the 
coexistence of different time limits in the field of anti-discrimination law depending on the 
type  of  action  (civil,  criminal,  labour).364  In  its  final  report  of  2022,365  the  Expert 
Commission made concrete recommendations along the lines of the suggestions made by 
Unia. These suggestions have not been followed up to date. 

As  regards  offences  committed  with  an  ‘abject  motive’,  these  can  consist  of  offences 
(délits) or crimes, for which public prosecution becomes in principle impossible after 5 and 
10  years  respectively.  However,  the  admission  of  extenuating  circumstances  may 
transform  a  crime  into  an  offence  (with  a  limitation  of  five  years)  or  an  offence  into  a 
misdemeanour (for which the limitation is one year). Finally, there are various causes of 
suspension and interruption of prescription. In this respect, the Federal Anti-Discrimination 
Acts provide in particular that the suspension occurs in the event of an action seeking the 
cessation of a discriminatory practice brought before civil courts.  

c) 

Number of discrimination cases brought to justice 

In  Belgium,  statistics  on  the  number  of  court  cases  related  to  discrimination  brought  to 
justice are not available. 

360  Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 

Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, February 2017, pp. 10 and 58. 

361  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
115. 

362  Wautelet, P. (2009) ‘Les garanties de la non-discrimination: sanctions civiles et aspects de procédure dans 
les lois fédérales luttant contre la discrimination’ (The non-discrimination safeguards: civil sanction and 
procedural aspects in the Federal Acts fighting against discrimination), in Wautelet, P. (ed.), Le droit de la 
lutte contre la discrimination dans tous ses états, C.U.P., Anthemis, Liège, 2009, p. 236. 

363  Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 

Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, pp. 9 and 84. 

364  Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 

Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, pp. 77-80 and paras 247-262. 

365  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, pp. 
114-116. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

d) 

Registration of national court decisions on discrimination cases 

In Belgium, court decisions on discrimination are not registered as such by national courts. 
There is no data on the number of discrimination cases brought to justice or dealt with by 
national courts. 

It is noteworthy that, in application of the Common Circular (circulaire commune) for an 
efficient  policy  of  monitoring  and  prosecution  with  respect  to  every  ground  of 
discrimination, adopted on 16 December 2013 (see section 9.1, below), the police services 
and  the  prosecution  departments  have  to  identify  and  register  the  cases  related  to 
discrimination and ‘hate crime’. The contact prosecutor for discrimination has the obligation 
to  manage  the  process  of  identification  and  registration.  According  to  the  Circular,  the 
registration of such cases and the follow-up are crucial to gathering data and statistics on 
the  number  of  cases  related  to  discrimination  brought  to  justice  and  to  get  a  better 
knowledge  of  that  issue.  In  its  2017  evaluation  report,  Unia  called  on  the  prosecution 
departments  to  better  implement  the  Common  Circular  in  respect  of  several  different 
issues.366  In  its  2018  report,  Unia  underlines  that  thanks  to  a  better  application  of  the 
Common Circular, there has been a rise in the number of cases referred to the criminal 
court (tribunal correctionnel). In 2020, Unia noted that such statistics and data are still not 
systematically reported.367 

In its 2020 report on Belgium, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance 
(ECRI) asked the Belgian authorities to ‘refine still further the regulations on data collection 
on racist and homophobic/transphobic acts’.368  

In its final report of 2022, the Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007  Anti-
Discrimination Federal Acts369 recommended more systematic publication of court rulings 
on discrimination, and revision of the Circular. These suggestions have not been followed 
up to date. 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Engaging in proceedings on behalf of victims of discrimination (representing them) 

In Belgium, certain associations  or  organisations and representative unions are  entitled, 
under both federal and regional anti-discrimination legislation, to act on behalf of victims 
of discrimination under certain conditions. 

- 

Federal level  

In criminal procedures, it has long been realised in the field of anti-discrimination law that 
combined  action  by  the  public  prosecutor  (who  has  the  authority  to  prosecute  criminal 
offences) and by the individual victim (who may seek damages by lodging a civil action 
claiming reparation, but also file a complaint to the public prosecutor or the investigating 
judge) may not suffice. The Act of 30 July 1981 criminalising certain acts inspired by racism 
and xenophobia, therefore provided, rather exceptionally in Belgian procedural law,370 that 

366  Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 

Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, February 2017, pp. 7 and 28. 

367  Unia (2020) ‘The underreporting and dismissal of discrimination offences’, 

https://www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-statistiques/publications/le-sous-rapportage-et-le-classement-sans-
suite-des-delits-de-discrimination-2020.  

368  ECRI (2020), Sixth report on Belgium, p. 17, https://rm.coe.int/ecri-sixth-report-on-belgium-/16809ce9f0. 
369  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
70-78 and 190. 

370  The principle is that the ‘collective interest’ asserted by an association which seeks to base its right to file a 
legal action on the basis of the mission defined in its internal statutes, will not suffice, if the rights of the 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

certain  associations  and  representative  unions,  which  statutorily  pursue  missions  of 
combating  racism  and  discrimination,  could  claim  damages  on  behalf  of  the  victim  as  a 
result  of  a  violation  of  the  provisions  of  this  legislation  (Article  32  of  the  current  Racial 
Equality Federal Act). Later, Unia, which was set up by the Act of 15 February 1993 as an 
independent body, received similar powers under criminal statutory law.  

In civil procedures, the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act (Articles 29 and 30) and 
the Racial Equality Federal Act (Articles 31 and 32) provide for the legal standing of Unia, 
of certain organisations (see hereafter) and of representative unions.  

- 

Regional and community level 

The  Flemish  Decree  of  8  May  2002  (Article  16),  the  German  Community  ET  Decree 
(Article 13), the Cocof Vocational Training ET Decree (Article 14) and the Cocof ET Decree 
(Article  28)  have  solutions  similar  to  that  of  the  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Acts  of 
10 May 2007. This is also true of the Flemish Framework Decree (Article 41), the Walloon 
ET Decree (Article 31), the French Community ET Decree (Article 39),371 the Brussels ET 
Ordinance (Article 16), the Brussels Regional Civil Service ET Ordinance and the Brussels 
ET Employment Ordinance (Article 25), the Brussels Local Civil Service ET Ordinance, the 
Brussels ET Employment Ordinance (Article 30) and the Ordinance of the Joint Community 
Commission (Articles 24 and 25). 

- 

The locus standi of organisations 

The  conditions  imposed  on  associations  to  be  recognised  as  having  legal  standing  in 
discrimination cases were, until 2018, identical in federal, community and regional law. A 
reform of the Judicial Code (Code judiciaire) by the law of 21 December 2018,372 however, 
has slightly changed the data. 

At  federal  level,  associations  will  have  a  locus  standi  on  the  basis  of  the  Racial  Equality 
Federal Act and the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act, if their statutory goal includes 
the protection of human rights or the fight against discrimination. In addition, they must 
meet three conditions set out in Article 17 of the Judicial Code (Code judiciaire), as modified 
by  the  above-mentioned  law  of  21  December  2018:373  (1)  the  statutory  object  of  the 
association must be of a specific nature, distinct from the pursuit of the general interest; 
(2) the association must pursue that object in a lasting and effective manner;374 and (3) 
the association must take legal action within the context of this statutory object, in order 
to ensure the defence of an interest related to this object. This standard system is provided 
by  Article  32(1)  of  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  and  Article  30  of  the  General  Anti-
Discrimination Federal Act. The same conditions apply also on the basis of Article 31 of the 
Walloon ET Decree. 

The conditions imposed on associations in order to have a locus standi on the basis of the 
other community and regional anti-discrimination acts correspond to those which prevailed 

association (to the protection of its property, its honour or reputation) are not violated as such. According to 
the Court of Cassation, if another solution were to prevail, citizens forming an association could impose on 
the authorities an obligation to prosecute, even in cases where the public prosecutor would find it not 
opportune to do so (Cour de cassation, 24 November 1982, Pasicrisie, 1983, I, p. 361). The Court of 
Cassation confirmed its position on a number of later cases (e.g. Cour de cassation, 19 September 1996, 
Revue critique de jurisprudence belge, 1997, p. 105). However, the Act of 31 July 1981 provides for 
exceptions to this rule, allowing unions and associations under certain conditions to pursue damages on 
behalf of the victim in the collective interest.  

371  French Community ET Decree, Article 38 provides that the IECO and the Institute for the Equality of Women 

and Men are competent to file a suit on the basis of the Decree. 

372  Act of 21 December 2018 ‘containing various provisions relating to justice’ (OJ, 31 December 2018). 
373  The aim of the reform was to generalise the right of human rights associations to take legal action and to 
standardise the conditions for doing so. It did not result in a step backwards for associations active in the 
fight against discrimination. 

374  This question is a question of fact, to be assessed by the tribunal on a case-by-case basis. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

in the federal law before the adoption of the above-mentioned law of 21 December 2018: 
the statutory goal of the association must include the protection of human rights or the 
fight  against  discrimination,  and  the  association  must  have  had  legal  personality  for  at 
least three years. This is the system provided by Article 16 of the Flemish Decree of 2002, 
Article 13 of the German Community ET Decree, Article 14 of the Cocof Vocational Training 
ET  Decree  (2007),  Article  28  of  the  Cocof  ET  Decree  (2010),  Article  41  of  the  Flemish 
Framework  Decree,  Article  39  of  the  French  Community  ET  Decree,  Article  16  of  the 
Brussels ET Ordinance, Article 27 of the Brussels ET Employment Ordinance, Article 29 of 
the  Brussels  Local  Civil  Service  ET  Ordinance  (which  specifically  designates  Unia  as  the 
equality  body  with  legal  standing  to  defend  victims  in  court),  Article  25  of  the  Brussels 
Regional  Civil  Service  ET  Ordinance  and  Article  25  of  the  new  Ordinance  of  the  Joint 
Community Commission. However, it is worth noting that under the German Community 
ET  Decree  and  the  Cocof  ET  Decree,  associations,  which  have  a  legal  personality  at  the 
moment of the discriminatory act (but have not necessarily had it for three years), may 
engage  in  proceedings  on  behalf  or  in  support  of  complainants.  Furthermore,  under  the 
Cocof  Vocational  Training  ET  Decree,  associations  willing  to  engage  in  proceedings  on 
behalf  or  in  support  of  complainants  must  have  had  a  legal  personality  for  at  least  five 
years. 

Both at the federal and the regional levels, where the victim of the alleged discrimination 
is an identifiable (natural or legal) person, actions of the entities entitled to act on behalf 
or in support of them will only be admissible if they prove that the victim has agreed to 
their  action  being  filed.  This  principle  is  provided  for  by  the  General  Anti-Discrimination 
Federal  Act  (Article  31),  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act,  (Article  33),  the  Decree  of  the 
Flemish Framework ET Decree (Article 40), the Walloon ET Decree (Article 32), the French 
Community  ET  Decree  (Article  40),  the  German  Community  ET  Decree  (Article  14),  the 
Cocof  Vocational  Training  ET  Decree  (Article  14),  the  Cocof  ET  Decree  (Article  28),  the 
Brussels ET Ordinance  (Article 16), the  Brussels  ET Employment  Ordinance  (Article 34), 
the Brussels Regional Civil Service ET Ordinance (Article  25) and the Brussels Local Civil 
Service ET Ordinance (Article 29).  

However, the Federal Act of 28 June 2023375 has introduced into the federal legislation two 
exceptions376 to the rule of the mandatory agreement of the victim or his or her inheritors 
or  legal  representatives:  the  victim  is  deceased  and  the  victim’s  inheritors  or  legal 
representatives  have  already  been  charged  as  part  of  the  judicial  investigation  into  the 
death, or it emerges that the victim’s legal representatives do not recognise or respect one 
or more of the victim’s protected criteria; the victim is not in a position to give consent due 
to  his  or  her  vulnerable  situation  and  his  or  her  legal  representatives  are  already  the 
subject of an ongoing criminal investigation into the victim’s discrimination, or it emerges 
from the criminal investigation that his or her legal representatives do not recognise or do 
not respect one or more of the victim’s protected criteria, or his or her legal representatives 
are also not in a position to give consent due to their vulnerable situation. To date, such 
exceptions have not been introduced into community/regional legislation. 

The extension of legal interest in a case where a person has been a victim of discrimination 
to  Unia,  representative  unions  and  associations  has  an  important  consequence.  Such 
entities  acting  as  private  prosecutors  may  overcome  both  the  inertia  of  the  public 
prosecutor  (in  criminal  proceedings)377  and  the  unwillingness  of  the  victim  to  file  a 

375  OJ (Moniteur belge), 20 July 2023. 
376  However, these exceptions are not applicable to Unia. An extension of these exceptions to the situations 
where Unia is acting, would require a modification of the cooperation agreement of 12 June creating Unia 
(see Council of State, advisory opinion No. 72913/2, 16 February 2023, available on www.raadvst-
ceonstat.be).  

377  The public prosecutor has also the (quite exceptional) possibility to introduce civil proceedings on the basis 
of the Racial Equality Federal Act and the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act (see Articles 15 to 17 of 
the Act of 10 May 2007 adapting the Judicial Code to legislation aimed at combating discrimination and 
punishing certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia (OJ, 30 May 2007)). No agreement of the victim is 
needed in this case. 

93 

 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

complaint by which, if he/she seeks damages, the victim obliges the investigating judge to 
commence an investigation. However, and under reservation of the two newly introduced 
exceptions  in  the  Federal  Anti-Discrimination  Acts,  these  entities  may  only  launch 
proceedings on the basis of the federal, community and regional anti-discrimination laws 
with the agreement of the individual victim, and they have absolutely no legal duty to act 
on behalf or in support of the victim in the event of any violation of these laws. 

Like the victim of discrimination, Unia, representative unions and associations may ask the 
court for an injunction in order to stop the discriminatory behaviour. They may engage in 
criminal proceedings to obtain the conviction of the person responsible for discrimination 
when he/she has committed an offence under an anti-discrimination act. They also may 
engage in civil proceedings to obtain damages for the victim (in this case they can choose 
between  full  compensation  for  the  damage  or  lump-sum  compensation  fixed  by  law). 
Therefore,  these  entities  may  seek  and  obtain  the  same  remedies  as  the  victim  of 
discrimination, and benefit from the same protection.  

b) 

Engaging in proceedings in support of victims of discrimination (joining existing 
proceedings) 

In Belgium, certain associations  or  organisations and representative unions are  entitled, 
under federal, community and regional anti-discrimination legislation, to act in support of 
victims of discrimination under certain conditions (as described in section 6.2.a, above). 

c) 

Actio popularis 

In Belgium, national law allows associations, organisations and trade unions to act, under 
certain circumstances, in the public interest on their own behalf, without a specific victim 
to support or represent (actio popularis).  

As described above (sections 6.2.a and 6.2.b), the federal, community and regional anti-
discrimination legislation provides for the legal standing of associations to a certain extent. 
Although the concept of actio popularis involving a ‘representative claimant’ acting in court 
in  the  name  of  a  collective  interest  is  unknown  in  Belgian  law,  if  there  is  no  identified 
victim, Unia, associations,  organisations  or trade unions may act on their  own behalf to 
challenge a breach of the anti-discrimination legislation. 

In the case of Unia, this actio popularis power gained European visibility and recognition 
in the Feryn case before the CJEU.378 This case concerned the question whether a public 
statement  by  Feryn’s  director  that  his  company  would  not  recruit  persons  of  Moroccan 
origin because the company’s customers did not want them in their homes could be seen 
as applying a discriminatory recruitment policy. Unia’s predecessor took the case to court 
on its own behalf, given the lack of an identifiable victim. Ireland and the United Kingdom 
questioned the legal standing of the equality body in the absence of an identifiable victim. 
Therefore the  CJEU in its seminal judgment analysed this issue and established that the 
Racial Equality Directive does not preclude national legislation granting the equality body 
the right to bring legal or administrative proceedings to enforce the obligations resulting 
therefrom  without  acting  in  the  name  of  a  specific  complainant  or  in  the  absence  of  an 
identifiable complainant.379 The CJEU went on to rule that such public statements constitute 
direct discrimination and are enough to shift the burden of proof and sanctions must be 
effective, proportionate and dissuasive, even where there is no identifiable victim.380 

By  its  landmark  decision  delivered  in  the  Adecco  case  (see  3.2.1),  the  Brussels  Appeal 
Court confirmed the decision of the court of first instance (civil section) on the grounds of 

378  CJEU, Judgment of 10 July 2008, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v. Firma 

Feryn NV, C-54/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:397. 

379  CJEU, Judgment of 10 July 2008, Feryn C-54/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:397, para. 27. 
380  CJEU, Feryn, C-54/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:397. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

admissibility and rejected the argument by Adecco that the French NGO SOS Racisme – 
one of the applicants – would lack legal standing because its interest would be restricted 
to discrimination happening in France.  

It is worth noting that the public prosecutor has also the (quite exceptional in Belgian law) 
possibility to introduce civil proceedings on the basis of the Racial Equality Federal Act and 
the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act.381 No agreement of the victims is needed in 
this case, even if they are clearly identified. This is a true actio popularis. However, this 
possibility is totally underused.382 

d) 

Class action 

In Belgium, national law does not allow associations, organisations and trade unions to act 
in the interest of more than one individual victim for claims arising from the same event 
(class action).383 Like the concept of actio popularis, the concept of class action, understood 
as a mechanism implying that a ‘representative claimant’ will sue in the name of a class 
and  obtain  a  judgment binding  on  all  the  members  of  that  class,  is  unknown  in  Belgian 
law.  Unia,  representative  unions  and  associations  may  engage  in  civil  or  criminal 
proceedings in cases of a violation of anti-discrimination legislation, but only on behalf or 
in support of one identified victim of discrimination, or in the public interest on their own 
behalf, without a specific victim to support or represent (see above, section 6.2.c).  

The Antwerp Labour Appeal Court, in a 25 June 2008 ruling, made an interesting statement 
on the range of the injunction procedure (action en cessation) aimed at putting an end to 
discriminatory  behaviour.  It  considered  that  Unia  could  request  the  ending  of  a 
discriminatory  practice  against  a  defined  group  of  people  who  may,  in  the  future,  be 
discriminated  against.  This  involves  the  recognition  of  a  kind  of  collective  injunction 
procedure.  The  scope  of  the  collective  injunction  procedure  is,  however,  limited  to  the 
person (or the entity) who discriminates or who is responsible for the discrimination and 
to the practice or the measure that the judge considered in breach of the equal treatment 
principle.384  

It is worth noting that, in its evaluation report of 2017, Unia recommends the creation of 
a collective redress mechanism in anti-discrimination law, such as the class action existing 
in the field of consumer protection.385 In its final report of 2022, the Expert Commission 
for  the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Acts386  recommended  the 
creation of a procedure allowing persons individually affected by discrimination originating 
from the same cause, attributable to the same natural or legal person, to join together in 
order  to  bring  a  class  action  to  demand  the  cessation  of  this  discrimination  and 
compensation  for  the  damage  caused.  These  suggestions  have  not  been  followed  up  to 
date. 

381  See Articles 15 to 17 of the Act of 10 May 2007 adapting the Judicial Code to legislation aimed at combating 

discrimination and punishing certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia (OJ, 30 May 2007). 

382  See, however, Brussels Court of First Instance, 22 December 2009, published on: 

https://www.unia.be/files/Z_ARCHIEF/RG200912031A.PDF. 

383  The only exception relates to consumer law. Since 1 September 2014, a collective redress action may be 

brought against a company that causes harm to consumers (Federal Act of 28 March 2014 which provides 
for the insertion of a Title 2 in the Book XVII (‘Special Court proceedings’) of the Code of Commercial Law. 
This new part of the Code is entitled ‘collective redress action’). 

