Partnerblog

As the telework during the COVID-19 pandemic does not perfectly fit with the existing legal systems of occasional or structural telework, employers and employees were confronted during the last year with the absence of a clear legal framework. The new Collective Bargaining Agreement no. 149 of 26 January provides a framework for employers and their employees to make proper arrangements on several aspects of telework.

The Act of 20 December 2020 providing for various temporary and structural measures in the framework of the fight against the spread of Covid-19 (the "Act") recently amended the statutory provisions on the holding of general meetings remotely using an electronic means of communication, in particular Articles 5:89 (SRL/BV) and 7:137 (SA/NV) of the Code of Companies and Associations (the "CCA").

Antitrust policy and enforcement is now mainstream news: it is front and centre in discussions about large tech players and digital markets; it is a core issue in the debate on sustainability; and it remains a key consideration in global trade negotiations.

According to the Legal Departments in a Digital Era report, 72% of legal departments say compliance and risk management are highly important. However, the maturity level is at 34%. Discover the other challenges and more expert insights in this article.

On 15 December 2020, the European Commission finally unveiled its long-awaited proposals for a Digital Services Act (DSA) and a Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DSA aims to harmonize the liability and accountability rules for digital service providers, while the DMA aims to promote fair and contestable markets in the digital sector.

The new Belgian government prioritises the promotion of gender equality and the fight against discrimination based on gender. One of the first steps in this agenda is the extension of birth leave, which is the leave that fathers or co-parents (it is a gender-neutral type of paternity leave) can take at the birth of a child.

There have been some major changes in the B2B landscape recently. On May 24, 2019, two new acts bringing some major changes to Belgian competition law and the legal framework of B2B relationships were published in the Belgian Official Journal. Firstly, the Act of April 4, 2019, which introduced new rules for B2B relationships relating to unfair market practices, abuse of economic dependence and unlawful contractual terms. Secondly, the Act of May 2, 2019, which introduced a number of changes to the competition rules (i.e., in Book IV of the Code of Economic Law). All of these changes are now in effect. The new rules on unfair market practices entered into force on September 1, 2019, the rules prohibiting abuse of economic dependence on August 22, 2020. And more recently, on December 1, 2020, the new rules on unlawful contract terms entered into force.

Businesses distributing goods and services in the EU rely heavily on the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) for legal certainty. It sets out the conditions under which distribution agreements are presumed to comply with the European competition rules. However, certain of its provisions are no longer adapted to recent market developments, notably the growth of online sales and the increased importance of new market players, such as online platforms. Recently, the European Commission proposed a number of changes to the VBER which is currently under review.

If an employee leaves the company, can the mailbox remain active for a while and does the employer have access to the e-mails therein? A recent decision of the Data Protection Authority (DPA) clarifies. In this decision, the DPA decided to impose an administrative fine of EUR 15,000 on a company that only closed e-mail addresses linked to former employees (surname and first name) after 2.5 years.

If people were to look, they would probably conclude that you do not fully comply with data protection rules. Top of the line security always fails somewhere, typically at the human level, and the same reasoning applies to data protection compliance: even if you build your processes, systems and procedures with data protection rules in mind, you cannot prevent every mistake.

However mature your organisation may be in data protection terms, there is always a weakness – and non-compliance is then a likely consequence.

This provides regulators, competitors and data subjects with opportunities to attack you. Conversely, there may be cases where you wish to use weaknesses of a competitor or adversary against them.

Either way, you need to give careful thought to data protection litigation, both as a risk you have to manage and as an opportunity on which you can capitalise.

We will examine below practical considerations based on our own experience in cases before the Belgian Data Protection Authority (BDPA), the case law of the BDPA’s Litigation Chamber (and appeals before the Market Court) and commercial disputes in which the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other data protection rules come into play.

On 29 October at 11 am, Stibbe organises a webinar on the implications of the groundbreaking Schrems II decision which annulled the U.S. Privacy Shield and questioned the standard contractual clauses. We will elaborate on the remaining options for international personal data transfers outside of the E.U.”

The ongoing COVID-19 crisis has affected all aspects of our daily lives. For in-house lawyers, it is important to keep an overview during these turbulent times. In any case, the regulator does not make things any easier for in-house lawyers with the multitude of regulatory initiatives in response to this crisis. The various federal initiatives are discussed below.

On 30 March 2020, the two laws of 27 March 2020, empowering the federal executive power to take measures to combat the spread of the coronavirus (hereafter: “Special Proxy Law I” and “Special Proxy Law II”, collectively the “Special Proxy Laws”), were published in the Belgian Official Journal. These Special Proxy Laws gave the federal executive power the power to amend existing laws in certain matters and under certain conditions by royal decree until 30 June 2020, in order to respond adequately and in a timely manner to the various challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article reflects on the practical points of attention in this respect, and explains the impact of the proxy decrees on the daily practice of in-house lawyers.

In April 2019, after years of debate and a rather controversial EU legislative process, the Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (hereafter referred to as the Copyright Directive) was finally adopted. The purpose of this directive was to adapt copyright protection to the digital age in order to create an internal market for digital content and services. Three specific targets were set: (1) to adapt exceptions to reflect the digital and cross-border environment (2) to ensure wider access to content, and (3) to achieve a well-functioning marketplace for copyright.

Can an employer dismiss an employee if the employee has tested positive for Covid-19 and refuses to wear a mask at work or if the employer has experienced a significant drop in revenue due to the crisis?

In this article we have a look at the consequences of a recent communication of the National Bank of Belgium relating tot the duality of functions for corporate mandate holders. With duality of functions we mean the situation in which a person combines the status of employee and independent.

Plot demolition and reconstruction are far reaching infringements of property rights. It is not self-evident that they can be forced on (co-)owners without their consent. Yet this is the path that the legislator followed in 2018, when the possibility of a four-fifths majority decision was introduced in the general assembly (‘algemene vergadering’) to proceed with the demolition or reconstruction of a plot. However, the Constitutional Court pulled the brakes with a 20 February 2020 ruling, legislating that infringements of property rights must be proportional and necessary in light of the objective pursued. Additional safeguards were therefore introduced by the law of 31 July 2020 to protect that right.