384  Labour Appeal Court (Arbeidshof) of Antwerp, 25 June 2008, No. 54470, Centre for Equal Opportunities and 

Opposition to Racism v. B&G. 

385  Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 

Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, pp. 7 and 58. 

386  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
125. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) 

In  Belgium,  national  law,  at  both  federal  and  regional  levels,  provides  for  a  shift  of  the 
burden of proof from the complainant to the respondent in civil procedures.  

− 

Federal level  

Both  Federal  Anti-Discrimination  Acts  provide  for  shifting  the  burden  of  proof  in  all  the 
jurisdictional procedures, except the criminal ones (Article 27 of the Racial Equality Federal 
Act  and  Article  29  of  the  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act).  A  victim  seeking 
damages  in  reparation  of  the  alleged  discrimination,  on  the  basis  of  Article  1382  of  the 
Civil  Code,  can  produce  evidence  –  such  as  ‘statistical  data’  or  recurrence  tests–  which 
could  lead  the  judge  to  presume  that  discrimination  has  occurred,  thus  obliging  the 
defendant  to  demonstrate  that,  contrary  to  that  presumption,  there  has  been  no 
discrimination. 

In its decisions issued in 2009 on several actions of annulment against the 2007 Federal 
Anti-Discrimination Acts, the Constitutional Court gave a misleading view on the shift of 
the burden of proof mechanism.387 The Court referred to the judge’s power of assessment 
to allow the reversal of the burden of proof as if the judge had a discretionary power to 
allow such a reversal or not. 

It is worth noting that in its 2017 evaluation report, Unia observed that in many cases it is 
almost  impossible  for  the  applicant  to  bring  the  proof  of  the  discrimination  despite  the 
principle  of  the  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof.  Moreover,  judges  do  not  always  accurately 
apply this principle. The burden of proof is therefore often too heavy for the applicant. 388 
In its final report of 2022, the Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-
Discrimination Federal Acts suggests the drafting of a good practice guide in order to better 
identify  which  facts  should  count  as  having  sufficient  weight  to  trigger  the  shift  of  the 
burden of proof. Such a guide should include an analysis of the case law of the CJEU and 
the ECtHR, but also good practice found in other Member States.389 

− 

Regional and community level  

The regional anti-discrimination statutes that have been adopted since 2008 all include a 
provision dealing with the shifting of the burden of proof directly inspired by the federal 
acts and are therefore in line with the EU requirements.  

Earlier  instruments  are  less  detailed  in  this  respect.  Article  14  of  the  Flemish  Decree  of 
8 May 2002 provides for the reversal of the burden of proof in the context of civil actions 
brought on the basis of the Decree – the mechanism will not apply in criminal procedures390 
– although the Decree remains vague as to which facts should count as being of sufficient 
weight to prompt the switch of the burden of proof. There will be, therefore, a great deal 
of room for judicial interpretation. The judge will have to consider what weight should be 
afforded  to  the  facts  presented  by  the  victim,  and  whether  these  facts  lead  to  a 
presumption that discrimination may have occurred. Both decrees of the Cocof provide for 
a  very  similar  system  (Article  13(2)-(3)  of  the  Cocof  Vocational  Training  ET  Decree  and 
Article 25 of the Cocof ET Decree). 

387  Constitutional Court (Cour constitutionnelle), 12 February 2009, 11 March 2009 and 2 April 2009, Decision 
No. 17/2009, para. B.93.4; Decision No. 39/2009, para. B.53; Decision No. 40/2009, para. B.98, available 
on the website of the Court: www.const-court.be. 

388  Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 

Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, pp. 10, 22 and 58. 

389  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
127. 

390  See Directive 2000/78/EC, Article 10(3).  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

It  should  be  noted  that  two  federated  entities  have  now,  thanks  to  recent  legislative 
reforms, expressly introduced into their legislation the possibility of using the  ‘testing’391 
and ‘mystery shopper’392 procedures with a view to shifting the burden of proof, or being 
able to prove discrimination itself. This is the case for the Walloon Region, but only in the 
field  of  housing,393  and  for  the  Brussels-Capital  Region,  in  the  field  of  housing394  and 
employment.395 

6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) 

In Belgium, there are legal measures of protection against victimisation. The victimisation 
protection regimes in federal and federated law are based on a system of reversal of the 
burden  of  proof.  A  prejudicial/detrimental  action  (acte  préjudiciable)  taken  against  a 
person who has made a complaint, or for whom a complaint has been made is, for a certain 
period  of  time,  presumed  unless  proven  otherwise,  to  be  a  reprisal/retaliation  for  that 
complaint.  If  the  person  against  whom  the  complaint  is  directed  does  not  reverse  this 
presumption, he or she is subject to a sanction provided for by law (compensation and, 
specifically in the field of employment, the possibility of requesting reinstatement in the 
context of a dismissal).  

− 

Federal level  

The General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and the Racial Equality Federal Act extend the 
protection from reprisals to victims filing a complaint, ‘as well as to persons who intervene 
as a witness or who have made a report or lodged a complaint, for the benefit of the person 
concerned  by  the  alleged  violation  and  to  persons  who  give  advice  or  provide  help  or 
assistance to this person, as well as to any person who raises the question of the violation 
of this law’. Article 17 of the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act provides for protection 
of an employee in the field of employment. Article 16 of the General Anti-Discrimination 
Federal  Act  provides  a  similar  protection  from  victimisation  in  fields  other  than 
employment. Where an employment relationship is concerned, the victim of reprisals by 
way of a dismissal, can, either themselves or through the organisation of which the victim 
is  a  member  (and  who  represents  that  victim),  ask  for  their  reintegration,  at  the  same 
level and under the same conditions as those prior to the dismissal. This is the case until 
a  judicial  decision  has  been  made  establishing  that  there  has  been  discrimination. 
Articles 14 (outside the employment field) and 15 (in the field of employment) of the Racial 
Equality Federal Act contain identical protections against reprisals. As emphasised above, 
all those regimes of protection imply a reversal of the burden of proof.396  

It should be noted that the extension of protection ‘to persons who intervene as a witness 
or who have made a report or lodged a complaint, for the benefit of the person concerned 
by the alleged violation and to persons who give advice or provide help or assistance to 
this person, as well as to any person who raises the question of the violation of this law’ is 

391  See the definition in the Decree of the Walloon Region of 30 November 2023 (OJ 22 December 2023), 

Article 5: ‘(Testing/test de situation) takes place as follows: two or more subjects, real or fictitious, with 
similar profiles that differ significantly only in the criterion(s) to be tested, express their interest or submit 
their application to a landlord or estate agent, after which the responses are compared to check that they 
comply with this decree’. 

392  See the definition in the Decree of the Walloon Region of 30 November 2023 (OJ 22 December 2023), 

Article 5: ‘(Test of mystery shopper/Test du client mystère) takes place as follows: a real or fictitious client 
or applicant submits a request to a landlord or estate agent to check compliance with the decree (…)’.  
393  See the Decree of the Walloon Region of 30 November 2023 on the fight against discrimination in access to 

housing (OJ 22 December 2023). 

394  Ordinance of 21 December 2018 amending the Brussels Housing Code to strengthen the fight against 

discrimination in access to housing, OJ, 31 January 2019. 

395  Ordinance of 1 June 2023 amending various provisions designed to combat discrimination in employment 

(OJ, 29 September 2023). 

396  For a recent application, see Ghent Labour Court of Appel, 30 June 2023, available at: 

https://www.unia.be/fr/jurisprudence-alternatives/jurisprudence/cour-travail-gand-division-bruges-30-juin-
2023.  

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

the result of the Federal Act of 7 April 2023.397 Previously, protection only applied to the 
victim  of  the  discrimination  and  to  witnesses  (with  a  high  degree  of  formalism).  In  the 
author’s  view,  this  situation  was  contrary  to  the  case  law  of  the  Court  of  Justice,  as 
demonstrated in the Belgian country report for the year 2022.398 The same Act of 7 April 
2023 provides that the protection afforded by the law ‘shall not apply in the event of abuse’, 
and that ‘such abuse may give rise to the payment of damages’. 

− 

Regional and community level  

The  Flemish  Framework  Decree  provides  for  quite  extensive  protection  against  reprisals 
because it applies to the whole material scope of the Decree and not only to the area of 
employment. Moreover, it concerns not only the victims, but also ‘persons who support a 
victim of discrimination by defending or representing him or her, or by testifying on his or 
her behalf’ (Articles 37 and 38, as amended in 2021). The same protection is provided by 
the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002 on proportionate participation in the labour market, as 
amended in 2021 (Article 12). 

The  Walloon  ET  Decree  also  provides  for  an  extensive  protection  against  reprisals.  It 
applies to victims and witnesses but also to ‘to persons who intervene as a witness or have 
lodged  a  complaint  or  report,  for  the  benefit  of  the  person  concerned  by  the  alleged 
violation, as well as to any person who gives advice or provides help or assistance to that 
person,  and  to  any  person  who  raises  the  issue  of  the  violation  of  this  decree’  (Article 
18(5)).399 Extensive protection (applying to any ‘witness, counsel, defendant or supporter 
of the person’) is also applied by the Brussels Local Service ET Ordinance (Article 27(2)), 
the Ordinance of 4 September 2008 relating to the fight against discrimination and equal 
treatment in the employment field in Brussels-Capital Region, and the Cocof decrees.400  

Other regional and community laws lay down rules on protection from victimisation that 
are  only  applicable  to  victims  and  witnesses  to  the  act  of  discrimination,  which  is  more 
restrictive than the directives. 

6.5  Sanctions  and  remedies  (Article  15  Directive  2000/43,  Article  17 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Applicable sanctions in cases of discrimination – in law and in practice 

− 

Federal level  

Under the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and under the Racial Equality Federal 
Act,  the  victim  of  discrimination  may  seek  damages  according  to  the  usual  principles  of 
civil liability (Articles 18 and 16 respectively) or opt for a payment of the lump sums defined 
in  the  law  (see  above,  6.1.a,  and  below,  6.5.c).  Damages  are  payable  each  time  a 
discriminatory  practice  is  proven  to  have  occurred  (in  line  with  the  general  rule  in  non-
contractual  civil  liability  enshrined  in  Article 1382  of  the  Civil  Code).  The  choice  of  the 
victim to seek the payment of damages either on the basis of the ‘effective’ damage, or on 
the  basis  of  the  lump  sums  defined  in  the  law,  aims  to  ensure  the  effectiveness  of  the 
sanctions  provided  for  instances  of  discrimination.  These  different  sanctions  may  apply 
whether  the  discrimination  occurs  in  private  or  public  employment,  or  in  a  field  outside 
employment covered by ET legislation. The victim can also request that: 

397  Federal Act of 7 April 2023, OJ, 25 May 2023. 
398  https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5972-belgium-country-report-non-discrimination-2023. See See 

also Unia (2023), https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/meilleure-protection-represailles.  

399  As modified by a decree of 13 July 2023 (OJ, 14 September 2023). 
400  Article 26(8) of the Decree on the fight against certain forms of discrimination and on the implementation of 
the principle of equal treatment of July 2010 and Article 15/1 of the Decree on equal treatment between 
persons in vocational training of 2007 (the protection applies also to any person intervening as a witness, 
counsel, defender or support of the alleged victim of discrimination). 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

- 

- 

- 

the court rules that the discriminatory provisions enshrined in a contract are null and 
void (Article 15 of the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and Article 13 of the 
Racial Equality Federal Act); 
the  court  delivers  an  injunction  ordering  the  immediate  cessation  of  the 
discriminatory practice, or a positive injunction preventing the repetition of it, under 
the threat of financial penalties (astreintes) (Articles 19 and 20 of the General Anti-
Discrimination  Federal  Act  and  Articles  17  and  18  of  the  Racial  Equality  Federal 
Act);401 
the  court  imposes  the  publication  of  the  judgment  finding  discrimination,  by  the 
posting of the judicial decision on the premises where the discrimination occurred, or 
by the publication of the judicial decision in newspapers (Article 20(3) of the General 
Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and Article 18(3) of the Racial Equality Federal Act).  

After  the  decision  of  the  CJEU  in  Feryn,  the  Labour  Appeal  Court  (Cour  du  travail)  of 
Brussels delivered its judgment on 28 August 2009.402 The court ruled that Mr Feryn, by 
publicly declaring that his firm was not recruiting any employees of Moroccan origin, was 
directly  discriminating  on  the  ground  of  ethnic  origin.  It  ordered  the  cessation  of  the 
discriminatory practice and the publication of this judicial injunction in several newspapers.  

In  addition,  some  discriminatory  acts  (racial  discrimination  in  the  provision  of  goods  or 
services  and  in  employment)  are  also  punishable  as  crimes.  These  offences,  which  fall 
under the scope of Directive 2000/43/EC, may lead to imprisonment (one month to a year), 
fines (EUR 250 to EUR 5 000), or to both sanctions combined, and even to the loss of their 
civil and political rights for a certain time, meaning that during this time the offender cannot 
be a civil servant, nor be elected, nor sit in representative bodies (Article 25 of the General 
Anti-Discrimination  Act  and  Article  27  of  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act).  Moreover,  the 
victim  has  the  option  of  claiming  compensation  for  the  damage  caused  by  the  offence. 
Actually, these criminal offences have been very rarely prosecuted and have led to very 
few  convictions  because  of  the  difficulties  in  finding  the  person  who  is  criminally  liable 
(burden of proof issue). 

− 

Regional and community level  

The ET statutory law adopted by the regions and communities is directly inspired by the 
system of sanctions provided for in the Federal Anti-Discrimination Acts. 

b) 

Compensation – maximum and average amounts 

In  Belgium,  there  is  no  maximum  amount  for  compensation  as  such,  but  the  victim  is 
entitled  to  choose  the  lump  sums  defined  in  the  law  rather  than  asking  for  damages 
calculated on the basis of the ‘effective’ loss (EUR 3 900, reduced to EUR 1 950 when the 
defendant provides evidence that the measure creating the disadvantage would have been 
adopted  anyway,  even  in  the  absence  of  the  discriminatory  element,  or,  in  the  field  of 
employment, six months’ salary, reduced to three months’ salary if the employer shows 
that the disputed measure would have been adopted anyway, even in the absence of the 
discriminatory element).  

There is no information available as to the average amount of compensation awarded to 
victims of discrimination. 

401  These financial penalties, the amount of which is fixed by a judge, are intended to force the perpetrator of 

the discrimination to comply with a court decision. They are an additional sanction that does not replace the 
payment of damages. 

402  CJEU, Judgment of 10 July 2008, Feryn C-54/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:397; Judgment of 28 August 2009 of the 
Labour Appeal Court (Cour du travail) of Brussels after the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union of 10 July 2008 (C-54/07). 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

In a 2019 case, the Constitutional Court rightly decided that there is no distinction to be 
made  between  the  awarding  of  lump-sum  damages,  depending  on  whether  the 
discrimination is direct or indirect. The difference between those two notions resides only 
in  the  nature  of  the  discrimination  and  the  possible  justification.  There  should  be  no 
difference  in  the  awarding  of  lump-sum  damages.  The  Constitutional  Court  recalls  the 
established case law of the CJEU that the intent to discriminate is not a constituent element 
of discrimination. This implies that there is no  difference between  either perpetrators or 
victims of direct and indirect discrimination, and therefore there should be no difference 
between the damages.403  

As all pieces of anti-discrimination legislation (federal and federate level) provide for the 
same lump-sum system, this decision also confirms the constitutionality of all the relevant 
anti-discrimination laws. 

c) 

Assessment of the sanctions 

The 2007 Federal Anti-Discrimination Acts significantly improved the system of sanctions 
available  to  victims  of  discrimination,  bringing  Belgium  nearer  to  a  situation  where 
discrimination  leads  to  ‘effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive’  sanctions.  The  fact  that 
victims can choose fixed rate damages was presented by the federal legislature as a way 
to improve the effectiveness of remedies. 

However, in its 2017 report, the Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-
Discrimination  Federal  Acts,  raised  several  questions  as  to  the  dissuasive  impact  of  the 
sanctions.  Even  though  the  Commission  intended  to  give  further  consideration  to  the 
matter in order to truly assess the effective, proportionate and dissuasive character of the 
sanctions, it was already suggesting increasing the lump sums in cases of discrimination 
outside the field of labour relations and to provide for their indexation.404 In its final report 
of 2022, the same Commission suggested increasing substantially the amount of this lump 
sum.405 The federal legislature followed these recommendations in 2023, by increasing the 
amount of lump sums (from EUR 1 300 to EUR 3 900) and providing for indexation of this 
amount. 

The ET statutory laws adopted by the regions and communities in 2008 are directly inspired 
by  the  system  of  sanctions  provided  for  in  the  initial  version  of  the  Federal  Anti-
Discrimination  Acts  (see  6.1.a).  Those  sanctions  must  therefore,  under  the  same 
reservations, be held as being effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The situation is less 
clear  regarding  the  older  regional  decrees.  The  Flemish  Decree  of  8 May 2002  on 
proportionate participation in the labour market also contains a criminal clause (Article 11 
– the author of a discriminatory act may be sentenced to a prison term from one month to 
one year or/and to a fine). It also provides that the court might order the cessation of the 
discriminatory  practice  (Article  15).  The  duty  of  reporting  under  the  Flemish  Decree  on 
proportionate participation in the labour market is part of the general duties to report of 
the  entities  to  which  the  Decree  is  addressed.  The  2007  Cocof  Vocational  Training  ET 
Decree provides only for disciplinary sanctions against civil servants or for the suspension 
of the official approval of the public body whose practice was held discriminatory by a court 
(Article 16). It is doubtful whether this Decree fulfils the European requirements regarding 
sanctions.  

It should also be added that, in the initial version of the Federal acts, there were no specific 
sanctions  to  tackle  the  issue  of  structural  discrimination,  such  as  desegregation  plans. 

403  Constitutional Court (Cour constitutionnelle), Judgment 110/2019 of 10 July 2019, No. 110/2019. 
404  Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 

Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, pp. 95-100 and para. 341. 

405  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
140. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Although financial penalties (astreintes) can compel defendants to put an end to instances 
of structural discrimination that have been taken to court, this societal issue needed to be 
addressed  in  a  more  comprehensive  manner.  In  its  final  report  of  2022,  the  Expert 
Commission  for  the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Acts  suggested 
amending the law in order to explicitly authorise the judge to deliver positive injunctions, 
and not only cessation orders (see above 6.1.a). According to the Commission, it would be 
desirable ‘when the discriminatory act found is the result of a structural failure, to formulate 
positive injunctions to prevent the repetition of similar acts contrary to these laws’.406 As 
we have seen (see above 6.1.a), this recommendation has been followed. This is also the 
case in the Walloon Region. As modified by a decree of 13 July 2023, the Walloon ET Decree 
provides  that  ‘The  President  of  the  Court  may  order  positive  injunctions  aimed  at 
preventing  the  repetition  of  similar  acts  constituting  a  breach  of  the  provisions  of  this 
Decree’ (Article 20(2/1). 

406  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
136. 

101 

 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

7  BODIES  FOR  THE  PROMOTION  OF  EQUAL  TREATMENT  (Article  13 

Directive 2000/43) 

7.1  National equality bodies  

a)  General ‘architecture’ of equality bodies 

Currently, the  architecture  of the  equality bodies in Belgium is  rather  complex. It is the 
result of an ongoing process.  

The officially designated equality bodies are Unia (also known as the Centre), the Vlaams 
Mensenrechteninstituut  (Flemish  Human  Rights  Institute)  and  the  Institute  for  Equality 
between Women and Men. 

The Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut (Flemish Human Rights Institute), which was created 
as a result of a schism initiated by the Flemish authority (see 7.2), has been operational 
since 2023,407 and is responsible for matters falling within the competence of the Flemish 
Community and Region. Unia is responsible for matters falling within the competence of 
the  federal  authority,  and  of  the  other  communities  and  regions,  except  for  gender 
questions. These gender questions fall within the competence of the Institute for Equality 
between Women and Men (IEFH). 

A Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Fundamental Rights was created by 
the Federal Act of 12 May 2019.408 This is the first institution transversally competent in 
respect  of  human  rights,  unlike  the  several  different  specialised  bodies  (e.g.  Unia: 
competent  for  discrimination;  Myria:  migrants’  rights;  IEFH  (Institut  pour  l’égalité  entre 
les femmes et les hommes): gender equality, etc.), whose respective jurisdictions remain 
untouched. In order to achieve overall coverage of fundamental rights, it was decided to 
define the competence of the Institute in a ‘complementary’ or ‘residual’ way. Thus, this 
Federal Institute is competent to ensure the respect of all fundamental rights, but only in 
the federal fields not covered by an existing specialised body. The Institute works in close 
cooperation with the specialised public bodies active in the field of human rights and takes 
part in the human rights network. The Institute has a consultative role and is able to take 
legal action in front of the judiciary and the Constitutional Court. 

In  its  concluding  observations  of  December  2019,  the  UN  Committee  for  Human  Rights 
welcomed the adoption of this law of 12 May 2019. However, the UN Committee noted that 
‘there  are  several  sectoral  institutions  for  human  rights  in  the  State  party,  with  various 
mandates,  including  …  Unia.’  The  Committee  is  unclear  as  to  ‘how  such  institutions  will 
ensure  coordination  with  the  new  federal  institute,  which  is  essential  for  the  effective 
implementation of its mandate in all areas of human rights in the State party, including its 
ability to receive complaints (art. 2)’. The Committee recommended that Belgium ‘speed 
up the establishment of the Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human 
Rights’.  It  also  urged  Belgium  to  ‘encourage  the  federal  authorities  and  the  federated 
entities  to  negotiate  cooperation  agreements  so  as  to  increase  collaboration  in  order  to 
ensure  effective  protection,  in  accordance  with  the  State  party’s  obligations  under  the 

407  This new Institute was created by a decree of 28 October 2022 (OJ (Moniteur belge), 9 November 2022). 
Article 58 of this Decree repeals the Flemish Decree of 20 December 2013 approving the cooperation 
agreement establishing Unia. According to Article 6 of this Decree, the mandate of the Institute includes 
three missions: in accordance with the Paris Principles, to protect and promote, in a spirit of cooperation 
with the Flemish sectoral human rights institutions, human rights in all matters within the competence of 
the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region; to act as a body for the promotion, analysis, monitoring 
and support of the equal treatment of all persons; and to be responsible for promoting, protecting and 
monitoring the implementation of the United Nations Convention of 13 December 2006 on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities. 

408  Belgian Federal Act of 12 May 2019 creating a Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of 

Fundamental Rights (Loi du 12 mai 2019 portant création d'un Institut fédéral pour la protection et la 
promotion des droits humains), OJ (Moniteur belge), 21 June 2019. 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Covenant’.409  In  its  recommendations  of  March  2020,  the  UN  Committee  on  Economic, 
Social and Cultural Rights recommended that Belgium should extend the mandate of the 
national human rights institution, in accordance with the Paris Principles, in order to cover 
not  only  the  Federal  State  but  also  the  regions.  The  Committee  also  urged  Belgium  ‘to 
consider the possibility of providing this institution with the capacity to receive and consider 
complaints  and  petitions  relating  to  individual  situations,  in  particular  with  regard  to 
economic,  social  and  cultural  rights’.410  To  date,  no  action  has  been  taken  on  these 
recommendations. 

The scattering of competences between all these institutions presents an obvious risk of 
citizens being lost in a labyrinth and of institutional mechanisms for fighting discrimination 
becoming less effective. This is why many actors plead for the  (re-)establishment of the 
necessary cooperation. Thus, in its final report of June 2022, the Expert Commission for 
the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts recommends that the federal 
authorities,  in  collaboration  with  the  Flemish  authorities,  work  to  establish  adequate 
cooperation between Unia, the IEFH (Institut pour l’égalité des femmes et des hommes) 
and the Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) with a view to 
enabling  individuals  to  receive  the  assistance  they  need,  including  access  to  legal 
proceedings, without suffering from the existence of a plurality of bodies. 

b)  Designated body for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective of racial/ethnic 

origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive 

As explained above, the officially designated bodies are the Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut 
(Flemish Human Rights Institute), for matters falling within the competence of the Flemish 
Community and Region, and Unia, for matters falling within the competence of the federal 
authority, and of the other communities and regions. 

Both  institutions  (Unia  and  the  Flemish  Human  Rights  Institute)  are  highly  visible  and 
accessible. This is particularly true of Unia, the older of the two: a large proportion of the 
pages  on  its  website  can  be  consulted  in  French,  Dutch,  English  and German.  Videos  in 
sign language and easy-to-read pages are also available. 

7.2  Political, economic and social context of the designated bodies 

The reasons for the ‘schism’ of the Flemish authority with regard to Unia lie, among others, 
in a difference of perception of the role and interventions of this institution.  

The public perception of Unia was indeed quite different in Brussels and Wallonia compared 
with Flanders. From the French-speaking side, Unia was generally viewed as a centre for 
expertise and a valuable tool for people suffering discrimination, whereas in the Flemish 
part of the country, the perception was sometimes more partisan and certain parts of the 
population questioned its independence and impartiality.411  

There have been several debates concerning Unia, most of which were launched by Flemish 
politicians from the N-VA, a leading right-wing political party in Flanders. For example, the 
Belgian  former  Federal  Secretary  of  State  for  Equal  Opportunities,  Zuhal  Demir  (N-VA, 
appointed  on  24  February  2017)  harshly  criticised  Unia  in  a  Flemish  newspaper  (Het 

409  UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Belgium, 

CCPR/C/BEL/CO/6, 6 December 2019, paras. 9-10. 

410  UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report 

of Belgium, E/C.12/BEL/CO/5, 26 March 2020, paras. 7-8. 

411  Le Vif (2019) ‘La Wallonie, la FWB et Bruxelles continueront de travailler étroitement avec Unia’, 1 October 
2019, https://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/la-wallonie-la-fwb-et-bruxelles-continueront-de-travailler-
etroitement-avec-unia/article-news-1197571.html?cookie_check=1584697076. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Nieuwsblad) just after her appointment.412 She questioned whether Unia still pursued its 
goals. She stated that Unia was poorly viewed by citizens because of its tone, which is too 
moralising. She furthermore stressed that Unia looked ridiculous by opening positions only 
for women. Furthermore, according to the former Secretary of State, the majority of issues 
that Unia works on are raised by French-speaking people.  

In November 2017, the former Flemish Minister for Equal Opportunities, Liesbeth Homans 
(N-VA),  asked  for  an  independent  study  on  Unia’s  functioning  and  neutrality.413  She 
pledged in front of the Flemish Parliament to obtain an audit. She claimed Unia was partial 
and was more likely to accept complaints from Moroccans or Muslims than from a blonde, 
Flemish  woman.  She  demanded  direct  access  to  Unia’s  database,  which  centralises  the 
complaints. Unia refused, however, since it is under the control of the Parliament and not 
of  the  Government  (much  less  of  one  minister).414  At  the  same  time,  some  Flemish 
politicians called for the separation of Unia into two bodies, one in charge of Flemish cases 
and the other in charge of French cases. M. Storme, a member of the board of directors, 
supported this opinion.415 

On 30 September 2019, the newly formed Flemish Government announced that it intended 
to drop out of Unia, and to entrust the tasks of the equality body, as far as the competences 
of  the  Flemish  Community  and  the  Flemish  Region  are  concerned,  to  the  new  Vlaams 
Mensenrechteninstituut  (Flemish  Human  Rights  Institute).  In  a  document  dated 
17 December 2021,416 Unia expressed its regrets and concerns about the choice thus made 
by the Flemish Community, particularly in terms of loss of expertise, the risk of backsliding 
in the protection of victims, and the creation of great confusion in the minds of citizens in 
relation to the very fragmented Belgian institutional landscape of human rights protection. 
Similar concerns have been expressed by other public and private actors.417  

7.3  Institutional architecture  

Unia does not form part of a body with multiple mandates.  

It  is  true  that  Unia  assumes  a  specific  mandate  under  Article  33(2)  of  the  CRPD,  which 
provides that an independent body must promote, protect and follow up on the application 
of the Convention (Article 3(1)(b) of the Cooperation Agreement of 12 June 2013).  

However, the main focus of Unia is still equality and non-discrimination, as the mandate 
under  Article  33  is  an  integral  part  of  it,  even  if  the  scope  of  the  CRPD  is  broader  as  it 
enshrines the whole range of human rights for persons with a disability. In the view of the 
author of this report, there is no risk of dilution or less visibility of the equality mandate. 

By contrast, the new Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) has, 
within the boundaries of the competences of the Flemish Community and Region, a much 
broader mandate. According to Article 6 of the Decree of 28 October 2022, the mandate 
of the Institute includes three missions: to protect and promote, in a spirit of cooperation 

412  La Libre (2017) ‘Zuhal Demir charge Unia, ‘obsédé par les discussions sur le Père Fouettard’ 

www.lalibre.be/actu/politique-belge/zuhal-demir-charge-unia-obsede-par-les-discussions-sur-le-pere-
fouettard-58b1275dcd70e898180d11c1. 

413  Sudinfo (2017) ‘Unia: la majorité flamande veut une étude indépendante, après une nouvelle polémique 

avec Homans’ 17 November 2017, www.sudinfo.be/1990792/article/2017-11-17/Unia-la-majorite-
flamande-veut-une-etude-independante-apres-une-nouvelle-polemiq. 
414  Interview with Patrick Charlier, co-director of Unia, 24 January 2018. 
415  Le Vif (2017) ‘La N-VA veut un Unia flamand: ‘Le problème, ce sont les francophones’, 27 February 2017, 

www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/la-n-va-veut-un-Unia-flamand-le-probleme-ce-sont-les-
francophones/article-normal-620687.html. 

416  Unia (2021) Position provisoire d’Unia quant à la création d’un organisme flamand de promotion de l’égalité, 
available in French at: https://www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-statistiques/publications/position-creation-
organisme-flamand-de-promotion-de-legalite. 

417  See the collective opinion published in the newspaper De Standaard (2021) ‘Een waakhond zonder tanden 

kan niet bijten’ (A guard dog without teeth cannot bite), 16 December 2021, www.standaard.be. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

with the Flemish sectoral human rights institutions, human rights in all matters within the 
competence of the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region; to act as a body for the 
promotion, analysis, monitoring and support of the equal treatment of all persons; and to 
be responsible for promoting, protecting and monitoring the implementation of the United 
Nations Convention of 13 December 2006 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  

7.4  Status of the designated bodies – general independence and resources 

a) 

Status of the bodies 

Unia 

Legal Status 

Unia  has  the  status  of  an  ‘independent  public  service’  (service  public  autonome).  Since 
2018,  it  has  been  recognised  as  a  National  Human  Rights  Institution,  accredited  with  B 
status  by  the  GANHRI  (Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions)  Sub-
Committee on Accreditation, in partial compliance with the UN Paris Principles. Its B status 
is explained by the absence of a general human rights mandate. 

Selection of the governing body 

Under the law in force in 2022 (see above, 7.1), Unia is managed by a board of directors 
composed of 20 members: 10 members appointed by the House of Representatives and 
10 members (plus a member of the German-speaking Community for matters concerning 
the  German-speaking  Community)  appointed  by  the  Parliaments  of  the  regions  and 
communities (with the exception of the Flemish Parliament). Members of the interfederal 
board are appointed on the basis of their competence, experience, independence and moral 
authority. They are academics, social partners and part of the judiciary and civil society. 
The interfederal board must be a pluralist body (Article 8(2) of the Cooperation Agreement 
of 12 June 2013). The board members are appointed for six years, but their mandate is 
renewable  twice.  The  lack  of  independence,  criticised  by  several  international  bodies, 418 
which resulted from the appointment of the board of the Centre by the Government has 
been  solved  by  the  adoption  of  the  Cooperation  Agreement.  In  February  2015,  the  first 
interfederal  board  was  appointed  by  the  Parliaments.419  The  Presidents  are  currently 
Shaireen Aftab and David Quinaux, who were elected by the board on 20 May 2021. The 
appointment  of  two  co-directors  (Patrick  Charlier  and  Els  Keytsman)  of  the  Interfederal 
Centre  (joint  management  on  a  double  parity:  gender  –  male/female  –  and  linguistic  – 
Dutch/French-speaking) took place in early December 2015. Their six-year mandate was 
renewed on 10 November 2021. 

In 2015, the board  of  directors approved the  rules  of procedures in  order to implement 
Article 10(3) of the Cooperation Agreement of 12 June 2013.420 

Source of funding 

Unia  is  funded  by  the  different  public  authorities  (Federal  State,  communities,  region) 
which are parties to the cooperation agreement, on the basis of a financial key fixed by 
the Cooperation Agreement of 12 June 2013 (Article 16). The fact that financial resources 

418  UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2015), Concluding observations on the initial 
report of Belgium adopted by the Committee at its twelfth session (15 September – 3 October 2014), 
section 48: www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/CRPDIndex.aspx. Moreover, in the 2014 Concluding 
observations, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is concerned ‘that the board of the 
new Centre is appointed by the Executive, which may compromise its independence’ 
(CERD/C/BEL/CO/16-19, 14 March 2014, para. 7).  

419  The list of the members is available at the following address (in French): www.unia.be/fr/propos-

dUnia/membres-du-conseil-dadministration-dUnia.  

420  OJ (Moniteur Belge), 22 July 2015, p. 46958. Entry into force 1 August 2015. 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

are  set  out  in  a  cooperation  agreement  guarantees  stability  in  principle:  the  agreement 
can  only  be  amended  with  the  consent  of  all  parties.  However,  history  shows  that  the 
possibility  of  one  of  the  parties  unilaterally  withdrawing  from  the  agreement  cannot  be 
ruled out, which obviously has an impact on resources. The other side of the coin of funding 
fixed by a cooperation agreement is a loss of flexibility and responsiveness to deal with the 
unexpected. 

Powers to recruit and manage staff 

Unia has its own staff and manages them (Article 13 of the Cooperation Agreement). 

Accountability 

Unia is required to submit an annual report to the federal and regional parliaments on the 
fulfilment  of its  responsibilities, the use of its  resources and its functioning. This  annual 
report  is  designed  to  justify  the  use  of  its  resources  and  its  functioning.  Unia  is  also 
compelled to send a copy of this annual report for informative purposes to each federal or 
regional government (Article 7 of the Cooperation Agreement of 12 June 2013).  

Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 

Legal Status 

According to Article 4 of the Decree of 28 October 2022, the Flemish Human Rights Institute 
is  an  ‘autonomous  service  with  legal  personality,  under  the  supervision  of  the  Flemish 
Parliament’.  

Selection of the governing body 

The Flemish Human Rights Institute operates under the direction of a  board of directors 
composed  of  11  persons,  designated  by  the  Flemish  Parliament  (Article  30(1)  of  the 
Decree).  The  composition  of  the  board  of  directors  must  be  as  balanced  and  diverse  as 
possible, with particular attention to the social, ethnic, religious and geographical diversity 
of its members. Candidates are selected in particular from the academic and judicial world 
as well as from associations aiming at the protection of human rights, with a maximum of 
four members for each of the above categories. A maximum of two thirds of the members 
of the board of directors are of the same gender (Article 30(3)). 

Source of funding 

Article 49, paragraph 1er,  of the Decree  of 28 October 2022  stipulates that, in  order to 
finance  the  operation  of  the  Institute,  a  grant  allocated  by  the  Flemish  Parliament  is 
included in the general expenditure budget of the Flemish Community. The amount of this 
allocation is indexed annually on the basis of the smoothed health index. The Decree adds 
explicitly that the financial means  received by  the Institute must be sufficient to ensure 
the independent and efficient functioning of the Institute in a structural way. They may not 
be reduced if its tasks remain unchanged.  

Powers to recruit and manage staff 

The Institute has its own staff and manages them (Article 37 of the Decree of 28 October 
2022). 

Accountability 

According to Article 43(1) of the Decree, the Flemish Human Rights Institute publishes an 
annual  report  in  which  it  reports  to  the  Flemish  Parliament  on  the  execution  of  its 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

competences,  the  use  of  its  means  and  its  general  functioning.  The  annual  report  also 
includes an overview of the protection of human rights in the fields of competence of the 
Flemish Community and the Flemish Region. 

b) 

Independence of the bodies 

Unia 

The independence of Unia is explicitly referred to in the Cooperation Agreement approved 
on  12  June  2013  (Article  2(1)  and  Article  3(3):  ‘the  Centre  accomplishes  its  mission 
independently, in conformity with the Paris Principles’).421 

Generally,  the  Centre  is  able  to  function  independently  and  calmly,  but  (media-driven) 
political pressure and interference cannot always be excluded.422  

Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 

Article  3(2)  of  the  Decree  of  28  October  2022  states  that  the  Flemish  Human  Rights 
Institute  ‘exercises  its  mandate  in  full  independence’.  The  Decree  gives  a  particular 
importance  to  the  independence  (external  and  internal)  of  the  ‘dispute  chamber’  (see 
below, section 7.8). 

c) 

Resources 

Unia 

Annual budget of Unia 

The budget awarded to Unia has evolved over the last years. It is worth noting that, since 
2013, the budget is included in the Cooperation Agreement of 12 June 2013, which allows 
for greater stability regarding the funding: 

− 
− 

− 
− 
− 
− 
− 
− 
− 
− 
− 
− 
− 
− 

2009: EUR 4 480 000; 
2010: EUR 7 140 000 (this increase in the budget is a late adaptation of the extension 
of the missions of the Centre, which took place in 2003 – 12 persons were added to 
the staff which increased from 74 to 86 people); 
2011: EUR 7 260 000; 
2012: EUR 7 189 000; 
2013: EUR 7 596 000; 
2014: EUR 7 705 200;  
2015: EUR 7 840 000; 
2016: EUR 7 915 000;  
2017: EUR 8 080 000; 
2018: EUR 8 222 000; 
2019: EUR 8 479 000; 
2020: EUR 8 598 442; 
2021: EUR 8 875 871. 
2022: EUR 10 442 728. 423 

On basis of the budget for 2022, the withdrawal of Flanders should reduce Unia’s budget 
by about EUR 957 000. 

421  As previously mentioned in this report, since 15 March 2014 (date of the entry into force of the Cooperation 
Agreement of 12 June 2013), all the details regarding the missions, organisation and functioning of the 
Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism and Discrimination have been 
enshrined in the Cooperation Agreement (and no longer in the Federal Act of 15 February 1993). 

422  See also the developments above under 7.2. 
423  Unia (2023) Annual Report for 2022, p. 37. Figures for 2023 are currently not available. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Share of the annual budget dedicated to the equality body mandate  

There is no precise public information on that topic. 

Total members of staff 

The total staff of Unia is currently about 90 people (figures for 2022). The service provided 
is reputed to be of high quality, but there are clearly not enough staff available to carry 
out all the tasks of Unia in the long term. The withdrawal of Flanders from the Cooperation 
Agreement led to the dismissal of a number of Unia employees. 

Number of staff dedicated to the equality body mandate 

There is no public precise information on that topic. 

Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 

Annual budget of the bodies: 

The annual budget of the Institute is EUR 5 000 000.  

Share  of  the  annual  budget  dedicated  to  the  equality  body  mandate,  total  members  of 
staff, number of staff dedicated to the equality body mandate 

There is currently no public precise information on these topics. 

7.5  Grounds and fields covered by the designated bodies 

Unia 

Unia  is  competent  for  all  the  protected  grounds  listed  in  the  federal  and  regional  anti-
discrimination  legislation  (with  the  exception  of  the  Flemish  legislation),  apart  from 
language  and  gender424  (i.e.  alleged  race,  colour,  descent,  national  or  ethnic  origin, 
nationality,  age,  sexual  orientation,  civil  status,  birth,  property  (‘fortune’,  in  French), 
religious  or  philosophical  belief,  state  of  health,  disability,  physical  or  genetic  features, 
political opinion, trade union opinion, and social origin or condition) (Article 3(1)(a) of the 
Cooperation Agreement of 12 June 2013). Unia’s mandate covers all areas to which federal 
and federated legislation applies (with the exception of Flemish legislation), without specific 
priority.  

Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 

The Flemish Human Rights Institute is competent for all the protected grounds listed in the 
Flemish  anti-discrimination  legislation:  sex,  gender  identity,  gender  expression,  age, 
sexual orientation, marital status, birth, property, religious or philosophical belief, political 
belief, union belief, language, health status, disability, physical or genetic characteristics, 
social  position,  nationality,  race,  skin  colour,  national  or  ethnic  origin  or  descent.  The 
Institute's mandate covers all areas to which Flemish legislation applies without specific 
priority.  

424  Pregnancy, birth, maternity leave, gender assignment, gender expression and gender identity are 

assimilated to sex/gender. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

7.6  Competences of the designated bodies – and their independent exercise 

a) 

Independent assistance to victims 

Unia 

Articles  4,  5  and  6  of  the  Cooperation  Agreement  creating  the  Interfederal  Centre  as 
currently in force define the tasks of the Centre and the means it may use in order to fulfil 
them. These provisions state that the Centre’s objective to promote equal opportunities is 
fulfilled  through  producing  studies  and  reports,  making  recommendations,  helping  any 
person seeking advice on his or her rights and obligations, taking legal action, collecting 
and analysing statistics and case law relating to the application of the federal and regional 
anti-discrimination legislation, and obtaining information in order to make enquiries of the 
relevant  authority  in  cases  where  the  Centre  has  reasons  to  believe  that  discrimination 
may have been committed, pursuant to those pieces of legislation.  

As explained on its website, Unia receives discrimination reports on a daily basis, either 
directly or through the local contact points. The attention that the Centre devotes to these 
reports from the first contact is essential for proper monitoring. A large number of requests 
for  intervention  are  rapidly  answered  by  providing  information  or  referral  to  other 
authorities  or  organisations.  Other  questions  require  more  work:  racist  or  homophobic 
attacks, conflicts between employers and employees, discrimination in the housing sector, 
racist  remarks  and  incitement  to  hatred  on  the  internet,  etc.  In  such  situations,  Unia 
actively intervenes and provides practical support to the victims.  

The statistics in the annual report demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment of the 
cases. It must, however, be noted that the coexistence of multiple bodies for the promotion 
of  equality  can  create  confusion  for  the  victims  of  discrimination  –  such  as  the  powers 
shared between Unia and the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men  – in cases of 
multiple discrimination based both on gender and on a protected ground covered by Unia. 
More broadly, this multitude of relevant bodies can damage the visibility of Unia and its 
ability to raise its visibility to the public.425  

After the reorganisation of the Centre into an interfederal body, there were 29+5 full-time 
equivalent employees in charge of dealing with individual complaints. This seems sufficient 
to treat the  cases within a  reasonable time.  The decision  of the Flemish Government to 
end the collaboration with Unia has resulted in the need to reduce staff (10 % reduction).426 

The cooperation between Unia’s head office and the local contact points is also successful. 
Unia’s budget is sufficient to support the strategic litigation cases that the board decides 
to pursue. However, it must be noted that there have been parliamentary questions on the 
cost, considered exorbitant, of the Achbita case before the CJEU. Moreover, in 2018, Unia 
encountered for the first time some financial difficulties and a slight budget deficit, due to 
the  significant  increase  in  the  volume  of  work,  and  the  increase  of  staff  linked  to  the 
different commitments of Unia. From 2013 to 2018, the  number of reports and of cases 
opened practically doubled. Thanks to a financial plan, Unia managed to achieve a balanced 
budget in 2020427 and in the following years. 

425  See: Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 
Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, para. 151, www.unia.be/en; Expert Commission for the Assessment of 
the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. Combattre la discrimination, les discours de 
haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée. 

426  See: https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/licenciements-a-unia-en-consequence-du-retrait-de-la-flandre. 
427  Emmanuelle Bribosia and Isabelle Rorive, Interview with Patrick Charlier, co-director of Unia, 3 March 2021. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 

According  to  Article  12  of  the  Decree  of  28  October  2022,  anyone  can  report  a  human 
rights  violation  to  the  Institute,  anonymously  or  otherwise.  Where  appropriate,  the 
Institute offers first-line assistance by providing information and advice on the meaning of 
human rights and on the means that can be used to enforce them. Wherever possible, the 
FHRI refers the reporter to an institution, organisation or association that can provide more 
concrete  assistance.  If  the  report  concerns  possible  discrimination  as  referred  to  in  the 
Flemish Decrees of 10 July 2008 or of 8 May 2002, the FHRI will inform the person reporting 
that a complaint to the ‘dispute chamber’ may be lodged (see below, 7.8). 

b) 

Independent surveys and reports 

Unia 

Unia does have the competence to conduct independent surveys and publish independent 
reports. 

Unia exercises this function in fully independent manner. This independence is guaranteed 
through  close  cooperation  on  a  regular  basis  with:  1)  associations  in  the  field  of 
discrimination;  2)  Belgian  and  European  universities  and  institutions  such  as  the  King 
Baudouin  Foundation.  In  this  context,  it  organises  training  sessions,  seminars  and 
programmes for the exchange of information and practical experience.  

Unia publishes an annual report based on its daily practice and Belgian case law.428 It also 
publishes  general  surveys  related  to  discrimination  issues  including  socio-economic 
monitoring reports, which aim to get a clear view of the  situation  on the labour market 
depending on the ethnic origin and/or migration background of workers. The first socio-
economic monitoring report  was  written in 2013. The most  recent  one was published in 
2022.429 In 2023 (year under report: 2022), for the first time, alongside its general report, 
Unia published regional reports for each of the three regions. The regional annual reports 
provide figures at local level. They complement Unia’s general annual report. For the year 
2023, the regional reports concerned Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels. 

Unia  has  also  produced  several  diversity  barometers  in  different  fields:  on  employment 
(2012),  housing  (2014),  and  education  (2018).  These  barometers  map  out  different 
aspects of Belgian society, such as the degree of discrimination, the degree of tolerance 
and the degree to which target groups characterised by their origin, age, disability, or other 
characteristics  contribute  to  Belgian  society.  The  independence  of  these  barometers  is 
guaranteed through the close collaboration with universities. 

It is worth mentioning that currently, the Unia website includes a data hub with data on 
‘(In)equality  and  discrimination  in  Belgium’,430  which  is  freely  accessible.  This  inventory 
was compiled thanks to input from  civil society organisations and public institutions and 
through the proactive research of Unia. 

Unia’s regular budget funds are supplemented by funds from different ministers in order 
to  carry  out  surveys  in  optimal  conditions.  The  last  diversity  barometer,  measuring 
discrimination  and  inequalities  in  the  education  system,  was  the  result  of  long-term 
scientific study carried out by several research centres of Belgian universities. In order to 
carry  out  this  study  and  the  subsequent  report,  Unia  received  funding  from  the  three 

428  For the most recent annual report available, see Unia (2023) Annual report for 2022, available on its 

website, www.unia.be/en. 

429  Unia (2022) Socio-Economic Monitoring – Labour Market and Origin, Unia & Federal Public Service on 

Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, Brussels, 2022, pp. 12- 13, 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Monitoring_socio%C3%A9conomique_2022.pdf. 

430  See: https://www.equalitydata.unia.be. 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

community  ministers  of  basic  education  and  the  Minister  for  Equal  Opportunities  of  the 
French-speaking Community. Unia coordinated the research, and through a combination 
of the results of the study and the expertise of Unia, formulated political recommendations.  

By combining its regular funding and other public resources, Unia has sufficient resources 
to carry out its mission to conduct independent surveys and publish independent reports.  

According  to  Article  10  of  the  Cooperation  Agreement  of  12  June  2013,  the  board  of 
directors of Unia adopts a ‘triennial strategic plan’. The agreement does not provide any 
more information about the content of the plan. The last version of the plan (2023-2027) 
identifies five strategic goals: positioning in a rapidly changing context of polarisation and 
digitalisation;  focusing  on  people  in  vulnerable  situations;  confirming  Unia  as  the 
‘reference’  for  all  participating  levels  of  government  and  for  its  network  of  partners; 
reflecting on own practices; and applying internally what is communicated to the outside 
world. 

Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 

According  to  Article  9  of  the  Decree  of  28  October  2022,  the  Institute  is  empowered  to 
draw  up  and  publish  independent  and  reasoned  advices  (avis/adviezen),  proposals 
(proposition/aanbevelingen) and reports (rapports/verslagen),  on its  own initiative or at 
the request of authorities belonging to or under the authority of the Flemish Region or the 
Flemish Community. There is no provision in the  Decree of 28 October 2022 specifically 
concerning the elaboration of a periodic strategic plan for the Institute. Practice in this area 
may develop over the next few years. 

c) 

Recommendations 

Unia 

Unia  does  have  the  competence  to  issue  independent  general  recommendations  on 
discrimination issues.  

Although under the supervision of the federal and regional Parliaments (formerly the Prime 
Minister), Unia fulfils its mandate in an independent manner.  

Unia formulates recommendations  for all levels of government. These recommendations 
focus  on  improving  the  legislation  and  developing  action  plans  or  seeking  a  better 
understanding by the political leaders of specific new phenomena. In addition, the federal, 
regional  and  community  authorities  increasingly  rely  on  the  expertise  of  Unia.431  Since 
2014 and the entry into force of the Cooperation Agreement, there has been a department 
for public policies at Unia, with representatives of the Federal Government and each region 
and community432 to ensure the link between federal and regional policies.433  

By  relying  on  surveys  and  statistics  that  are  the  result  of  independent  and  informed 
research, Unia can effectively measure discrimination phenomena and recommend specific 
courses of action to public authorities, in order to deal with them accordingly.  

Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 

According  to  Article  9  of  the  Decree  of  28  October  2022,  the  Institute  is  empowered  to 
draw up and publish recommendations on its own initiative or at the request of authorities 
belonging to or under the authority of the Flemish Region or the Flemish Community. 

431  For a more detailed presentation of those activities of the Centre, see its website, www.unia.be/en/. 
432  Except Flemish Community, since the withdrawal of Flanders from UNIA 
433  Interview with Patrick Charlier, co-director of Unia, 28 March 2017. 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

d) 

Prevention, promotion and awareness-raising 

Unia 

According  to  Article  5(6)  of  the  Cooperation  Agreement  of  12  June  2013  creating  an 
Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism and Discrimination, 
one of the missions of Unia is to ‘organise awareness-raising actions’. 

Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 

The  Institute  is  in  charge  of  promoting  awareness  and  protection  of  human  rights,  in 
particular  through  various  activities:  organising  information  campaigns  and  awareness-
raising  activities;  organising  education  and  training,  including  for  specific  professional 
groups, target groups, schools and universities; or addressing the general public directly 
or through the media (Article 7 of the Decree of 28 October 2022). 

e)  Other competences 

Unia 

As explained above, Unia has a specific mandate under Article 33(2) of the CRPD, which 
provides that an independent body must protect and follow up on the application of the 
Convention. 

Moreover, Unia organises campaigns in order to raise awareness and inform the public. It 
provides  customised  training  and  tools  for  fighting  for  equal  opportunities  and  against 
discrimination and formulates targeted advice and recommendations for organisations and 
government authorities. 

It also set up online training on anti-discrimination laws where it answers questions about 
diversity in the workplace. In this respect, the ‘eDiv’ initiative is worth mentioning: it is a 
free  online  training  tool  on  anti-discrimination  law,  aimed  at  fostering  diversity  in 
companies by providing employers with practical situations and solutions.434 

Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 

The Institute is responsible for promoting, protecting and monitoring the implementation 
of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 13 December 
2006. 

7.7  Legal standing of the designated bodies 

Unia 

Unia has legal standing to bring discrimination complaints on behalf (or not) of an identified 
victim. 

The General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and most of the regional statutory laws give 
Unia the power to file suits, and thus to contribute to the defence of legal principles in the 
name of the public interest. Where the alleged violation has an identifiable victim (who can 
be a natural or legal person), the power of Unia to file a suit is conditional upon the consent 
of the victim (see 6.2.a) and is used as an intervention supporting the victim’s case. The 
main reason for this legal avenue (rather than representing the victim) is that sometimes 
the action of the victim and the action of Unia may differ. Therefore, Unia wishes to remain 
able  to  define  its  strategy  of  action  without  undermining  or  being  undermined  by  the 

434  For more details on this initiative, see the website www.ediv.be/. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

victim’s strategy before the court. A leading example of Unia’s use of such legal standing 
can be observed in the seminal Achbita judgment of the CJEU (see section 4.2, above).435 
The case was taken to court by Ms Achbita, supported by her trade union, who alleged that 
she was a victim of discrimination. Unia’s predecessor, the Centre for Equal Opportunities 
and  Opposition  to  Racism,  appears  as  a  claimant  in  the  case  as  it  joined  the  case 
intervening on the side of Ms Achbita. 

If there is no identified victim, Unia may act on its own behalf to denounce a breach of the 
anti-discrimination legislation. This kind of  actio popularis power granted to Unia gained 
European  visibility  and  recognition  in  the  Feryn  case  before  the  CJEU  (see  section  6.2, 
above).436 

Unia may also intervene as amicus curiae in cases concerning discrimination, when such 
intervention is possible according to judicial procedure law. However, Unia has no power 
to  launch  ex  officio  investigations.  This  mechanism  appears  to  be  in  conformity  with 
Article 9(2) of the Racial Equality Directive. 

In  a  typical  case  of  an  individual  person  asking  Unia  to  intervene  in  an  instance  of 
discrimination, Unia first appraises the facts. If the allegation does not appear ill-founded, 
Unia seeks to obtain an amicable settlement with the alleged discriminator. Because the 
discriminator may fear the bad publicity of a lawsuit for alleged discrimination, they may 
be tempted to accept this process, even in situations where it may be difficult to prove that 
discrimination  occurred.  Where  such  an  amicable  settlement  seems  unsatisfactory, 
because of blatant discrimination or non-cooperation with the defendant, Unia may suggest 
that the victim file a suit. If the victim agrees, Unia is competent to bring the case to court. 
Other organisations, which aim to fight discrimination and protect human rights, as well as 
trade unions, have the same competence (see section 6.2, above). 

Unia has been particularly efficient in providing advice and legal assistance to victims of 
discrimination. It is especially  renowned  for its practice  of assisting the victim in having 
the alleged perpetrator of the discrimination agree to some form of amicable settlement. 
Unia has developed significant expertise in this discreet way to proceed. In addition, local 
anti-discrimination ‘contact points’ have been established in several towns and cities. This 
ensures  that  day-to-day  discriminatory  practices  can  be  fought  against  in  close 
consultation  with  local  and  provincial  authorities,  and  with  local  integration  centres, 
associations,  neighbourhood  committees,  etc.  Since  the  conclusion  of  the  Cooperation 
Agreement  of 12 June  2013, these anti-discrimination ‘contact points’ fall directly under 
the responsibility of Unia: 

‘The Centre provides access to its services, including to persons with disabilities, and 
organises, in addition to the central contact point, in collaboration with the Regions, 
provinces and municipalities, contact points at the local level, where a report may be 
filed. These contact points must be sufficiently distributed geographically in order to 
ensure easy access to citizens’ (Article 6 of the Cooperation Agreement). 

The legal standing of the Centre is expressly defined in several parts to the Cooperation 
Agreement,  namely  in  the  Federal  State,437  the  Walloon  Region,438  and  the  French 
Community439  in  the  framework  of  the  missions  of  Unia  (Article  3  of  the  Cooperation 
Agreement) and of the different anti-discrimination norms (Article 6(3) of the Cooperation 
Agreement).  The  other  entities  broadly  authorise  human  rights  organisations  to  file 
lawsuits  within  the  scope  of  the  legislative  provisions  but  do  not  expressly  give  legal 

435  CJEU, Judgment of 14 March 2017, Achbita, C-157/15, ECLI: EU:C:2017:203. 
436  CJEU, Judgment of 10 July 2008, Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v. Firma 

Feryn NV, C-54/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:397. 

437  General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act, Articles 16, 17, 18. 
438  Walloon ET Decree, Articles 30 and 31.  
439  French Community ET Decree, Articles 37 S. 2 & 38. 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

standing  to  the  Centre,  except  for  the  Brussels  Local  Civil  Service  ET  Ordinance 
(Article 29).440 However, according to Unia, there is no doubt in practice that the Centre 
can directly take legal action on the basis of the other decrees and ordinances listed in the 
Cooperation Agreement as well.441  

In 2022, Unia initiated  a lawsuit in  16  cases  related to discrimination or hate  crimes.442 
They are all cases where no amicable settlement could be found and which ‘needed more 
legal certainty or which were particularly serious’.  

Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 

It is worth noting that the Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut, which acts as the new equality 
body for Flanders, does not have the legal standing to bring discrimination complaints on 
behalf (or not) of an identified victim in front of the tribunals. This is a source of some of 
the criticism directed against it.443  

7.8  Dispute resolution 

a)  Quasi-judicial functions 

Unia is not a quasi-judicial institution.  

In comparison, the new Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) 
includes  a  ‘dispute  chamber’,  which  will  issue  non-binding  opinions  (oordelen)  about 
complaints of violation of the Flemish decrees fighting against discrimination (10 July 2008 
and 8 May 2002) (See Articles 13-20 of the Decree of 28 October 2022). It is partly inspired 
by the functioning of the Dutch College voor de Rechten van de Mens. 

There is no other institution with quasi-judicial powers to apply federal and federated anti-
discrimination legislation. 

b) 

Amicable settlements 

The Cooperation Agreement that established Unia as an interfederal institution, and defined 
its tasks and organisation (12 June 2013), entrusts Unia with a ‘conciliation and mediation 
mission’  (Article  6(2)).  Some  regional  legislation  expressly  confirms  this  role  of  Unia  in 
conciliation/mediation  (see  Article  16  of  the  Walloon  ET  Decree  and  Article  30  of  the 
Brussels Local Civil Service ET Ordinance). The mediation procedure is not formalised as 
such in a legislative text. There are internal guidelines, but they are not public.  

According to Article 13(4) of the Decree of 28 October 2022, if the complaint is admissible, 
the  Flemish  Human  Rights  Institute  may  carry  out  any  mediation  it  deems  useful.  The 
same provision defines ‘mediation’ as a ‘confidential and structured process of voluntary 
consultation between the parties concerned, in which the Flemish Human Rights Institute, 
as an independent and neutral third party, facilitates communication and tries to bring the 
above-mentioned parties concerned to find a solution themselves’. 

440  Brussels ET Ordinance, Article 25; German Community ET Decree, Article 13; Cocof Vocational Training ET 

Decree, Article 14(1); Cocof ET Decree, Article 28(1). 

441  Interview with Patrick Charlier, co-director of Unia, 14 April 2015. 
442  Unia (2022) Rapport chiffre, available on its website, www.unia.be. Figures for 2022 were not available 

when this report was written (March 2023). 

443  Unia (2022) ‘Why is it important that equality bodies can take legal action?’, 1 March 2022, 

https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/organismes-de-promotion-de-legalite-en-justice. 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

7.9  Procedural safeguards 

Since Unia has no power of ‘decision’, the question of ‘procedural safeguard’ does not arise 
from this point of view.  

On the other hand, the intervention of Unia is not that of a neutral ‘mediator’ in the strict 
sense,  because,  in  the  case  of  failure  of  the  mediation,  it  can  exercise  its  right  of  legal 
action.  The  question  of  the  use  of  information  gathered  during  the  conciliation  phase  in 
subsequent  legal  proceedings  (in  the  event  of  failure)  could  thus  legitimately  be  raised. 
This issue is not addressed in a publicly available text. In practice, however, this theoretical 
difficulty is largely neutralised by the fact that Unia requires that the  perpetrator of the 
offence recognise the right to a fair settlement.  

In the Flemish Human Rights Institute, the functions of ‘mediation’ and ‘decision’ are clearly 
separated. The ‘decisions’ are made by a ‘dispute chamber’.  

7.10 Data collection by the designated bodies 

a) 

Registration of complaints and decisions 

In Belgium, Unia registers the number of complaints of discrimination made and decisions 
(by ground, field, type of discrimination, etc.). This data is available to the public. 

Such data is part of the annual report published on Unia’s website, which lists the number 
of complaints received by ground and field, the number of complaints regarding which a 
file was opened and the number of cases in which the Centre launched a lawsuit.  

In  2020,  Unia  received  9 466  individual  complaints,  opened  2  189  files  and  launched  a 
lawsuit in 17 cases.444 In 2021, Unia received 10 610 individual complaints, opened 2 379 
files  and  launched  a  lawsuit  in  18  cases.445  In  2022,  Unia  received  7 310  individual 
complaints, opened 1 887 files and launched a lawsuit in 16 cases.446 

Since 2020, the ‘Report on Figures’ (Rapport chiffres) has detailed, subject by subject and 
criterion by criterion, the types of cases handled.  

The low number of court cases compared to the figures of files opened reflects the policy 
of Unia to reach constructive, out-of-court settlements and to seek alternative measures, 
designed to help victim and perpetrator alike, even once legal action has been initiated. In 
addition, Unia tends only to go to court when strategic litigation is at stake: ‘if the case is 
highly relevant from a social point of view (to establish a legal precedent (…) or clarify a 
point  of  law)  or  if  the  facts  of  the  case  are  particularly  serious  (such  as  flagrant  hate 
crimes)’.447  

To date, there is no public information about registration of complaints and decisions by 
the Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut). 

444  Unia (2021) Rapport chiffres 2020, available at: 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Jaarrapport/Rapport_chiffres_2020_Unia_FINAL_FR_DEF.pdf. 

445  Unia (2022) Rapport chiffres 2021, available at: 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Rapport_chiffres_2021_Unia_FR_def.pdf. 
446  Unia (2023) Annual Report for 2022; Unia comme organisme de promotion de l’égalité de traitement. 
447  Unia (2018) Annual report for 2017 (Refusing Inertia). 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

b) 

Equality data collection 

According  to  Article  4(1)  of  the  Cooperation  Agreement  of  12  June  2013  creating  an 
Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism and Discrimination, 
Unia is authorised  

‘to  carry  out  any  studies  and  research  necessary  for  the  accomplishment  of  its 
missions.  For  this  purpose,  it  can  produce  and  provide  all  useful  information  and 
documentation.  It  can  also  collect  and  publish  statistical  data  and  legal  decisions 
necessary for the assessment of the application of the laws, decrees and ordinances 
referred to in Article 6 of the agreement, with no possibility of identifying the parties 
involved’. 

The data collected by Unia can be consulted on its website.448  

Among the statistical tools developed by Unia, it is worth mentioning: 

- 

- 

The ‘Socio-Economic Monitor’ (last edition: 2022). The ‘Socio-Economic Monitor’ is a 
tool developed by Unia and the Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social 
Dialogue, in collaboration with the National Register, the Crossroads Bank for Social 
Security (Banque-Carrefour de la sécurité sociale), the Data Protection Authority and 
experts. Its aim is to provide a picture of the situation of people on the labour market, 
according to their origin and migratory background.449 
The ‘Diversity Barometer’. The ‘Diversity Barometer’450 provides a picture of various 
aspects of Belgian society: the degree of discrimination (behaviour towards certain 
groups  in  society,  characterised  by  their  origin,  age,  disability,  sexual  orientation, 
etc.); the degree of tolerance (attitudes towards these groups); and the degree of 
participation (extent to which these groups contribute to society). The fields covered 
by these barometers are employment (2012), housing (2014), and education (2018). 

To date, there is no public information about equality data collection by the Flemish Human 
Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut). 

7.11 Roma and Travellers 

When the current structure was put in place in 2014, one full-time employee, in the public 
policies department of Unia, was specifically in charge of Roma discrimination issues.451 In 
2023, there are now three people devoting part of their time to these issues. 

Unia was associated with the work conducted by the Roma task force, which adopted the 
first version of the ‘National Strategy for Roma Integration’ in March 2012. It defined issues 
and objectives for Roma integration by 2020, and provides for coordination between the 
Federal State, the regions and the communities within the Roma task force, so that every 
authority can take measures according to their responsibilities. The Roma task force meets 
at least twice a year and is the national contact point for the European Commission.  The 
new version of the ‘National Strategy for Roma Integration’ was submitted to the European 
Commission in 2022.452 Once again, Unia actively collaborated in the development of this 
strategy. 

448  See: https://www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-statistiques.  
449  Unia (2022) Socio-Economic Monitoring – Labour Market and Origin, Unia & Federal Public Service on 
Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, Brussels, 2022, https://www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-
statistiques/publications/monitoring-socioeconomique-2022-marche-du-travail-et-origine. 

450  See, Unia: https://www.unia.be/fr/publications-et-statistiques/statistiques/barometre-de-la-diversite. 
451  Interview with Patrick Charlier, co-director of Unia, 28 March 2017. 
452  See: Stratégie nationale pour l’Intégration des Roms (2022): https://www.mi-is.be/fr/strategie-nationale-

dintegration-des-roms. 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Since May 2016, Unia has participated in the pilot committee of the Belgian National Roma 
Platform, set up by the Belgian national contact point for Roma.  

To date, there is no public information about the activities of the Flemish Human Rights 
Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) in relation to Roma discrimination issues. 

117 

 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

8  IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES  

8.1  Dissemination  of  information,  dialogue  with  NGOs  and  between  social 

partners 

a)  Dissemination of information about legal protection against discrimination (Article 

10 Directive 2000/43 and Article 12 Directive 2000/78)  

Unia and the Vlaamse Mensenrechteninstituut have very user-friendly websites in order to 
clarify their role and missions to the public. The eDiv initiative (reported in section 7.6.e, 
above) is also worth mentioning.  

Currently, Unia has newsletters through which it disseminates information 

In  its  2022  final  report,  the  Expert  Commission  for  the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-
Discrimination  Federal  Acts  recommended  that  the  public  authorities:  create  an  online 
platform listing all the laws, decrees and orders relating to the fight against discrimination, 
as well as their implementing decrees, and allowing users, through an interactive tool, to 
identify the legislation applicable to a given situation; increase the training effort, especially 
for judges, police and labour inspectors; and organise or subsidise training adapted to the 
different  audiences  concerned  by  the  legislation,  in  particular  companies,  members  of 
NGOs and workers.453 To our knowledge, no structural measures were adopted in 2023 to 
follow up these recommendations. 

b)  Measures to encourage dialogue with NGOs with a view to promoting the principle 

of equal treatment (Article 12 Directive 2000/43 and Article 14 Directive 2000/78)  

Overall, Unia engages with most of the relevant stakeholders in order to fulfil its mandate 
and mission to promote equality and fight against discrimination. The support committee 
set  up  in  the  field  of  disability  discrimination  could  serve  as  a  model  for  structuring  the 
relationships with the civil society organisations active in the fight against discrimination 
on other grounds. In 2020, another support committee in the field of racial discrimination 
was  set  up.  It  brings  together  people  and  civil  society  NGOs,  academics  and  social 
partners.454 

On 21 March of each year, an ‘Anti-Discrimination Day’ is organised, which provides further 
opportunities to disseminate this information, and in which a range of social and human 
rights non-governmental organisations, as well as the social partners, engage on the issue 
of combating discrimination and promoting diversity.  

In  May  2018,  a  coalition  of  over  30  associations  active  in  the  fight  against  racism  and 
discrimination (NAPAR coalition) proposed 11 key actions to be included in the yet-to-be-
adopted  federal  action  plan  against  racism.  In  June  2020,  the  coalition  published  a 
memorandum with more than 50 proposals for the future interfederal action plan against 
racism.455 

In April 2021, the Regional Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region set up the Assises de 
lutte contre le Racisme. These conferences brought together associations active in the fight 
against racism and all forms of racial discrimination, representatives from different sectors, 
both  public  and  private,  as  well  as  experts.  They  resulted  in  the  formulation  of  207 

453  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
82. 

454  Interview with Patrick Charlier, co-director of Unia, 3 March 2021. 
455  See: https://www.naparbelgium.org/revendications. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

recommendations.456  On  this  basis,  the  Brussels  Anti-Racism  Plan  (2023-2026)  was 
approved  in  December  2022.457  An  ordinance  of  6  July  2023458  created  the  Brussels 
Consultative  Council  for  the  elimination  of  racism  in  the  Brussels-Capital  Region.  Its 
mandate includes formulating opinions with regard to the fight against racism and so-called 
racial discrimination, on its own initiative or at the request of a  minister or Secretary of 
State  of  the  Regional  Government  (insofar  as  this  request  falls  within  its  remit),  and 
stimulating consultation and collaboration between all the players concerned and the other 
thematic advisory councils. 

c)  Measures to promote dialogue between social partners to give effect to the principle 
of equal treatment within workplace practices, codes of practice and workforce 
monitoring (Article 11 Directive 2000/43 and Article 13 Directive 2000/78) 

Social partners have been actively involved in dissemination activities.  

First, Unia has regularly organised events with both employers and workers organisations 
and has also set up training sessions in cooperation with these organisations.  

Recently,  Unia  has  renewed  its  memoranda  of  understanding  with  the  trade  unions,  10 
employers’  federations  and  the  various  LGBTQI+  organisations.  In  2020,  a  support 
committee in the field of racial discrimination was set up, which brings together people and 
civil society NGOs, academics and social partners.459 

Regions  and  communities  have  also  adopted  measures,  some  of  which  have  actively 
involved social partners.  

d) 

Addressing the situation of Roma and Travellers  

The Belgian Inter-Ministerial Conference on Social Integration created a Roma task force 
on 21 March 2011, in order to develop an integrated action plan to draw up proposals to 
improve Roma integration in Belgium. Work conducted by the task force led to a ‘National 
Strategy for Roma Integration’, published in March 2012. It defined issues and objectives 
for  Roma  integration  by  2020,  and  provides  for  more  coordination  between  the  Federal 
State,  the  regions  and  the  communities  through  the  Roma  task  force,  so  that  every 
authority can freely take measures according to its responsibilities. The task force meets 
at least twice a year and is the national contact point for the European Commission. Unia 
called for an  evaluation of this  strategy in its  2019 memorandum drafted in view  of the 
federal, regional and European elections of 26 May 2019.460 In its March 2020 report, the 
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recommended that Belgium ‘ensure 
effective  implementation  of  the  national  strategy  for  the  integration  of  Roma  people, 
through the adoption of an interfederal action plan including specific measures for Roma 
women and children and receiving a specific and adequate budget’.461 Similar observations 
and recommendation have been addressed to Belgium, more recently (May 2021), by the 

456  These recommendations were approved on 18 January 2022 by the Committee on Equal Opportunities and 

Women’s Rights of the Brussels Parliament, see: http://www.parlement.brussels/wp-
content/uploads/2022/01/Rapport-des-recommandations-émises-par-la-société-civile-dans-le-cadre-des-
Assises-contre-le-racisme.pdf. 

457  See: https://nawalbenhamou.brussels/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Plan_Racisme_VDEF.pdf. 
458  OJ, 22 September 2023 
459  Interview with Patrick Charlier, co-director of Unia, 3 March 2021. 
460  Unia (2019) S’engager pour les droits humains 61 propositions d’Unia pour les élections 2019 (Commit to 

human rights: 61 proposals for the 2019 elections), 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Memorandum_pour_les_%C3%A9lections_2019. 
pdf, pp. 9-10. 

461  UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report 

of Belgium, E/C.12/BEL/CO/5, 26 March 2020, paras. 20-21. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Committee  on  the  Elimination  of  Racial  Discrimination.462  Among  other  things,  the 
Committee  underlined  ‘the  negative  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  on  the  already 
precarious enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by Roma and Travellers’. The 
new version of the ‘National Strategy for Roma Integration’ was submitted to the European 
Commission  in  2022.463  This  strategy  is  structured  around  four  objectives:  health, 
education, work and housing. The objectives are horizontal and sectoral: 

- 

- 

Horizontal: combat anti-Gypsyism and discrimination, strengthen inclusion, promote 
empowerment, participation and trust. 
Sectoral: facilitating access to general and inclusive education, promoting access to 
sustainable  employment,  improving  quality  of  life  by  guaranteeing  access  to 
healthcare and social services, improving access to housing.  

In 2014 and 2015, Unia organised several roundtables between journalists and members 
of the Roma community, in order to raise awareness of the negative stereotypes that are 
conveyed in the media.464 Nevertheless, the Commissioner for Human Rights stressed, in 
its  most  recent  report  on  Belgium,  that  ‘the  authorities  should  also  take  measures  to 
combat  stereotypes  and  prejudices  against  Roma  in  society  more  actively,  notably  by 
raising awareness of the history of Roma in Europe’.465 

In 2020, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), in collaboration with 
Unia and the Belgian National Roma Platform, organised a webinar466 to present the key 
findings of its 2020 study on Roma and Travellers in Belgium.467 During this conference, 
FRA and the participants tried to define,  on the basis of the  results  of this study, policy 
recommendations for a future national strategy for Roma inclusion. 

8.2  Measures to ensure compliance with the principle of equal treatment (Article 

14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Compliance of national legislation (Articles 14(a) and 16(a)) 

Article 11(1) of both the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and the Racial Equality 
Federal  Act  are  ‘safeguard  provisions’,  which  state  that  they  will  not,  per  se,  apply  to 
differences in treatment imposed by other legislation, or by virtue of other legislation.  

Article 11(2) of both Acts specifies that Article 11(1) ‘does not prejudice the conformity of 
direct or indirect distinctions imposed by or under a law with the Constitution, the EU law 
and international law in force in Belgium’. As a result of this clause, national jurisdictions 
will  not  refuse  to  apply  existing  legislation  because  it  would  be  in  violation  of  anti-
discrimination legislation, but they should refer any potentially discriminatory legislation to 
the Constitutional Court, which may find a law to be invalid if it is in violation of the equality 
and non-discrimination clauses of Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. As a result, where 
discrimination  (potentially  violating  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  or  the  Employment 
Equality Directive) has its source in legal provisions or in implementing regulations,  they 

462  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2021) Concluding observations on the combined 

twentieth to twenty-second periodic reports of Belgium, CERD/C/BEL/CO/20-22, 21 May 2021, 
paragraphs 22-23. 

463  See: Stratégie nationale pour l’Intégration des Roms (2022): https://www.mi-is.be/fr/strategie-nationale-

dintegration-des-roms. 

464  For more information, see Unia (2015) ‘Meet to understand each other’, 2 April 2015, 

https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/se-rencontrer-pour-se-comprendre.  

465  Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (N. Muižnieks) (2016) Report of the Commissioner 

for Human Rights following his visit to Belgium from 14 to 18 September 2015, paragraph 140, 
rm.coe.int/16806db735. 

466  The webinar is available here: https://www.mi-is.be/fr/agenda/rencontre-numerique-roms-et-gens-du-

voyage-presentation-des-principaux-resultats-de-lenquete. 

467  European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2020), ‘Roma and Travellers in Belgium – Key 

results from the Roma and Travellers survey 2019’, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-
2020-roma-and-travellers-survey-country-sheet-belgium_fr.pdf. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

are not nullified simply through the adoption of the anti-discrimination law – they will have 
to be found to be invalid, on an ad hoc basis, by the courts.  

Since 2008, all the regional ET laws include a provision similar to the federal one.  

b) 

Compliance of other rules/clauses (Articles 14(b) and 16(b)) 

The  General  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Act  and  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act  comply 
with  Article  16(b)  of  Directive  2000/78/EC  and  Article  14(b)  of  Directive  2000/43/EC. 
Indeed, Article 15 of the General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act and Article 13 of the Racial 
Equality Federal Act mention that contractual clauses and any ‘provisions’ contrary to the 
prohibition of discrimination, will be considered null and void.468  

Since 2008, all the regional ET laws have included a provision similar to the federal one.  

468  On 2 April 2009, the Constitutional Court cancelled the words ‘in advance’ (par avance) in Article 15 of the 

General Anti-Discrimination Federal Act (Decision No. 64/2009, para. B.13.2 and B.13.3). 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

9  COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

9.1  Coordination at the governmental level 

In 2023, Marie-Colline Leroy (French-speaking Green Party) became the new Secretary of 
State for Gender Equality, Equal Opportunities and Diversity. 

Her counterparts are: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

In  the  Walloon  Region,  Christie  Morreale  (French-speaking  Socialist  Party),  Vice-
President  of  the  Walloon  Government,  Minister  for  Employment,  Vocational 
Education, Health, Social Action, Equal Opportunities and Women’s Rights. 
In  the  Flemish  Region/Community,  Bart  Somers  (Dutch-speaking  Liberal  Party), 
Minister for Internal and Administrative Affairs, Integration and Equal Opportunities. 
In the French Community, Frédéric Daerden (French-speaking Socialist Party), Vice-
President  and  the  Minister  for  Budget,  Civil  Service,  Equal  Opportunities  and  of 
responsibility (tutelle) for Education in Brussels. 
In the Brussels-Capital Region, Nawal Ben Hamou (French-speaking Socialist Party), 
Secretary of State for Housing and Equal Opportunities.  
In the German-speaking Community, Antonios Antoniadis (Socialist Party), Minister 
of Family, Health and Social Affairs. 

At  an  early  stage  of  the  implementation  of  the  EU  anti-discrimination  directives,  the 
absence of strong coordination between the different levels of the State was certainly the 
most serious obstacle to the full compliance of Belgium with its obligations under EU law. 
Until recently, there has been significant improvement in this respect as the regions and 
communities  have  shown  a  willingness  to  harmonise  their  statutory  law  with  federal 
legislation.  Moreover,  the  Federal  State,  the  regions  and  the  communities  approved  a 
Cooperation Agreement, on 12 June 2013, to turn the Centre for Equal Opportunities and 
Opposition to Racism into an interfederal centre. The independent Interfederal Centre for 
Equal Opportunities (renamed Unia in 2016), which has been operational since March 2014, 
was competent, until 2023, with regard to the various pieces of ET legislation adopted at 
both regional and federal levels. However, the Federal Government remained silent on the 
other project of turning the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men into an interfederal 
institute.  On  25  April  2019,  the  Belgian  Federal  Chamber  of  Representatives  adopted  a 
legislative act that allows for the creation of a Federal Institute for the Protection and the 
Promotion of Human Rights. This new body, set up in 2020, is the first body universally 
responsible  for  human  rights  unlike  the  various  different  specialised  bodies  (e.g.  Unia: 
discrimination;  Myria:  migrants’  rights;  IEFH:  gender  equality,  etc.),  whose  respective 
jurisdictions  remain  untouched.  Such  a  mechanism,  which  should  become  interfederal, 
would allow  full implementation  of the United  Nations Paris  Principles on the status and 
functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights (see 
section 7, above).469  

It  goes  without  saying  that  the  decision  of  the  Flemish  Government  to  denounce  the 
Cooperation Agreement of 12 June 2013, and to create a new equality body  exclusively 
competent  for  Flanders,  creates  a  risk  of  ‘re-fragmentation’  of  the  Belgian  institutional 
landscape of human rights protection (see 7.2). 

Under the former Federal Government, there were two initiatives aimed at fostering greater 
coherence in equal opportunities policies. First, an Equal Opportunities Unit was created in 
the  federal  administration.  This  ‘Diversity  Steering  Committee’  (Groupe  de  pilotage 
diversité) was set up in December 2014. It is made up of internal and external experts in 
the field of diversity and meets four times a year (in principle). Its role is:  

469  Since 2018, Unia has been recognised as a National Human Rights Institution, accredited with B status 

under the UN Paris Principles. Its B status is explained by the absence of a general human rights mandate. 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

- 
- 
- 
- 

to develop a vision of a federal management of diversity; 
to coordinate the ‘plan-programme’ and prioritise the projects; 
to manage and attribute the central budgets; 
to give advice and report at the political level.470 

In her general policy orientation note of December 2020, the former Federal Secretary of 
State for Equal Opportunities, Sarah Schlitz, announced that she will relaunch the work of 
the Diversity Steering Committee to enable it to pursue its work on fostering inclusion and 
diversity within the public service and to act as a key advisory body supporting diversity 
policies.471 On this basis, the Committee adopted a ‘Strategic Diversity Plan 2021-2024’.472 

Secondly,  in  2016,  the  Expert  Commission  for  the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-
Discrimination Acts was set up. It was composed of 12 members. In February 2017, the 
Commission submitted its first high-level report to the federal Secretary of State in charge 
of Equal Opportunities and to the Federal Parliament.473 This report (146 pages) makes a 
number of recommendations.  

Some of the experts of the evaluation commission have resigned, and  were replaced by 
new  experts  in  March  2021.474  The  Final  Report  of  the  Expert  Commission  for  the 
Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Acts, under the direction of Julie Ringelheim 
and  Patrick  Wautelet,  was  published  in  June  2022.  It  contains  73  recommendations  to 
strengthen the fight against discrimination, hate speech and hate crime in various areas.475 
This report has been followed by reforms of the relevant acts (Federal Act of 28 June 2023). 

Furthermore, Common Circular (circulaire commune) 13/2013 – for an efficient policy of 
monitoring and prosecution with respect to every ground of discrimination, approved by 
the Association of General Prosecutors, the former Minister of Justice, and the former Vice-
Prime  Minister,  Minister  of  the  Interior  and  in  charge  of  Equal  Opportunities  –  was 
presented  to  police  officers  and  judicial  authorities,  on  16  December  2013.  The  Circular 
aims  to  strengthen  the  cooperation  between  the  justice  departments  and  the  police 
departments, so as to ensure better recording and prosecution of all forms of discrimination 
and hate crimes, including homophobic discrimination and cyberhate. In criminal matters, 
this Circular compels the prosecution departments and the police services to register all 
criminal  cases  implying  a  discriminatory  intent  on  the  basis  of  the  following  grounds: 
gender, disability, racism/xenophobia, and homophobia. The aim is  to provide for better 
statistics and greater effectiveness. Moreover, this Circular provides for the appointment 
of  a  ‘coordinating  prosecutor’  (magistrat  coordinateur)  who  is  in  charge  of  its 
implementation.  This  prosecutor  is  the  contact  person  for  Unia.  Other  prosecutors  and 
labour  auditors  (reference  magistrates)  are  in  charge  of  discrimination  issues  in  their 
respective  departments  (prosecution  departments  and  labour  departments)  as  well  as 
public servants in police services. The Circular defines their missions.  

In its final report  of June 2022, the Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 
Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts issued recommendations on the correct application of the 

470  For further information, see: 

www.fedweb.belgium.be/fr/a_propos_de_l_organisation/administration_federale/mission_vision_valeurs/Eg
alite_des_chances_et_diversite/Les_acteurs/groupe-de-pilotage. 

471  Schlitz, Sarah (2020) ‘General policy note’, Gender Equality, Equal Opportunities and Diversity, Chamber of 

Representatives, 6 November 2020, DOC 55 1580/022 p. 24. 

472  Diversity Steering Committee (2021) Strategic Diversity Plan 2021-2024, 

https://fedweb.belgium.be/sites/default/files/downloads/plan%20strat%C3%A9gique%20diversit%C3%A9
%202021-2024%20FR.pdf. 

473  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (Commission 

d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations) (2017), Premier rapport 
d’évaluation 2017; (2022), Rapport final. Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de 
haine : une responsabilité partagée. 

474  Royal Decree of 21 March 2021, OJ (Moniteur belge) 30 June 2021. 
475  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Circular.  For  the  Commission,  it  is  important  that  reference  magistrates  and  officials  be 
designated in all the bodies of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the police, and that they 
be replaced promptly in the event of their departure. The Commission also underlines that 
efforts are still needed to ensure an adequate reception of and assistance to victims who 
wish to file a complaint with the police. In order to counter the tendency for discrimination, 
hate speech and hate crimes not to be reported, the Commission recommends that police 
services be invited to make contact, under the supervision of the public prosecutor, with 
grassroots associations in order to establish a dialogue and promote greater confidence in 
the police among the public particularly exposed to this type of crime. It also proposes to 
continue the option to file a complaint online, which was introduced during the COVID-19 
crisis. According to the Commission, the recording of complaints and statements relating 
to discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes by the police and the public prosecutor’s 
office still raises important issues. 

As mentioned above (see the executive summary, section 7), the year 2023 was marked 
by major changes to the legislation transposing Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, 
both at federal level and at the level of certain federated authorities. At the latter level, 
reforms have already been passed, and others are still in the process of being adopted, in 
the  Flemish  Community  and  in  Brussels  (codification  of  the  legislation  of  the  Brussels-
Capital Region, the Joint Community Commission and the French Community Commission). 
These reforms, inspired in part by the recommendations of the Expert Commission for the 
Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts476 (see, in particular, the Federal 
Act  of  28  June  2023)  are  undoubtedly  beneficial  for  the  effectiveness  of  the  legislation 
concerned. The difficulty is that they are being carried out without much coordination and 
consultation between the various competent political authorities, and that the federal and 
federated rules relating to identical or similar situations are becoming increasingly different 
as  a  result.  This  makes  anti-discrimination  law  more  difficult  to  read  and  understand, 
particularly  for  victims,  and  the  cessation  of  Unia’s  role  as  a  ‘one-stop  shop’  does  not 
improve the situation. 

9.2  National Strategies and action plans 

Despite the repeated calls for an interfederal action plan against racism,477 by Unia (i.e. in 
the  2014  and  2019  memoranda  drafted  by  Unia  in  view  of  the  federal,  regional  and 
European elections of May 2014 and May 2019), ECRI478 and the UN Council for Human 
Rights,  no  national  action  plan  against  racism  has  yet  been  adopted.479  In  May  2018,  a 
collective of more than 30 associations active in the fight against racism and discrimination 
(NAPAR coalition) recalled in the House of Representatives that Belgium is not fulfilling its 
commitments regarding the action plan. They proposed several key steps that were met 
with enthusiasm by the opposition parties, but no follow-up was put in place.480 The then 
Secretary of State for Equal Opportunities, Zuhal Demir, caused quite a media storm when 
she announced her desire to transform the action plan against racism into a ‘living together’ 
plan, which would also focus on anti-autochthonous (anti-white) racism, since she believed 
that  autochthonous  people  are  ‘a  minority’  in  some  cities.  At  the  end  of  2018,  the 

476  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée. 
477  Such a commitment had already been made at the federal level after the Durban world conference against 

racism in 2001. 

478  ECRI (2014) Fifth Report on Belgium, para. 57: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-

country/Belgium/BEL-CbC-V-2014-001-ENG.pdf. 

479  In 2016, a preliminary study on the feasibility of such an interfederal action plan against racism, racial 
discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance was submitted to the Secretary of State in charge of equal 
opportunities (Dr. Saila Ouald Chaib, under the scientific supervision of Prof. Eva Brems (University of 
Ghent), ‘Racisme in België. 15 jaar na de Durban verklaring: tijd voor een interfederaal aktie plan tegen 
racisme’ (Racism in Belgium 15 years after the Durban Declaration: time for an interfederal action plan 
against racism), 2 September 2016). 

480  See: Metro (2018) ‘La Belgique à la traîne dans l'élaboration d'un plan national contre le racisme’, 22 May 

2018, fr.metrotime.be/2018/05/22/actualite/la-belgique-a-la-traine-dans-lelaboration-dun-plan-national-
contre-le-racisme/.  

124 

 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Government  resigned,  which  put  the  action  plan  de  facto  on  the  agenda  of  the  current 
legislature. An awareness campaign has been launched by Unia (see section 8.1.a, above). 
In June 2020, the NAPAR coalition published a memorandum with more than 50 proposals 
to  develop  the  future  interfederal  action  plan  against  racism.481  In  September  2020,  an 
interministerial conference on the fight against racism (launched by the then Prime Minister 
Sophie Wilmès at the beginning of 2020 but paused during the first wave of the COVID-19 
pandemic) finally took place. It started the process of drafting the interfederal action plan 
against racism. The former Secretary of State for Equal Opportunities, Sarah Schlitz, also 
stated that the drafting of the interfederal plan should be done in 2021 at the latest, 20 
years after the Durban Conference against racism.482 

However,  notwithstanding  these  commitments,  the  relevant  plan  has  still  not  been 
adopted.  This  situation  has  been  noted  and  regretted  by  the  UN  Committee  on  the 
Elimination  of  Racial  Discrimination  in  its  Concluding  observations  on  the  combined 
twentieth  to  twenty-second  periodic  reports  of  Belgium  (May  2021).483  Although  70 
measures  were  adopted  by  the  Federal  Government  in  July  2022,484  they  do  not  yet 
constitute the expected ‘Plan’.485 Unia had the opportunity to reiterate its concerns in this 
matter in March 2022, on the occasion of the publication of its report and recommendations 
on discrimination against people of African descent.486 

In  2018,  an  interfederal  action  plan  against  discrimination  and  violence  against  LGBTI 
people  was  published.487  This  plan  updated,  for  the  period  2018-2019,  the  2013  action 
plan that focused on homophobic and transphobic violence,488 in order to include violence 
and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression 
or  intersexuality.  Before  the  2019  elections,  Unia  called  on  the  various  governments  to 
develop a new interfederal action plan.489 In its Sixth Report on Belgium, ECRI recommends  

‘that  the  authorities  ensure  that  following  the  2018-19  Interfederal  Action  Plan  to 
Combat  Discrimination  and  Violence  against  LGBTI  persons  and  based  on  an 
assessment  thereof,  provision  should  be  made  in  the  next  plan  for  a  proper 
consultation of the stakeholders, particularly civil society. The next interfederal plan 
should also have an impact beyond the various federal and federated levels, focusing 
in particular on the local level’.490  

481  See: https://www.naparbelgium.org/revendications. 
482  Schlitz, Sarah (2020) ‘General policy note’, Gender Equality, Equal Opportunities and Diversity, Chamber of 

Representatives, 6 November 2020, DOC 55 1580/022 p. 20. 

483  CERD/C/BEL/CO/20-22. 
484  See: Unia (2022) ‘Unia welcomes plans for federal measures to stop racism’, news release, 19 July 2022, 
https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/unia-salue-ladoption-de-mesures-federales-pour-lutter-contre-le-racisme. 
485  See: Charlier, P. (2022) ‘[Opinion] Parviendra-t-on ENFIN à l’adoption d’un plan ambitieux de lutte contre le 
racisme en Belgique?’, 25 March 2022, https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/parviendra-t-on-enfin-a-ladoption-
dun-plan-ambitieux-contre-le-racisme. 

486  Unia (2022), Discriminations à l’encontre des personnes afrodescendantes, March 2022, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Discriminations_%C3%A0_l%E2%80%99encontre
_des_personnes_afrodescendantes_(2022).pdf. 

487  Belgian Government (2018) Interfederal plan to fight against discrimination and violence towards people 
based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or intersex condition, May 2018, 
available on the website of the federal Government, 
fedweb.belgium.be/sites/default/files/Plan_d_action_LGBTI_2018-2019_FR.pdf. 

488  Belgian Government (2013) Interfederal plan to fight against homophobic and transphobic violence, 31 
January 2013, available on the website of the Institute for Equality between Women and Men, igvm-
iefh.belgium.be/fr/avis_et_recommandations/plan_daction_inter-
federal_de_lutte_contre_les_discriminations_homophobes_et. 

489  Memorandum drafted by Unia in view of the federal, regional and European elections of 26 May 2019: Unia 
(2019) S’engager pour les droits humains 61 propositions d’Unia pour les élections 2019 (Commit to human 
rights: 61 proposals for the 2019 elections), 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Memorandum_pour_les_%C3%A9lections_2019.pd
f.  

490  ECRI (2020), Sixth report on Belgium, para. 38, https://rm.coe.int/ecri-sixth-report-on-belgium-

/16809ce9f0. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

In 2020, Sarah Schlitz (former Secretary of State for Gender Equality, Equal Opportunities 
and  Diversity)  announced,  in  her  general  policy  note,  that  she  would  adopt  a  new 
interfederal  SOGIESC  (sexual  orientation,  gender  identity  and  expression  and  sex 
characteristics)  plan,  prepared  in  collaboration  with  civil  society  and  will  adopt  an 
intersectional approach.491 Under the title ‘For an LGBTQI+ friendly Belgium’ (Plan Fédéral 
‘Pour une Belgique LGBTQI+ friendly’),492 this plan was adopted by the Federal Government 
on 13 May 2022. As announced, the plan was developed in collaboration with civil society 
and 10 ministers and secretaries of state. It includes 133 measures. The plan is divided 
into  four  strategic  areas  –  knowledge  and  information;  inclusion  policy,  wellbeing  and 
health;  security  and  anti-discrimination  –  to  be  implemented  by  the  ministries  and 
secretariats  of  Justice,  Home  Affairs,  Foreign  Affairs,  Development  Cooperation,  Civil 
Service, Asylum and Migration, Equal Opportunities, Mobility, Health and Labour. The key 
measures include: 

−  A ban on conversion therapies, i.e. various practices based on the assumption that 
homosexuality  and  trans-identity  are  diseases  that  should  be  cured.  On  31  July 
2023493, a new article 442quinquies was inserted into the Criminal Code to punish 
"any  practice  consisting  of  physical  intervention  or  the  exertion  of  psychological 
pressure, the perpetrator of which believes or claims that it is intended to repress 
or modify the sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of a person, 
whether this characteristic is actually present or only assumed by the perpetrator" 
Support  to  European  legislative  initiatives  to  close  the  gaps  in  European  anti-
discrimination  legislation  with  regard  to  the  protection  based  on  the  SOGIESC 
grounds (sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics). 

− 

This action plan, valid until 2024 focuses solely on the competences of the Federal State 
and will be complementary to the action plans and initiatives that already exist at the level 
of  the  regions  and  communities.  The  Federal  Government  has  taken  the  division  of 
competences into account when drawing up this action plan. For issues that fall between 
several levels of competence, the ministers and secretaries of state will be responsible for 
consulting  the  federated  entities  in  order  to  develop  actions  in  accordance  with  the 
distribution  of  competences.  In  a  second  phase,  cooperation  with  the  federated  entities 
around the objectives of the plan will be explored. 

In the meantime, the Brussels-Capital Region adopted an action plan for 2020-2022 based 
on  the  2018  interfederal  action  plan  against  discrimination  and  violence  against  LGBTI 
people.494 

On 16 July 2021, the Council of Ministers adopted the ‘Federal Disability Action Plan (2021-
2024)’.495 The plan was developed in close cooperation with all ministers and secretaries 
of  state,  supported  by  the  representative  organisations  of  persons  with  disabilities 
(National  High  Council  for  Persons  with  Disabilities  and  Unia).  The  plan  proposes  145 
measures,  which  touch  on  all  aspects  of  life:  health  crisis  management,  healthcare  and 
social protection, work and employment, accessibility and mobility. 

491  Schlitz, Sarah (2020) ‘General policy note’, Gender Equality, Equal Opportunities and Diversity, Chamber of 

Representatives, 6 November 2020, DOC 55 1580/022 p. 23. 

492  See: https://sarahschlitz.be/wp-content/uploads/sites/300/2022/05/Pour-une-Belgique-LGBTQI-

frienldy.pdf. 

493 Federal Act of 31 July 2023, Moniteur belge, 18 Octobre 2023 
494  Action plan for inclusion and the fight against discrimination of LGBTQI+ people, 

https://www.brussels.be/sites/default/files/bxl/PA_LGBTQI_VFR_Print.pdf. 

495  Federal Disability Action Plan 2021-2024: https://socialsecurity.belgium.be/fr/publications/plan-daction-

federal-handicap-2021-2024. 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES 

- 

- 

As  mentioned  in  previous  reports,  a  Federal  Institute  for  the  Protection  and  the 
Promotion of Human Rights was created in 2019. For the time being, there is good 
collaboration between this Institute and the other federal and regional independent 
public bodies, accessible to the citizens, that are active in the field of human rights, 
and  with  Unia  in  particular  (see  chapter  7,  above).496  The  creation  of  the  Flemish 
Human  Rights  Institute,  however,  makes  it  even  more  urgent  to  establish  formal 
cooperation  links  between  these  different  actors  (see  the  recommendation  of  the 
Final  Report  of  the  Expert  Commission  for  the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-
Discrimination Federal Acts) (see section 7.1, above). 
There are currently no official good practices to report in relation to the fight against 
discrimination caused by artificial intelligence. However, we can point to the growing 
attention  paid  by  certain  public  advisory  bodies  to  the  issues  raised  by  the  use  of 
artificial intelligence in terms of the risks of discrimination, as a ‘good practice’. This 
is  leading  to  more  public  awareness  and  to  new  scientific  research,  reflected  in 
various publications. An example of this growing attention is an advisory opinion (5 
October 2021) issued by the Federal Institute for the Protection and the Promotion 
of Human Rights497 on a proposed law (proposition de loi) amending the law on the 
publicity  of  the  administration  of  11  April  1994  ‘in  order  to  introduce  greater 
transparency in the use of algorithms by the administrations’. The opinion highlights 
the benefits (efficiency of public policies, apparent reliability of algorithms, increased 
control over data processing, etc.), but also the risks linked to the use of algorithms, 
particularly  in  terms  of  the  fight  against  discrimination:  difficulties  of  monitoring, 
systematisation  of  certain  biases  leading  to  discriminatory  results,  social  exclusion 
mechanisms, disproportionate impact of decisions made by algorithms on the most 
vulnerable groups, growth of state control over individual behaviour, etc. According 
to the Federal Institute for the Protection and the Promotion of Human Rights, the 
opacity of the use of algorithms in the decision-making processes of public authorities 
is a major challenge for the protection of fundamental rights; the decision must take 
into account the impact of its applications and be able to be monitored in respect of 
human rights. On this basis, the opinion formulates a series of recommendations to 
the legislature on reinforcing transparency in the use of algorithms. In its final report 
of 2022, the Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination 
Federal Acts states that  

‘These new phenomena raise novel and particularly complex questions for anti-
discrimination law, which are attracting growing interest at the European level 
(…) and are beginning to attract attention in Belgium (…). However, this very 
new issue could not be taken into account in the context of this report. It will 
probably  be  taken  into  account  in  the  next  evaluation  of  anti-discrimination 
laws’. 

In its 2023-2027 strategic plan,498 Unia also stresses the need to adapt the existing 
legal framework to the challenges of artificial intelligence:  

‘Digitalisation  and  technology  also  present  many  challenges.  On  the  one  hand, 
digital innovation is a source of efficiency gains, social progress and new forms of 
participation, as in the use of virtual meeting tools and applications to help people 
with disabilities, or in the medical applications of artificial intelligence. On the other 
hand,  this  innovation  is  also  leading  to  a  digital  divide,  and  the  use  of  artificial 
intelligence and data on a large scale represents a major challenge for the rule of 

496  Interview with Patrick Charlier, co-director of Unia, 3 March 2021. 
497  Federal Institute for the Protection and the Promotion of Human Rights, Advice No. 5/2021, 5 October 2021, 

available (in French) at: https://www.institutfederaldroitshumains.be. 

498  Unia (2023) Strategic plan 2023-2027, p.4, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Plan_strat%C3%A9gique_Unia_2023-2027.pdf. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

law,  democracy  and  human  rights.  In  the  field  of  anti-discrimination,  new 
technologies such as data mining and comparison can be used to detect structural 
discrimination. However, the current use of these technologies is worrying because 
they  reproduce  and  perpetuate  existing  inequalities  in  society.  The  creation  of  a 
specific  regulatory  framework  for  the  use  of  artificial  intelligence  is  an  essential 
prerequisite’.  

-  On the specific theme of the digital divide, in February 2023, Unia published an advisory 
opinion on the impact of the digitalisation of services (public or private).499 The advisory 
opinion includes an in-depth analysis of the digital divide and the difficulties it raises in 
relation  to  anti-discrimination  legislation.  It  concludes  with  a  series  of  concrete 
recommendations to overcome or reduce these difficulties. 

499  Unia (2023) ‘Avis relatif à l'impact de la digitalisation des services (publics ou privés)’, 3 February 2023, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Artikels/avis_relatif_%C3%A0_limpact_de_la_digitalisation_des_ser
vices_(publics_ou_priv%C3%A9s).pdf. 

128 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES500 

11.1.  Potential breaches of the directives at the national level  

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

As they are currently worded, the Flemish Framework ET Decree (Article 16(1)), the 
German  Community  ET  Decree  (Article  5(4))  and  the  Ordinance  of  the  Joint 
Community  Commission  of  30  June  2022  (Article  7),  could  be  formally  read  as 
allowing  for  justification  of  direct  discrimination,  which  is  not  possible  under  the 
provisions of the directives. An interpretation consistent with the EU directives is thus 
needed (see section 2.2.a, above). 
In 2009, the Constitutional Court stated that Article 4(10) of both the General Anti-
Discrimination  Federal  Act  and  the  Racial  Equality  Federal  Act,  which  defines  the 
notion of harassment, does not specify that this behaviour could be punished if it has 
the  consequence  of  creating  an  intimidating,  hostile,  degrading,  humiliating  or 
offensive  environment,  without  any  intention  of  the  offender  to  create  such  an 
environment.501  On  this  basis,  it  seems  that  the  Court  requires  an  intention  to  be 
proven more generally, i.e. in civil matters as well. This interpretation may raise an 
issue of lack of compliance with EU and national law since both define harassment as 
an  unwanted  conduct  related  to  a  protected  criterion.  If  a  behaviour  that  has  the 
effect of creating a bad environment amounts to a prohibited harassment, no specific 
intention is required under EU and national law. Consequently, the interpretation of 
the Constitutional Court should be strictly applied to criminal matters  – and not to 
civil matters – to be in compliance with EU law and national law.  
In addition, in its first  (2017) and final (2022) reports, the Expert Commission  for 
the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Acts  stresses  that  the 
definition of harassment in the Act of 4 August 1996 on the welfare of workers is not 
in line with EU law, as it requires ‘several acts’ (i.e. a pattern of repetitive behaviour) 
whereas  the  equality  directives  do  not  require  such  a  condition.  The  Expert 
Commission recommends the amendment of the Act of 4 August 1996 so as to bring 
it in line with EU law502 (see section 2.6, above).  
In order to fully implement the directives, it is necessary to include, in the material 
scope of the regional decrees, ‘membership of, and involvement in, an organisation 
of workers or employers or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession’  that  is  financed  by  the  relevant  community  or  region.  Only  the  French 
Community (French Community ET Decree of 12 December 2008, Article 4(5)), the 
Cocof (Cocof ET Decree of 9 July 2010, Article 5(9)) and the Brussels-Capital Region 
(Brussels ET Ordinance, Article 4(5)) have done this. Regarding the Walloon Region, 
the Flemish-speaking Community and the Joint Community Commission, one could 
consider  that  this  is  implicitly  included  in  the  phrase,  ‘the  access,  participation  or 
whatever  exercise  of  an  economic,  social,  cultural  or  political  activity  open  to  the 
public’, which is used in both ET decrees. The statutory ET law of the Brussels-Capital 
Region  and  the  German-speaking  Community  should  be  completed  in  this  respect 
(see section 3.2.4, above). 
In Belgium, there is a potential breach of the framework directive with respect to the 
compulsory  retirement  age  in  the  public  sector  (retirement  is  automatic  and 
compulsory at the age of 65 years, with a few exceptions). In addition, the reduced 
notice period provisions to end the contractual relationship in the private sector might 
possibly be out of line with the CJEU case law (see section 4.6.4.d and 4.6.4.f, above). 
In its 2009 rulings concerning several actions in annulments against the Federal Anti-
Discrimination  Acts,  the  Constitutional  Court  stressed  that  the  facts  leading  to  the 

500  The assessments and views expressed in both sections 11.1 and 11.2 reflect the author’s opinion. 
501  Constitutional Court (Cour constitutionnelle), Decision of 12 February 2009, No. 17/2009, para. B.53.4; 

Decision of 11 March 2009, No. 39/2009, para. B.25.4; Decision of 2 April 2009, No. 40/2009, para. B.33.4. 

502  Commission d’évaluation de la législation fédérale relative à la lutte contre les discriminations (2017), 

Premier rapport d’évaluation 2017, p. 9 and para. 86; Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 
Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et 
les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée. 

129 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

reversal of the burden of proof cannot be of general character but must be attributed 
specifically to the author of the distinction. Consequently, the Court stated that it is 
not  enough  to  establish  through  statistics  that  a  neutral  criterion  disadvantages 
persons  characterised  by  a  protected  ground  of  discrimination.  According  to  the 
Court, it must also be shown that the defending party was aware of that situation. 503 
In the opinion of the author of this report, that statement of the Court is in breach of 
EU law and in contradiction to the intention of the Belgian legislature (see section 6.3, 
above). 
The ‘safeguard provision’ (Article 11 of both the General Anti-Discrimination Federal 
Act and the Racial Equality Federal Act) implies that any statutory law (or regulation 
implementing a legislative provision) which might be considered discriminatory under 
the  EU  directives  will  not  be  voided  by  the  adoption  of  the  anti-discrimination 
legislative framework. It may be necessary, therefore, to launch a full-scale screening 
of the existing legislation and regulations in order to ensure that any discriminatory 
provisions are identified and removed, since a purely case-by-case approach left in 
the hands of courts might be insufficient. 

- 

11.2.  Other issues of concern  

1) 

Political context 

In its 2014 report on Belgium, ECRI noted that  

‘since its fourth report on Belgium a number of leaders of and militants from extremist 
parties  have  continued  making  statements  in  public  against  the  other  linguistic 
Community  in  the  name  of  extreme  nationalism  combined  with  intolerant  and 
xenophobic arguments against foreigners and minority groups. ECRI considers that 
this exploitation of the climate of political tension that exists between the linguistic 
Communities  is  particularly  deplorable  as  it  not  only  encourages  inter-Community 
prejudice  and  stereotyping  but  can  fuel  hatred  also  against  ethnic  minorities  and 
migrants.’504  

This  statement  has  resonated  in  recent  years  during  which  politicians  of  the  Dutch-
speaking Nationalist Flemish Party (N-VA) have made several shocking statements.505 This 
is troubling because the N-VA is the biggest party in Flanders (and thus Belgium). There is 
also  the  far  right  party  Vlaams  Belang,  which  systematically  makes  overtly  racist  (in 
particular Islamophobic) statements. This party has become the second biggest party in 
Flanders after the elections of 26 May 2019. Nearly one out of two Flemish voters voted 
for a nationalist and/or far right party.  However, there is a  cordon sanitaire against the 
Vlaams Belang, which means that the other political parties in the country commit not to 
form a Government coalition with the Vlaams Belang at all levels of power. However, the 
cordon has been under pressure since the last elections. 

503  Constitutional Court (Cour constitutionnelle), Decision of 12 February 2009, No. 17/2009, para. B.93.3; 

Decision of 11 March 2009, No. 39/2009, para. B.52; Decision of 2 April 2009, No. 40/2009, para. B.97.  

504  ECRI (2014) Fifth Report on Belgium, para 51. 
505  See for instance: Het Nieuwsblad (2018), ‘Weer twee N-VA’ers in opspraak door racisme’ (Again two 

members of the N-VA denounced for racism), 12 September 2018; Interview with Liesbeth Homans and 
Mieke Van Hecke, conducted by De Standaard, 6 October 2018, in which Liesbeth Homans (prominent N-VA 
member and Flemish Minister) affirmed: ‘Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a Muslim’; or 
when then Minister for Home Affairs Jan Jambon said ‘a significant part of the Muslim Community danced 
after the terrorist attacks’ (of 22 March 2016 in Brussels): https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/jan-jambon-
ik-heb-geen-uitspraak-over-dansende-moslims-gedaan~b3f627a4/. See also the links between the N-VA 
and the youth group Schild & Vrienden (Shield and Friends) made public in the documentary Pano broadcast 
on Flemish television in September 2018. The documentary revealed their racist, sexist, anti-Muslim, anti-
Semitic, anti-gay agenda: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2018/09/05/pano-wie-is-schild-vrienden-echt/. See 
also how the Minister-President of Flanders, Jan Jambon (N-VA), endorses the misleading allegations that a 
refugee family can afford a house with just the family allowances they receive (on 30 December 2019): 
https://www.rtbf.be/info/article/detail_racisme-ordinaire-a-la-n-va-philippe-walkowiak?id=10397546. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

In 2017, many criticisms concerning Unia occurred and were mostly launched by Flemish 
politicians from the N-VA or from the Vlaams Belang. As we have seen, these  criticisms 
are, at least in part, at the origin of the withdrawal of the Flemish authority from Unia, and 
the creation of the Flemish Human Rights Institute (Vlaams Mensenrechteninstituut) (see 
chapter 7, above). 

Much  more  recently  (November  2023),  the  chairman  of  the  Flemish  Socialist  Party 
(Vooruit) was forced to resign because of racist remarks he made, while drunk, about the 
Roma minority.506 

2) 

Lack of coordination in law reforms 

The  year  2023  was  marked  by  major  changes  to  the  legislation  transposing  Directives 
2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, both at federal level (including the Federal Act of 28 June 
2023) and at the level  of certain federated authorities. At the latter level,  reforms have 
already been passed, and others are still in the process of being adopted, in the Flemish 
Community and in Brussels (codification of the legislation of the Brussels-Capital Region, 
the Joint Community Commission and the French Community Commission). These reforms, 
inspired in part by the recommendations of the Expert Commission for the Assessment of 
the  2007  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Acts,507  are  undoubtedly  beneficial  for  the 
effectiveness of the legislation concerned. The difficulty is that they are being carried out 
without  much  coordination  and  consultation  between  the  various  competent  political 
authorities,  and  that  the  federal  and  federated  rules  relating  to  identical  or  similar 
situations are becoming increasingly different as a result. This makes anti-discrimination 
law  more  difficult  to  read  and  understand,  particularly  for  victims,  and  the  cessation  of 
Unia’s role as a ‘one-stop shop’ does not improve the situation. 

3) 

Inertia and/or lack of political will 

There is also a worrying inertia at the political level regarding several issues central to the 
fight against discrimination: 

- 

- 

- 

Belgium has not yet ratified Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human 
Rights. 
Despite the repeated calls of Unia (i.e. in the 2014 and 2019 memoranda drafted by 
Unia in view of the federal, regional and European elections of 2014 and 2019), of 
the UN Council for Human Rights, and of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial 
Discrimination, no interfederal action plan against racism has yet been adopted. On 
a  more  positive  note,  we  observe  that  70  measures  against  racism  and  racial 
discrimination were adopted by the Federal Government in July  2022.508 However, 
they do not yet constitute the expected ‘Plan’.509 
Article 150 of the Constitution states that ‘A jury is sworn in for all criminal matters, 
as  well  as  for  political  and  press  offences,  with  the  exception  of  press  offences 
motivated  by  racism  or  xenophobia’.  The  exclusive  competence  of  the  jury  for  all 
other offences committed via a form of media qualified as being ‘press’, within the 
meaning of Article 150 of the Constitution510 – including hate speech based on, for 
instance,  sexual orientation, gender  or religion  – leads to the  de facto  impunity of 

506  See: Politico (2023) ‘Amid pressure, Flemish partyleader resigns over racist remarks’, 17 November 2023, 

https://www.politico.eu/article/flemish-socialist-leader-resigns-over-racist-remarks/. 

507  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée. 

508  Unia (2022) ‘Unia welcomes plans for federal measures to stop racism’, news release, 19 July 2022, 

https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/unia-salue-ladoption-de-mesures-federales-pour-lutter-contre-le-racisme. 

509  Charlier, P. (2022) ‘[Opinion] Parviendra-t-on ENFIN à l’adoption d’un plan ambitieux de lutte contre le 

racisme en Belgique?’, 25 March 2022, https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/parviendra-t-on-enfin-a-ladoption-
dun-plan-ambitieux-contre-le-racisme. 

510  According to the case law of the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation), radio and television cannot be 

understood as a form of ‘press’ within the meaning of Articles 25 and 150 of the Constitution. 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

such hate speech. This difference of treatment between authors and victims is hardly 
justifiable, as underlined, among many other things,511 by the ECRI in its most recent 
report  (2020)  on  Belgium.512  However,  and  despite  the  numerous  hearings  in  the 
Chamber of Representatives during 2021,513 reflection on this point has still not been 
completed.  In  its  final  report  of  June  2022,  the  Expert  Commission  for  the 
Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts recommends the extension 
of the exception contained in Article 150 to all forms of hate speech committed via 
the ‘press’, and not only to ‘press offences motivated by racism or xenophobia’.514 

4) 

Issue of effectiveness 

A fair number of cases decided in court and the 2022 Report of the Expert Commission for 
the  Assessment  of  the  2007  Anti-Discrimination  Federal  Acts  show  that  there  is  still  a 
noticeable  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  anti-discrimination  law  –  especially  of  the  notion  of 
indirect discrimination – by the professionals in charge of its implementation. 

As  underlined  by  the  three  Unia  diversity  barometers  on  employment,  housing  and 
education, there are still many discriminatory practices in these fields. Just as the OECD 
and  the  European  Commission  have  done,  the  most  recent  socio-economic  monitoring 
report,  published  in  2022,  underlines  the  problematic  situation  of  inequalities  on  the 
Belgian labour market.  Among other things, this report concludes that, for Belgium, the 
employment rate of people from non-EU countries is the lowest in the European Union.515 
This was also stressed by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its 
most  recent  concluding  observations  on  Belgium  (May  2021),  which  observed  ‘the 
discrimination  and  the  many  obstacles  that  nationals  of  countries  outside  the  European 
Union, particularly women, come up against when trying to enter the labour market and 
gain access to housing.’516 

In its Sixth Report on Belgium, from March 2020, ECRI recommends that  

‘the  authorities  increase  co-operation  with  employers  to  improve  immigrants’ 
employment  opportunities.  It  draws  their  attention  to 
its  General  Policy 
Recommendation  No.  14  on  combating  racism  and  racial  discrimination  in 
employment,  which  includes  valuable  examples  of  positive  measures  to  facilitate 
migrants’  access  to  employment,  and  mechanisms  for  the  recognition  of 
qualifications’.517 

The Federal State, the communities and the regions should take appropriate measures to 
tackle such issues. 

511  See also Unia (2021) Annual report for 2021 (Vulnerable Human Rights in times of crisis), p. 48 available on 

its website, www.unia.be/en. 

512  ECRI (2020) Sixth Report on Belgium, para 48, https://rm.coe.int/ecri-sixth-report-on-belgium-

/16809ce9f0. 

513  See: Chamber of Representatives (2021), Constitutional Review - Proposed revision of Section 150 of the 
Constitution to extend constitutional guarantees applicable to the print media to all news media and to 
uniformly prosecute all punishable expressions inciting hatred, violence and discrimination, 2 December 
2021. 

514  Expert Commission for the Assessment of the 2007 Anti-Discrimination Federal Acts (2022), Rapport final. 
Combattre la discrimination, les discours de haine et les crimes de haine : une responsabilité partagée, p. 
199 

515  Unia (2022) Socio-Economic Monitoring – Labour Market and Origin, Unia & Federal Public Service on 

Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue, Brussels, 2022, p.197, 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Monitoring_socio%C3%A9conomique_2022.pdf. 
516  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2021) Concluding observations on the combined 

twentieth to twenty-second periodic reports of Belgium, CERD/C/BEL/CO/20-22, 21 May 2021, 
paragraphs 26, c. 

517  ECRI (2020), Sixth report on Belgium, para. 75. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Concerning the rights of persons with disabilities, at least two points stressed by the UN 
Committee  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities,  which  echo  the  above-mentioned 
observations, are noteworthy. First, the Committee expresses its concern about the  

‘poor accessibility  for persons with disabilities, the absence  of a national plan with 
clear targets and the fact that accessibility is not a priority. It notes that government 
action has focused primarily on accessibility for persons with physical disabilities and 
that few measures have been taken to promote accessibility for persons with hearing, 
visual, intellectual or psychosocial disabilities.’518  

Secondly,  the  Committee  notes  ‘the  low  number  of  persons  with  disabilities  in  regular 
employment’ and ‘the Government’s failure to reach targets for the employment of persons 
with  disabilities  within  its  own  agencies,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  a  quota  in  the  private 
sector.’519  In  its  2020  recommendations,  the  UN  Committee  on  Economic,  Social  and 
Cultural Rights reiterated those concerns.520 

In 2018 and 2020, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) condemned Belgium 
because  of  the  Belgian  State’s  failure  to  guarantee  the  right  to  inclusive  education  for 
children  with  intellectual  disabilities  within  the  Flemish  Community521  and  the  French 
Community (Wallonia-Brussels Federation).522 In both cases, Unia filed an amicus brief. In 
both cases, the ECSR found a violation of Articles 15 (right of persons with disabilities to 
independence,  social  integration  and  participation  in  the  life  of  the  community)  and  17 
(right  of  children  and  young  persons  to  social,  legal  and  economic  protection)  of  the 
Revised European Social Charter. 

These European condemnations illustrate the extent to which the legislative reactions are 
still insufficient.523 This is clear from Constitutional Court ruling 85/2023 (see 3.2.7). 

5) 

Religious symbols 

The  numerous  judicial  rulings  involving  the  highest  courts  in  Belgium  (such  as  the 
Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation and the Council of State) show that the issue 
of  religious  symbols  (and  the  wearing  of  the  Islamic  veil  in  particular)  is  still  a  very 
controversial one in Belgium (see sections 3.2.8 and 4.2, above),524 and gives rise to very 
contrasting, and in some cases, perfectly contradictory, jurisprudential positions. 

The highly debated question of wearing headscarves at school is highlighted as an issue of 
concern in the 2020 ECRI Sixth Report on Belgium:  

‘In  a  federal  state  like  Belgium,  the  regulations  provide  for  a  highly  complex 
apportionment  of  powers  between  the  Flemish-,  French-  and  German-speaking 
communities  …  ECRI  recommends  that  the  Belgian  authorities  take  all  possible 
measures to ensure that decisions taken by schools regarding the wearing of religious 

518  Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2015), Concluding observations on the initial report of 
Belgium adopted by the Committee at its twelfth session (15 September – 3 October 2014), paras. 21 – 22.  
519  Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2015), Concluding observations on the initial report of 
Belgium adopted by the Committee at its twelfth session (15 September – 3 October 2014), paras. 38 – 39. 
520  UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2020) Concluding observations on the fifth periodic 

report of Belgium, E/C.12/BEL/CO/5, 26 March 2020, S.24-25. 

521  ECSR, Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (MDAC) v. Belgium, No. 109/2014, decision on the merits, 29 

March 2018. 

522  ECSR, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) and Inclusion Europe v. Belgium, No. 

141/2017, decision on the merits, 9 September 2020. 

523  See also Unia (2021) Parallel report on the second and third periodic reports submitted by Belgium to the 

UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, pp. 15-17, available at: 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/21-12-03-parallel_report_-_CRPD_-EN.pdf. 
524  See also Unia (2021) Annual report for 2020 (Vulnerable Human Rights in times of crisis), pp. 41-42 

available on its website, www.unia.be/en. See also Unia (2022) Annual report for 2021 (Another world is 
possible), pp. 25-26 available on its website, www.unia.be/en. 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

symbols  or  clothing  at  school  and  in  higher  education  establishments  respect  the 
principle of lawfulness and are free of any form of discrimination. Particularly when 
faced  with  adult  students,  the  principle  of  neutral  education  should  be  compatible 
with their freedom to express their religious beliefs’.525  

6) 

Resurgence of individual racist and antisemitic  incidents, as well as debates laying 
bare structural discrimination based on alleged race and ethnic origin 

Another issue of concern is the resurgence of both individual racist incidents, as well as 
debates laying bare structural discrimination based on alleged race and ethnic origin.  

In  June  2020,  following  the  death  of  George  Floyd  in  the  United  States,  several 
demonstrations in support of the Black Lives Matter movement against racism and police 
violence were held in several major Belgian cities.526 These demonstrations also denounced 
the deaths of people from visible minorities following police interventions in Belgium such 
as Semira Adamu (1998), Mawda (2018), Mehdi (2019) and Adil (2020).527  

These  incidents  are  not  helped  by  the  fact  that  Belgium  still  struggles  with  the 
acknowledgement  of its colonial past: there is  persistent  opposition to those who would 
like to see  statues and  street names  of King  Leopold II  removed; the renovation of the 
Africa Museum (which formerly glorified colonisation) was not done with the input of the 
African community; and history classes on Belgian colonialism are often devoid of criticism. 
During the summer of 2020 and inspired by Black Lives Matter, a movement to decolonise 
public space emerged: several statues and street name plates bearing the effigy of King 
Leopold II were defaced (BLM tags, red paint, etc). In reaction to this, some Belgian cities 
decided  to  remove  these  statues  (as  in  Ghent),528  while  others  added  an  explanatory 
plaque on the colonisation period (as in the Africa Museum).529  

Contrary to other European countries and for a long time, Belgium did not feel as though 
it  needed  to  make  reparations  for  the  colonial  period.  However,  in  July  2020,  a  special 
parliamentary committee on Belgium’s colonial past was set up, which is a unique initiative 
worldwide.530  It  was  composed  of  MPs  and  experts  who  had  one  year  to  ‘make 
recommendations on how to deal with the past in the independent state of Congo and the 
Belgian  colonial  past  in  Congo,  Rwanda  and  Burundi  through  shared  memories’.531  The 
Commission’s work culminated in a nearly 700-page expert report in October 2021 with 

525  ECRI (2020), Sixth report on Belgium, para. 21, https://rm.coe.int/ecri-sixth-report-on-belgium-

/16809ce9f0. An application is currently pending on this question before the European Court of Human 
Rights (Mikyas and Others v. Belgium, Appl. No. 50681/20). 

526  See: RTBF (2020) ‘Death of George Floyd: Demonstration against racism’, 7 June 2020, 

https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_mort-de-george-floyd-des-milliers-de-citoyens-manifestent-contre-
le-racisme-dans-toute-la-belgique?id=10517214. 

527  See: Le Soir, ‘Black Lives Matter, Almost 10 000 protest in front of the Brussels court house’, 7 June 2020, 
https://www.lesoir.be/305576/article/2020-06-07/black-lives-matter-pres-de-10000-personnes-se-sont-
rassemblees-devant-le-palais.  

528  See: VRT News (2020), ‘Ghent removes controversial statute of Leopold II’, 18 June 2020, 

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/06/18/gent-haalt-controversieel-standbeeld-leopold-ii-weg/.  

529  See: France Info (2020), Bust of King Leopold II defaced again’, 3 August 2020, 

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/usa/mort-de-george-floyd/un-buste-de-l-ex-roi-leopold-ii-figure-du-
passe-colonial-belge-a-nouveau-degrade_4065329.html. In a recent document (March 2022) dedicated to 
the issue of discrimination against Afrodescendants, Unia summarises a series of initiatives taken in recent 
years to ‘decolonise’ the public space: Unia (2022), Discrimination against Afrodescendants, p. 44-45, 
available at: 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/Discriminations_à_l’encontre_des_personnes_afrod
escendantes_(2022).pdf. 

530  Belgian Federal Chamber of Representatives (2020), ‘Commission spéciale chargée d’examiner l’état 

indépendant du Congo (1885-1908) et le passé colonial de la Belgique au Congo (1908-1960), au Rwanda 
et au Burundi (1919-1962), ses conséquences et les suites qu’il convient d’y réserver’, doc n°33-1462/001, 
17 July 2020, https://www.lachambre.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/pri/congo/55K1462001.pdf. 

531  See: RTBF (2020) ‘Debates on the memory of colonialism’, 10 July 2020, 

https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_debats-sur-la-memoire-du-colonialisme-la-commission-speciale-
aura-une-mission-etendue?id=10540236. 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

recommendations.532  However,  in  December  2022,  it  became  clear  that  there  was  not 
enough  consensus  among  the  different  political  groups  for  Belgium  to  ‘apologise’  for  its 
colonial past.533 

The  year  2020  saw  an  increase  in  ethnic  profiling  in  the  context  of  checks  to  ensure 
compliance with public health measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. In its annual 
report for the year 2020 (published in 2021), Unia stated that it regularly receives reports 
(signalements)  of  interventions  by  police  officers  that  are  perceived  as  discriminatory, 
highly  targeted  and  excessive.  Unia  also  notes  that  the  police  still  struggle  with  the 
question  of  how  to  intervene  internally  against  structurally  rooted  forms  of  racism  and 
intolerance.534  The  report  for  the  year  2021,  published  in  2022,  expresses  the  same 
concerns.535 

These preoccupations found echoes in the most recent concluding observations on Belgium 
(May 2021) issued by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.536 As a 
consequence,  the  Committee  recommended  that  Belgium:  include  in  its  legislation  an 
explicit prohibition of racial profiling based on the Committee’s general recommendation 
No. 36  (2020);  adopt  an  action  plan  to  combat  racial  or  ethnic  profiling  and  specific 
guidelines  or  detailed  instructions  for  identity  checks  to  prevent  racial  profiling,  in 
cooperation  with  the  communities  most  likely  to  be  subjected  to  racial  profiling;  collect 
disaggregated data on complaints of racial profiling, to publish the data regularly and to 
provide the data in its next periodic report; put in place an independent system for handling 
complaints of racial profiling; use forms specifying the grounds for a check or any other 
police operation, and provide information about the remedies available to the victims; and 
finally, to strengthen training programmes for police officers on racial profiling, taking into 
account the Committee’s general recommendation No. 36 (2020).537 

Finally, the year 2023 was dramatically marked by a resurgence of antisemitic hate speech 
and acts, as a consequence of the events that followed 7 October 2023. In the two months 
between 7 October 2023 and 7 December 2023, 91 complaints (signalements) relating to 
antisemitism were recorded by Unia,538 66 of which explicitly referred to Jewish ancestry. 
By  way  of  comparison,  in  2022,  Unia  received  an  average  of  between  4  and  5  such 
complaints per month. 

532  Belgian Federal Chamber of Representatives (2021) ‘Commission spéciale chargée d’examiner l’état 

indépendant du Congo (1885-1908) et le passé colonial de la Belgique au Congo (1908-1960), au Rwanda 
et au Burundi (1919-1962), ses conséquences et les suites qu’il convient d’y réserver: Rapport des Experts’ 
26 October 2021: https://www.lachambre.be/FLWB/PDF/55/1462/55K1462002.pdf. 
533  See: RTBF (2022) ‘Colonial past, recommendations without excuses’, 28 December 2022 

https://www.rtbf.be/article/passe-colonial-des-recommandations-sans-les-excuses-cest-la-proposition-du-
president-de-la-commission-speciale-11128928. 

534  See also Unia (2021) Annual report for 2020 (Vulnerable Human Rights in times of crisis), p.10 available on 

its website, www.unia.be. 

535  Unia (2022) Annual report for 2022, p.52, 

https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Publicaties_docs/rapport_annuel_Unia_2021_FR_def.pdf. 

536  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2021) Concluding observations on the combined 

twentieth to twenty-second periodic reports of Belgium, CERD/C/BEL/CO/20-22, 21 May 2021, 
paragraph 15: ‘The Committee is concerned that racial profiling by the police remains a persistent problem 
in the State party and that there is no law explicitly prohibiting such profiling. The Committee is also 
concerned that there is a risk of abuse in practice based on the interpretation of the term ‘reasonable 
grounds’ that is used in Act No. 1992000606 of 5 August 1992, the Police Functions Act, in connection with 
the powers of police officers to carry out identity checks. The Committee is further concerned about the lack 
of comprehensive data, disaggregated by ethnicity or national origin, on persons who are targeted by 
identity checks and victims of racial or ethnic profiling (arts. 2, 4 and 5)’. 

537  UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2021) Concluding observations on the combined 

twentieth to twenty-second periodic reports of Belgium, CERD/C/BEL/CO/20-22, 21 May 2021, 
paragraph 16. 

538  Unia (2024) ‘ Il faut mieux lutter contre l’antisémitisme en Belgique’, 25 January 2024, 

https://www.unia.be/fr/articles/mieux-lutter-contre-antisemitisme. 

135 

 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2023 

12.1 Legislative amendments 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Federal Act of 28 June 2023 amending the Act of 30 July 1981 aiming at repressing 
certain  acts  inspired  by  racism  or  xenophobia,  the  Act  of  10  May  2007  to  combat 
certain forms of discrimination and the Act of 10 May 2007 to combat discrimination 
between women and men:539 introduction of discrimination ‘by assumption’ and ‘by 
association’; introduction of ‘cumulative’ and ‘intersectional’ discrimination; increase 
and indexation of the amount of the lump sums; possibility for the judge to issue a 
‘positive injunction’; introduction of exceptions to the duty to obtain the agreement 
of the victim  
Federal Act of 7 April 2023 amending the law of 10 May 2007 aimed at combating 
discrimination between women and men, the law of 30 July 1981 aimed at repressing 
certain  acts  inspired  by  racism  or  xenophobia,  the  law  of  10  May  2007  aimed  at 
combating certain forms of discrimination, and the law of 4 August 1996 relating to 
the well-being of workers during the performance of their work, as regards protection 
against  prejudicial  measures:540  modification  of  the  system  of  protection  against 
victimisation (extension of beneficiaries; deformalisation) 
Decree  of  the  Walloon  Region  of  30  November  2023  on  the  fight  against 
discrimination in access to housing:541 introduction of new sanctions; introduction of 
‘test of discrimination’ (testing and mystery shopper) 
Decree  of  the  French  Community  of  25  May  2023  amending  the  decree  of  12 
December 2008 on combating certain forms of discrimination:542 implementation of 
Directive (EU) 2019/1158 
Decree of the Walloon Region of 13 July 2023 amending the decree of 6 November 
2008  on  combating  certain  forms  of  discrimination:543  implementation  of  Directive 
(EU)  2019/1158;  indexation  of  the  amount  of  the  lump  sums;  modification  of  the 
provisions  concerning  protection  against  victimisation;  possibility  for  the  judge  to 
issue ‘positive injunctions’ 
Ordinance of the Brussels-Capital Region of 1 June 2023 amending various provisions 
designed to combat discrimination in employment544 (amendment to the provisions 
concerning the ‘test of discrimination’ (testing and mystery shopper) 
Decree of the German-speaking Community of 26 June 2023 introducing measures 
in  the  field  of  education,  training  and  adult  education,  and  aiming  at  combating 
certain forms of discrimination:545 implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/1158 
Ordinance of the Brussels-Capital Region of 6 July 2023 on the creation of a Brussels 
Consultative Council for the elimination of racism in the Brussels-Capital Region:546 
creation  of  the  Brussels  Consultative  Council  for  the  elimination  of  racism  in  the 
Brussels-Capital Region 
Executive  Regulation  of  the  French  Community  of  22  November  2023  setting  the 
hypotheses and conditions for positive action.547 

539 OJ (Moniteur belge), 20 July 2023 
540 OJ (Moniteur belge), 15 May 2023 
541 OJ (Moniteur belge), 22 December 2023 
542 OJ (Moniteur belge), 31 August 2023 
543 OJ (Moniteur belge), 14 September 2023 
544 OJ (Moniteur belge), 29 June 2023 
545 OJ (Moniteur belge), 9 November 2023 
546 OJ (Moniteur belge), 22 September 2023 
547 OJ (Moniteur belge), 2 February 2024 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

12.2 Case law 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Disability 
Name of the court: Constitutional Court 
Date of decision: 1st June 2023 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: 85/2023 
ECLI reference: N/A 
Link: www.const-court.be 
Brief summary: Referring to the ‘case law’ of the European Committee of Social Rights, 
the Constitutional Court essentially ruled that the difference in funding for the inclusion of 
pupils with sensory-motor disabilities,  on the  one hand, and the inclusion  of pupils  with 
intellectual disabilities, on the other, was discriminatory.  

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Disability 
Name of the court: Labour Court of Hainaut 
Date of decision: 21 April 2023 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: N/A 
ECLI reference: N/A 
Link: https://www.unia.be/fr/jurisprudence-alternatives/jurisprudence/tribunal-du-
travail-du-hainaut-division-tournai-21-avril-2023-1 
Brief summary: A nurse employed in a maternity unit suffered an accident at work. The 
occupational  health  doctor  (médecin  du  travail)  decided  that  she  could  return  to  work 
provided  she  did  not  have  to  lift  heavy  loads  for  six  months.  The  following  reasonable 
adjustments were proposed: (1) assignments with reduced heavy lifting (for example, only 
doing consultations) and (2) help from a colleague for assignments involving heavy lifting 
However, the Labour Court stated that the maternity unit works according to the principle 
of ‘integrated nursing’: all nurses must be multi-skilled and able to carry out all nursery-
related tasks independently. The Labour Court ruled, as a consequence that the reasonable 
accommodation requested would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. The 
nurse’s request for reasonable accommodation was rejected. 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Disability 
Name of the court: Labour Court of Liège 
Date of decision: 24 October 2023 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: N/A 
ECLI reference: N/A 
Link: 
https://www.unia.be/files/Documenten/Rechtspraak/2023_10_24__Trib._Trav._Li%C3%
A8ge.pdf  
Brief summary: The refusal of reasonable accommodation cannot be justified on the sole 
ground  that  its  implementation  would  be  contrary  to  a  collective  labour  agreement.  In 
accordance  with  the  principle  of  the  hierarchy  of  norms,  this  agreement  must  be  in 
conformity legislation and, above that, European Union law, and must not be applied in 
the event of non-compliance. 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Disability 
Name of the court: Court of First Instance of Antwerp 
Date of decision: 5 December 2023 
Name of the parties: N/A / 
Reference number: N/A 
ECLI reference: N/A 
Link: https://www.unia.be/fr/jurisprudence-alternatives/jurisprudence/tribunal-de-
premiere-instance-danvers-division-malines-5-decembre-2023  
Brief summary: After years of asking De Lijn (society of public transport in Flanders) to 
improve  the  accessibility  of  its  vehicles,  four  wheelchair  users  have  taken  their  case  to 
court, with the support of Unia. In its judgment, which sets an important precedent, the 
court  of  first  instance  ruled  that  the  defendant  had  not  made  sufficient  reasonable 
accommodations to its transport service for the benefit of people with disabilities, and had 
therefore failed to comply with the Framework Decree for the Flemish equal opportunities 
and equal treatment policy of 10 July 2008, interpreted in the light of the Convention on 
the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  decision  bases  its 
reasoning on a combination of individual circumstances specific to the claimants and more 
general  observations  about  the  defendant’s  failure  to  provide  accessible  transport.  The 
decision,  however,  refrains  from  issuing  general  injunctions  to  the  defendant.  The  four 
wheelchair users each received a lump sum of EUR 650 in damages. 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Age 
Name of the court: Labour Court of Antwerp 
Date of decision: 2 August 2023 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: N/A 
ECLI reference: N/A 
Link : https://www.unia.be/files/2023_08_02_Arbsrb._Antwerpen.pdf 
Brief summary : A 42-year-old man applied for a job as a digital marketing specialist. He 
had a lot of experience in this field. The job advert called for a ‚digital native‘, which means 
someone who has grown up with the computer technologies of the digital age. The human 
resources manager explicitly informed the man by email that he had all the qualifications 
and  experience  required  for  the  job,  but  that  the  company  was  looking  for  someone 
‘younger’. According to the court, such a requirement constitutes a direct distinction based 
on age. The company was unable to prove that this distinction was justified, namely that 
the  requirement  to  be  a  digital  native  was  an  essential  and  determining  professional 
requirement  for  the  post  of  digital  marketing  specialist.  The  defendant  company  was 
ordered to pay lump-sum damages  of three months‘  salary - not six - as the court was 
convinced that the victim would not have been hired even without discrimination. 

138 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

ANNEX 1: INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 

Country:  
Date:   

Belgium 
1 January 2024 

Instrument 

Date of 
signature  

Date of 
ratification  

Deroga-
tions/ 
reservation
s relevant 
to equality 
and non-
discrimina-
tion 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

European 
Convention on 
Human Rights 
(ECHR) 
Protocol 12, 
ECHR 
Revised 
European 
Social Charter 

04.11.195
0 

04.11.200
0 
03.05.199
6 

International 
Covenant on 
Civil and 
Political Rights 
Framework 
Convention 
for the 
Protection of 
National 
Minorities 
International 
Covenant on 
Economic, 
Social and 
Cultural 
Rights 
Convention on 
the 
Elimination of 
All Forms of 
Racial 
Discrimination 
ILO 
Convention 
No. 111 on 
Discrimination 
Convention on 
the Rights of 
the Child 
Convention on 
the Rights of 

10.12.196
8 

03.07.200
1 

12.12.196
8 

17.08.196
7 

25.06.195
8 

16.01.199
0 

30.03.200
7 

14.06.1955  No 

N/A 

Yes 

Not ratified 

N/A 

N/A 

02.03.2004  No 

21.04.1983  No 

Not ratified 

N/A 

Ratified 
Protocol on 
collective 
complaints 
on 
23.06.2003 
Ratified 
Optional 
Protocol on 
17.05.1994 
N/A 

N/A 

Yes 

Yes 

N/A 

21.04.1983  No 

N/A 

Yes 

07.08.1975  No 

N/A 

Yes 

22.03.1977  No 

Yes 

16.12.1991  No 

N/A 

Yes  

02.07.2009  No 

Ratified 
Optional 

Yes 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Belgium – 2024 

Instrument 

Date of 
signature  

Date of 
ratification  

Persons with 
Disabilities  

Deroga-
tions/ 
reservation
s relevant 
to equality 
and non-
discrimina-
tion 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Protocol on 
02.07.2009 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in domestic 
courts by 
individuals? 

140 

 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:  
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en.  

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.  
You can contact this service: – by freephone: 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), –  
at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or – by email via: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available 
on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european- union/index_en.  

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may 
be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre  
(see https://europa. eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the 
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu. 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION