ARTICLE 13 EC NETWORK OF DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAW EXPERTS

EU NETWORK OF DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAW EXPERTS dir. Prof. G. QUINN, National Univ. of Ireland at Galway REPORT ON BELGIUM1 (situation on 30 June 2004) by Olivier DE SCHUTTER professor of Law, Université catholique de Louvain The structure of the Report is based on the Template for the development of a Baseline Study on Disability Discrimination Law in the field of Employment in the Member States of the European Union, prepared for the Network by its co-ordinator. This version is revised from an earlier version of the report, presented on 17 October 2002, and updated in October 2003 before this final update. Information has been included until 30 April 2004. 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction : the context in which the Framework Directive was implemented II. The Legal Framework II.1. The constitutional protection from any form of discrimination II.2. The legislative protection from discrimination on the ground of disability at the Federal level II.2.1. The Collective agreement n°38 relating to the recruitment and selection of workers II.2.2. The Law of 25 February 2003 (General Antidiscrimination Act) II.3. Regions and Communities II.3.1. Flemish Community / Region (Vlaamse Gemeenschap / Vlaamse Gewest) II.3.2. French-speaking Community (Communauté française) II.3.3. Walloon Region (Région wallonne) II.3.4. Region of Brussels-Capital (Région de Bruxelles-Capitale) II.3.5. Commission communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale II.3.6. German-speaking Community (deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft) III. The Normative and Conceptual Framework III.1. The Notion of Equality under current law III.2. Definitions of direct and indirect discrimination III.2.1. Direct discrimination III.2.2. Indirect discrimination. III.2.3. Instruction to discriminate III.2.4. Persons associated with a disabled person III.2.5. Harassment III.2.6. Reasonable Accommodation III.2.7. Positive Action, Quotas and Wage subsidies a) Positive Action b) Quotas Federal level Walloon Region (Région wallonne) Region of Brussels-Capital Flemish Region and Community c) Wage subsidies III.3. Medical examinations III.3.1. The Treatment of Medical Examinations under Current Law III.3.2. Relationship to the duty of “reasonable accommodation” III.4. The Defences available under current law III.5. Personal and Material Scope of Current Law III.5.1. Definition of ‘Person with a Disability’ under current law III.5.2. Definition of ‘Employment, Occupation, Training’, etc., under current law III.6. Vicarious Liability of the Employer III.7. Remedies, Enforcement and Sanctions against discrimination under current nondiscrimination law III.8. Burden of proof (Art. 10 of the Framework Directive) III.9. Victimisation (Art. 11 of the Framework Directive) III.10. Sanctions (Art. 17 of the Framework Directive) 3 I. Introduction : the context in which the Framework Directive was implemented In Belgium, the debate on the implementation of the Directives 2000/43/EC of 19 June 2000 and 2000/78/EC of 17 November 2000 were particularly complex because of two factors. First, the main legislation which has been adopted, at the Federal level, to ensure that implementation2 initially originated in a Bill proposed as early as on 14 July 1999 by Senator Ph. Mahoux3, at a moment when, of course, the text of the directives was not available yet. In fact, the main objective of that Bill, when it was first presented, was to overcome the deficiencies of the Law of 30 July 19814 which Belgium adopted to conform to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which it has ratified a few years earlier : the purpose was to extend the scope of that law, both ratione materiae (as to the fields in which discrimination was prohibited) and ratione personae (as to the grounds of prohibited discrimination); this extension of the reach of the existing antidiscrimination legislation was to be paired with a combination of civil provisions with the criminal provisions contained in the Law of 30 July 1981. It is only at a later stage that the proposal was modified to take into account, to a large extent, the Directives adopted on the basis of Article 13 EC. But the ambitions of the initial Bill remained : the Law of 25 February 2003 covers grounds of prohibited discrimination beyond those identified in Article 13 EC itself, and the prohibition of discrimination applies in virtually all spheres of social life, with the sole exclusion of activities of a private nature. As a result of the ambition in the extension of the protection, the regime of the protection is sometimes less satisfactory and rigorous than provided in the Directives. A second factor of complexity resides in the division of competences between the federal level (Belgian federal State) and the levels of the Regions (Flanders (Vlaams Gewest), Wallonia (Région wallonne) and Brussels (Région de Bruxelles-capitale)) and Communities (Flemish Community (Vlaamse Gemeenschap), French-speaking Community (Communauté française) and German-speaking Community (Communauté germanophone : deutschsprechigen Gemeinschaft))5, which results from the Belgian Constitution, the latest coordinated version of which is from 17 February 19946, and from the legislations which divide the competences between these different entities7. Loi du 25 février 2003 tendant à lutter contre la discrimination et modifiant la loi du 15 février 1993 créant un Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme, Mon. b., 17.3.2003. This legislation will hereafter be referred to as “Law of 25 February 2003” or “Federal Antidiscrimination Law”. 3 In fact, even before 1999, a few proposals had been made which already had the same objective to reinforce the Law of 30 July 1981. For an analysis of the genesis of the Law of 25 February 2003, see J. Vrielink, “De nieuwe Belgische Antidiscriminatiewet : een kritische bespreking”, in J. Velaers (ed.), Vrijeheid en Gelijkheid. De horizontale werking van het gelijkheidsbeginsel en de nieuwe antidiscriminatiewet, Antwerpen, Maklu, 2003, p. 193. 4 Loi du 30 juillet 1981 tendant à réprimer certains actes inspirés par le racisme et la xénophobie, Mon. b., most recently modified in early 2003 (Loi du 20 janvier 2003 tendant à renforcer la lutte contre le racisme, Mon.b., 12 février 2003). 5 With respect to the Region of Brussels (Région bruxelloise), the competences of the French-speaking Community (Communauté française) are exercised by a specific authority, called Commission communautaire française, which is thus competent for the French-speaking population of the Region of Brussels-Capital. There also exists a Commission communautaire commune within the Region of the Brussels-Capital, competent for fields of competence attributed to the Communities but exercised on the Region of Brussels-Capital. 6 See Art. 1-3 of the Belgian Constitution. 7 Especially the Special Law of 8 August 1980 on institutional reforms (Loi spéciale du 8 août 1980 sur les réformes institutionnelles), Mon. b., 15.8.1980. 2 4 With respect to the implementation of the Framework Directive8, it will be useful to recall the opinion delivered by the legislative section of the Council of State (section de législation du Conseil d’Etat) when the federal legislator intended to implement the European Community Directives on equal treatment between men and women in social fields by adopting a Law on equal treatment between men and women with respect to working conditions, access to employment and to promotion opportunities, access to an independant profession and to complementary regimes of social security9. The legislative section of the Council of State, acting here as the legislative advisor to the government submitting the Bill, confirmed that although the Bill was to implement the fundamental right to equal treatment between men and women, “Fundamental rights defined by legal norms of a higher rank do not constitute areas of legislative competence as such, but principles which ought to be respected by the different authorities when they regulate areas which are attributed to them. When the implementation of a fundamental right requires a complementary regulation, or where it is felt necessary to specify the scope of that fundamental right in a particular field, it is up to the competent authority to adopt the necessary rules”10. Thus, even where higher-ranking norms oblige all the organs and powers of the Belgian State, the constitutional rules dividing the competences within the State will have to be respected when further initiatives are required for the implementation of those norms : although all powers within the State are bound to respect these higher norms, each power is competent only in its own field of competence to specify the implications of these norms in the fields which have been attributed to that power11. This position of the Council of State is also that Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303/16 of 2.12.2000. 9 Loi du 7 mai 1999 sur l’égalité de traitement entre hommes et femmes en ce qui concerne les conditions de travail, l’accès à l’emploi et aux possibilités de promotion, l’accès à une profession indépendante et les régimes complémentaires de sécurité sociale. 10 See C.E. (section de législation), Avis 28.197/1 du 16 février 1999, Doc. parl., Chambre repr., sess. ord. 19981999, n° 2057/1 and 2058/1, pp. 34-36. The section of legislation of the Council of State confirmed the validity of this doctrine in the first of the two opinions it delivered on the draft texts which would become the Law of 25 February 2003 : see C.E. (section de législation), Avis 30.462/2 of 16 November 2000, Doc. parl., Sénat, sess. 2000-2001, p. 2. 11 This is the classical position of the legislative section of the Council of State. For instance, when confronted with the Bill which would later become the Decree of 6 April 1995 on the integration of persons with disabilities (Décret du 6 avril 1995 relatif à l’intégration des personnes handicapées) – a Decree which the Région wallonne intended to adopt, and which included an obligation for private employers to hire a certain proportion of persons with disabilities -, the Conseil d’Etat considered that “Such a hiring obligation could only take the form of a contract of employment. However, the Region certainly has no competence in this field, neither as an aspect of its employment policy nor as an aspect of its policy on disability. The Region could hardly vindicate the exercise of such a competence on the basis of its implicit powers, because the burden imposed on employers by the obligation cannot be described as marginal in comparison to the main competence of the Region” (“Cet engagement [de personnes handicapées par les employeurs privés] ne pourrait que prendre la forme d’un contrat de travail. Or, la Région n’est certainement pas compétente dans cette matière, ni au titre de la politique de l’emploi ni à celui de la politique des handicapés. Elle pourrait difficilement revendiquer cette compétence sur la base de ses pouvoirs implicites car la charge constituée par les engagements pour les employeurs ne saurait être considérée comme marginale par rapport à sa compétence principale”) (C.E. (section de législation), avis 23.478/2/V of 10 August 1994). This opinion, however, dates from an era – before well-known opinions of the Council of State of 1996-1997 – when the Conseil d’Etat considered that fundamental rights were, per definition, a federal competence, as they related to fundamental aspects of the human person, which in its opinion could not conceivably be either recognized or not according to the part of the country where one is situated. It is this idea (the idea that, therefore, fundamental rights do constitute “an area of legislative competence as such” – a competence of the Federal legislator) that was later abandoned : see C.E. (section de 8 5 adopted by the Belgian constitutional court, the Court of Arbitration (Cour d’arbitrage, Arbitragehof), since 199612. The question of which level of power is competent with respect to combating discrimination in the field of employment and occupation has been made even more complex because of the diverse ways in which such measures can be devised and adopted. For instance, although disability policy falls normally within the competences of the Communities13, it is the Federal level which is competent in the fields of civil law, criminal law, commercial law or employment law. The Council of State considers that “Although the federal authority may not prohibit discriminations in fields which belong to the competences of the Regions or the Communities, such a prohibition may nevertheless result from the exercise by the federal authority of its competences in the fields of civil law, commercial law, or employment law (…). A similar reasoning can be made in the criminal area (…). The circumstance that (…) offences can be committed in a field falling under the competences of the Communities or Regions or by a civil servant of an Executive of the Community or the Region does not deprive the federal legislator from the competence to adopt prohibitions of a general scope”. Thus, although civil law or penal law provisions prohibiting discrimination may and do touch upon spheres of activities in which the Regions of the Communities are competent, such provisions may be adopted by the Federal level, to which a general competence is attributed with respect to the adoption of such provisions14. This answer remains problematic, however15. If, for instance, Communities are competent to impose reasonable accommodation measures for persons with disabilities, under Article 5 § 1, II, 4° of the special law of 8 August 1980 (Loi spéciale de réformes institutionnelles), can it be plausibly stated that the Federal State may nevertheless prohibit, as being a form of discrimination, the refusal to provide reasonable accommodation, under its general competence to regulate civil law16 ? Conversely, if the Federal legislator is competent with respect to regulations concerning the employment relationship, should this be seen to imply that it alone may prohibit harassment and define the sanctions which harassment may entail, even where harassment occurs in situations which are in principle regulated by the Regions or Communities, for instance in the public administrations of the Regions and Communities ? The section of legislation of the Council of State has delivered opinions concerning these questions when it was requested to examine the decrees adopted by the Walloon Region, the French-speaking Community and the German-speaking Community. These most recent opinions – which post-date even the opinion adopted on the draft law which would become the Law of 25 February 2003 – appear législation, ch. réunies), Avis L.25131/VR/8 of 18 November 1996 and 13 May 1997. On this evolution, see A. Alen and P. Berckx, “De bevoegdheidsverdeling inzake grondrechten : het recht of vrije nieuwsgaring”, T.B.P., 1998, p. 182. 12 C.A., judgment n° 54/96 of 3 October 1996. 13 Article 5 § 1, II, 4° of the special law of 8 August 1980 (Loi spéciale de réformes institutionnelles). 14 See, e.g., the Opinion of 24 June 1992 of the Council of State on a bill proposing to criminalize discrimination against persons with disabilities (Avis du 24 juin 1992 sur une proposition de loi tendant à la répression de la discrimination à l’encontre des handicapés physiques ou mentaux), Doc. parl., Ch., sess. extr. 1991-1992, n° 172/2. 15 See the critique of the Law of 25 February 2003 in that respect by J. Velaers, “De horizontale werking van het discriminatieverbod in de antidiscriminatiewet. Enkele constitutionele beschouwingen”, in J. Velaers (ed.),Vrijheid en gelijkheid, cited above, p. 289, esp. p. 305. See also J. Vrielink, S. Sottiaux and D. De Prins, “De antidiscriminatiewet. Een artikelgewijze analyse”, NJW, 2003, p. 258, esp. p. 268. 16 In the Law of 25 February 2003, the refusal to provide reasonable accommodation (which Article 2 § 3 of the Law considers a form of discrimination) is not criminalized; it leads only to civil sanctions. 6 to inaugurate a different approach, hardly reconcilable with the previous one. Further clarification is obviously required. Many of the insufficiencies of the implementation in Belgium of the Framework Directive may be attributed to the uncertainties which remain as to the precise division of competences between the Federal State, the Regions and the Communities, in the promotion of the principle of equal treatment. Despite the remaining uncertainties and the hesitations of the Council of State, it should be recalled that with respect –specifically – to the professional integration of disabled persons, the division of competences in the Belgian federal system is in principle as follows : • The Special Law of 8 August 1980 (Loi spéciale de réformes institutionnelles) transferred to the Communities the competence in the field of disability policy17, and the Communities also may legislate in the fields of vocational training and rehabilitation1819. However, in the Southern part of the State, vocational training has been regionalized – transferred from the French-speaking Community to the Walloon Region and the Region of Brussels-Capital – according to the mechanism of Art. 138 of the Constitution : indeed, by a Decree of 19 July 1993, the French-speaking Community (Communauté française) transferred its competences in the field of disability policy to the Walloon Region and the Commission communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale.20 • The Regions, on the other hand, have received the competence in the field of employment policy (including placement and professional integration)21. By a Decree of 6 May 1999, the Walloon Region however transferred its competences in the field of employment policy to the German-speaking Community (deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft), with respect to the linguistic German-speaking region. This transferral is effective since 1 January 2000. • The Federal legislator remains competent to adopt the general rules relating to the employment relationship. However, certain employment relationships as such cannot be regulated at the Federal level, despite the general competence the Federal State has preserved on employment law generally. Indeed, the rules governing the status of personnel (including those employed in the educational systems of the) Regions or Communities are the exclusive competence of the Communities22, and may not be regulated by the Federal legislator23. 17 18 Article 5 § 1, II, 4° of the special law of 8 August 1980 (Loi spéciale de réformes institutionnelles). Article 4, 16° of the special law of 8 August 1980. 19 It will be noted that, during the parliamentary discussions which would lead to the adoption of the Antidiscrimination Law of 25 February 2003, an amendment was proposed to explicitly refer to vocational training and vocational guidance among the areas covered, ratione materiae, by the Federal Law (Amendment n° 48 by Ms Schauvliege, Doc. parl., Ch., doc. 50-1578/005, p. 10). This Amendment was rejected without an explanation. As a result, the current text of the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 should be interpreted as not covering these fields, which belong to the competences of the Communities. If the Amendment had been successful, the Federal legislator would probably be considered as having legislated beyond its powers. 20 Decree of 19 July 1993 attributing the exercise of certain competences of the French-speaking Community to the Walloon Region and the French Community Commission (Décret attribuant l’exercice de certaines compétences de la Communauté française à la Région wallonne et à la Commission communautaire française), M.B., 10.9.1993. 21 Article 6 § 1, IX of the special law of 8 August 1980. 22 See Article 127 of the Constitution, and for confirmation that this provision of the Constitution implies that the Communities have an exclusive competence concerning the definition of the status of the personnel in the educational system, C.A. (Cour d’arbitrage), Case n°2/2000, 19 June 2000, point B.3.2. 23 Article 87 of the Loi spéciale de réformes institutionnelles of 8 August 1980, cited above. 7 Due to the federal organisation of the Belgian State, six legislators (the Federal State, the Flemish Region/Community, the Walloon Region, the French-speaking Community, the Region of Brussels-Capital, the German-speaking Community) would have to act in order to fully implement Directive 2000/78/EC. On 30 June 2004, all these legislators had taken some action, however the implementation remains both imperfect and incomplete. It is imperfect to the extent that the instruments which have been adopted present more or less important lacunae. It remains incomplete in the absence both of an initiative from the Commission communautaire française, to which the French-speaking Community has transferred its competences since 1993 in the sphere of vocational training, and of an initiative of the Region of Brussels-Capital to ensure implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC (and Directive 2000/43/EC) with respect to its own personnel. 8 II. The Legal Framework In this section of the Report, an overview is provided of the legal framework which offers a protection from discrimination on the grounds of disability. Regulations which seek to contribute to the professional integration of persons with disabilities have been included in the general presentation. The presentation is moreover not limited to the instruments which have been explicitly adopted to ensure the implementation of the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC. Indeed, some of the instruments presented hereunder pre-date the adoption of that Directive. The instruments specifically adopted for the implementation of Council Directive 2000/78/EC are underlined in bold in this table. These instruments generally also had as objective the implementation of Directive 2000/43/EC, or Directive 2002/73/EC24. The synthetic table of the instruments presented is the following25 : Author Federal level Instrument Constitution, Art. 10-11 (1994) Collective Agreement n°38 (1983, rev. 1999) Antidiscrimination Act (Loi tendant à lutter contre la discrimination) (2003) Decree on equitable participation in the employment market (2002) and accompanying Executive Regulation (Besluit tot uitvoering van het decreet) (2004) Decree on the integration of persons with disabilities (1995) and Executive Decree on the promotion of the equality of chances of persons with disabilities on the labour market (1998, rev. 2002) Decree on equal treatment in employment and professional training (2004) Decree on the social and professional integration of persons with disabilities (1999) Ordinance on the mixed management of the employment market (2003)26 Decree on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment (2004) Executive Decree on the training of PWD (1993) Executive Decree encouraging the employment of PWD on the labour market (1994) Executive Decree on rehabilitation stages for Flemish Region/Community Walloon Region Region of Brussels-Capital French-speaking Community German-speaking Community 24 Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, OJ L 269 of 5.10.2002, p. 15. 25 This listing is by no means exhaustive, as the remainder of this Report will make clear. For instance, specific instruments which create an obligation to recruit a certain quotas of persons with disabilities have not been included in this general overview. These instruments will be analyzed further, in the order of presentation suggested by the template. 26 This Ordinance, adopted on 26 June 2003 (Ordonnance relative à la gestion mixte du marché de l'emploi dans la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale), is not considered here to be a measure adopted for the implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC (or Directive 2000/43/EC), although it could be considered that it does have such effect. Indeed, the Ordinance does not mention the Directives, and moreover offers no definition of discrimination, let alone adequate definitions of the distinct forms of discrimination the abovementioned directives distinguish. 9 PWD (1995) Decree on equal treatment on the employment market (2004) II.1. The constitutional protection from any form of discrimination The prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability in the fields of employment and occupation could result, first, from Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and enjoyment without discrimination of the rights and freedoms recognized to all – although neither of these provisions mention disability expressly. According to Art. 10 of the Constitution, “Il n’y a dans l’Etat aucune distinction d’ordres. Les Belges sont égaux devant la loi; seuls ils sont admissibles aux emplois civils et militaires, sauf les exceptions qui peuvent être établies par une loi pour des cas particuliers”. According to Article 11, “La jouissance des droits et libertés reconnus aux Belges doit être assurée sans discrimination. A cette fin, la loi et le décret garantissent notamment les droits et libertés des minorités idéologiques et philosophiques”. In principle, these constitutional requirements should be capable of being invoked in the context of private relationships. This has been the position of the doctrine27. It has been alluded to by the Belgian Constitutional Court, the Court of Arbitration28. It should follow logically from the recognition by Belgian courts that the other constitutional provisions may be invoked in the context of private relationships, for instance to void a contractual clause which contravenes a right which is constitutionally protected. However, because of their very general formulation and the delicate problems which would be entailed by their invocation in the field of private relationships, these provisions have never been used to protect an individual from private acts of discrimination by an employer. Their main importance lies in the fact that both legislative norms, adopted either by the Federal State (Lois/Wetten) or by the Regions or Communities (Décrets/Decreten29), and regulations adopted by the executive (Arrêtés royaux/Koninklijke besluiten when adopted by the Federal government; Arrêtés du gouvernement de la Région ou de l’Exécutif/Besluiten van de regering when adopted by the Executives of the Region), must respect the constitutional principle of equality. The respect of the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination is ensured by the power recognized to every person with a legal interest to seek the annulment of the legislation or executive regulation, respectively, before the Constitutional Court (Cour d’arbitrage) or the Council of State (Conseil d’Etat, Raad van State – supreme administrative court)30. Moreover, 27 See, e.g., M. Tison, “L’égalité de traitement dans la vie des affaires sous le regard du droit belge”, J.T., 2002, p. 699 ; J.-Fr. Romain, “Des principes d’égalité, d’égalité de traitement et de proportionnalité en droit privé”, Rev. Dr. ULB, 2002, p. 225. 28 See C.A., judgment n°117/2003 of 17 September 2003, B.8. : “… si la réglementation générale d’un hôpital privé devait traiter ses médecins hospitaliers de manière discriminatoire, il appartiendrait à ceux-ci de faire valoir leurs droits devant le juge compétent”. 29 Although the Communities and Regions adopt “Decrees” in the fields attributed to them, the Region of Brussels (Région de Bruxelles-capitale) adopts ordinances (“ordonnances”). For the sake of simplicity, this Report will stick to the expression of “Decree”, which unless it is used in reference to a specific piece of legislation should be understood to refer also to ordinances adopted by the Region of Brussels. 30 On the competence of the Cour d’arbitrage, see Art. 142 of the Constitution. 10 if a jurisdiction entertains doubts as to the compatibility of a legislative norm (Federal Law or Decree adopted by a Region or a Community), it may submit the question to the Court d’arbitrage by a referral procedure, and the Cour d’arbitrage may upon such a referral consider a legislation to be invalid if it is found to violate the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. II.2. The legislative protection from discrimination on the ground of disability at the Federal level II.2.1. The Collective agreement n°38 relating to the recruitment and selection of workers The social partners acted speedily immediately after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which included for the first time beyond gender equality a competence of the Council of the European Union to legislate in order to combat discrimination. Collective agreement n° 38 of 6 December 1983 relating to the recruitment and selection of workers (convention collective du travail n° 38 concernant le recrutement et la sélection de travailleurs)31 was modified by the collective agreements n° 38bis of 29 October 1991, n° 38ter of 17 July 1998 and n° 38quater of 14 July 1999. This latest amendment led to the insertion into Article 2bis in the Collective agreement of two new grounds of prohibited discrimination, sexual orientation and disability. This change, agreed upon by the most representative organisations of employers and workers on 14 July 1999, followed the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam of 2 October 1997 by the Belgian law of 10 August 199832: the social partners believed Article 13 EC could be directly implemented in the Collective agreement n° 38 relating to the recruitment and selection of workers, without it being necessary to wait for the adoption of legislative instruments by the Council of Ministers of the European Union. Article 2bis of Collective agreement n° 38 now reads : The employer may not treat the candidates in a discriminatory fashion. During the procedure[33], the employer must treat all the candidates equally. The employer may not make distinctions on the basis of personal characteristics, when such characteristics are unrelated to the function [to be performed by the prospective employee] or the nature of the undertaking, unless this is either authorized or required by law. Thus, the employer may in principle make no distinction on the basis of age, sex, civil status, medical history, race, color, ascendancy or national or ethnic origin, political or philosophical beliefs, membership of a trade union or of another organisation, sexual orientation or disability34. 31 Made obligatory by the Royal Decree (Arrêté royal) of 31 August 1999 (see Arrêté royal du 31 août 1999 rendant obligatoire la Convention collective du travail n° 38quater du 14 juillet 1999, conclue au sein du Conseil national du travail, modifiant la convention collective du travail n°38 du 6 décembre 1983, modifiée par les conventions collectives du travail n° 38bis du 29 octobre 1991 et 38ter du 17 juin 1998, Mon. b., 21.9.1999). 32 Mon. b., 10.4.1999. 33 The term of “procedure” refers both to the “recruitment” (referring to all the activities performed by an employer which relate to the annoucement of a vacancy) and to the “selection” (referring to all the activities performed by an employer which relate to hiring a candidate) : see Art. 2 of Collective Agreement n° 38. 34 The French text of the Collective agreement (Art. 2bis) reads : “L'employeur qui recrute ne peut traiter les candidats de manière discriminatoire. Pendant la procédure, l'employeur doit traiter tous les candidats de manière égale. Il ne peut faire de distinction sur la base d'éléments personnels lorsque ceux-ci ne présentent aucun rapport avec la fonction ou la nature de l'entreprise, sauf si les dispositions légales l'y autorisent ou l'y contraignent. Ainsi l'employeur ne peut en principe faire de distinction sur la base de l'âge, du sexe, de l'état civil, du passé médical, de la race, de la couleur, de l'ascendance ou de l'origine nationale ou ethnique, des convictions politiques ou philosophiques, de l'affiliation à une organisation syndicale ou à une autre organisation, de l'orientation sexuelle, d'un handicap”. 11 It should also be noted that Article 11 of the Collective agreement n° 38 guarantees respect for the private life of the candidate : according to this provision, this implies that « questions which relate to private life will only be justified if they are relevant according to nature of the function [postulated] and its conditions of performance » (« des questions sur la vie privée ne se justifient que si elles sont pertinentes en raison de la nature et des conditions d'exercice de la fonction »)35. The commentary of this clause of the agreement makes it clear that the obligation to respect the private life of the candidate is imposed not only to the employer (not to seek information which is unrelated to the job performance), but also on all those who are involved in the hiring procedure (e.g., psychologists or physicians who intervene on behalf of the employer). This guarantees that, in principle, the candidate will be able to hide invisible disabilities from his/her future employer, even if these disabilities come to the surface in the course of the recruitment procedures. This collective agreement has been adopted through negotiations between the social partners within the National Work Council (Conseil national du travail), and, after its approval by the adoption of a Royal Decree36, it has been made binding upon all employers in Belgium, within all sectors of activity. It is notable that, under Article 56 of the Law of 5 December 1968 on Collective Agreements, any violation of the compulsory clauses of collective agreements which have been approved by Decree will be considered a punishable offence. Indeed, certain forms of discrimination in employment will therefore be criminalized, despite the fact that the same acts would only lead to civil sanctions under the Law of 25 February 2003, which constitutes the main legislation implementing the Framework Directive. It appears from the preparatory works of this latter legislation that this probably went unnoticed by the drafters of the Law. II.2.2. The Law of 25 February 2003 (General Antidiscrimination Act) As already mentioned, the Law of 25 February 2003 has its origin in a senatorial Bill proposed to complement the Law of 30 July 1981 criminalizing certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia37. Inspired by the need to implement the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination of 21 December 1965 (UNTS n° 195), which Belgium had ratified by a Law of 7 August 197538, the Law of 30 July 1981 criminalizing certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia (Loi du 30 juillet 1981 tendant à réprimer certains actes inspirés par le racisme ou la xénophobie) initially made it a criminal offence to publicly incite to discrimination against a person or a group on the basis of ‘race’, colour, ascendancy or national or ethnic origin. The 1981 Law was modified by the Law of 12 April 1994 to extend its scope of application to the provision of goods and services and to employment relationships without, however, extending the list of prohibited grounds of See also Article 13 (Duties of the candidate – Devoirs du candidat), according to which the candidate must in full good faith furnish all the requested information of a professional nature, which relate either to his/her educational background or professional experience, insofar as the requested information is indeed relevant (“lorsqu'elles [ces informations] ont un rapport avec la nature et les conditions d'exercice de la fonction”). 36 The procedure for such an approval is laid down in Articles 18 and 28 of the Law of 5 December 1968 on Collective Agreements (Loi du 5 décembre 1968 sur les conventions collectives du travail et les commissions paritaires, Mon. b., 5 janvier 1969). 37 One possibility would have been, of course, to adopt a new legislation including the protection against discrimination already provided for in this latter Law, to ensure a more complete harmonization. Although this option was suggested by the Council of State in its opinion of 4 February 2002 (Avis du Conseil d'Etat (section de législation) 32.967/2, du 4 février 2002, relatif au projet de loi tendant à lutter contre la discrimination, Doc. parl. Ch., 50 1578/002, sess. ord. 2001-2002, 18 February 2002) – for legistic reasons – it was rejected in the name of the visibility which the 1981 Law had already acquired in the view of the public. 38 Mon. b., 11.12.1975. 35 12 discrimination (although the expression “national origin” has been replaced by the expression “nationality”, a change which apparently was intended to be purely terminological). Article 2bis of the 1981 Law, inserted by the Law of 12 April 1994, now reads : Whomever, in the field of placement, professional training, employment offer, recruitment, execution of the employment contract or dismissal, discriminates against a person on the basis of his/her race, color, ascendancy, origin or nationality, will be punished by the sentences provided for in Article 2. (...)39 Thus, this legislation still protects only against certain forms of discrimination based on ‘race’, colour, ascendancy or national or ethnic origin. It does not protect against discrimination based on other grounds. In an important judgment of 17 May 2002 (unpublished, n° 527/02), the Brussels Appeals Court (14th chamber), had to decide upon a prosecution against M. Menten, a chief controlling agent in the Brussels public transportation system, not only for racist comments made in public, but also for having declared of handicapped persons traveling in a bus specially accommodated to suit their needs that they should be “sent to Buchenwald”. The Appeals Court noted that such statements do not fall under the definitions of the Law of 30 July 1981 criminalizing certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia. Indeed, according to the Court of Appeals, such statements relèvent des discours incitant à la discrimination, la ségrégation, la haine ou la violence envers un individu ou un groupe d’individus dans l’une des circonstances indiquées par l’article 444 du code pénal, mais pour une autre raison que la race, la couleur, l’ascendance ou l’origine nationale ou ethnique, telle que la différence physique, sociale ou mentale, soit, en l’espèce, des propos inspirés par l’eugénisme et non par le racisme ou la xénophobie (...), propos qui, bien qu’éminemment déplorables, ne sont pas réprimés par la loi du 30 juillet 1981. Therefore, the criminal liability provided for in Article 2bis of the Law of 30 July 1981 could not be relied upon, in any conceivable way, by a person who is discriminated against on the ground of his/her disability. At the federal level, the protection from discrimination of a person with a disability in the fields covered by the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC is essentially based on the Law of 25 February 2003, the main legislative initiative which has been taken in Belgium to implement directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. This muchdebated legislation, on which the Council of State provided two often critical opinions40 – critical especially with respect to the uncertainties which would result from the conflicting requirements of equal treatment and fundamental freedoms such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of association, or the right to respect for private life - , will be briefly exposed here, before we turn to the instruments adopted at the Regions/Communities levels. “Quiconque, en matière de placement, de formation professionnelle, d’offre d’emploi, de recrutement, d’exécution du contrat de travail ou de licenciement de travailleurs, commet une discrimination à l’égard d’une personne en raison de sa race, de sa couleur, de son ascendance, de son origine ou de sa nationalité, est puni des peines prévues à l’article 2 (...)”. A number of terminological changes were made to the Law of 30 July 1981 by the Law of 20 January 2003 (cited above). The Legislator seems to have forgotten to replace, in al. 1 of Article 2bis of the Law of 30 July 1981, the expression “son origine ou sa nationalité” by “son origine ethnique ou nationale”, however this has no consequence, as the preparatory works make clear that these were synonymous expressions. 40 Avis du Conseil d’Etat n° 30.462/2 (16 November 2000); Avis du Conseil d’Etat n° 32.967/2 (4 February 2002). 39 13 The Antidiscrimination Law of 25 February 2003 is divided in six chapters. Chapter I identifies the legal basis in the Constitution. Chapter II defines the scope of the Law, and the different forms of discrimination it seeks to outlaw. Chapter III contains the criminal provisions. Chapter IV contains the civil provisions. Chapter V containd the provisions which modify other legislations. Finally, Chapter VI – strangely perhaps – contains one single article, relating to the right of organisations to file suit to ensure the correct application of the Law. The Law of 25 February 2003 goes beyond the requirements of the Article 13 EC Directives in the grounds of prohibited discrimination it includes. Of particular interest with respect to protection from discrimination based on disability, the Law prohibits direct and indirect discrimination based on, inter alia,41 the medical condition, the disability or the physical characteristic (“l'état de santé actuel ou futur, un handicap ou une caractéristique physique”) (see Art. 2 § 1). The Law protects from discrimination in large areas of social life : the provision of goods or services when these are offered to the public; 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; the distribution, publication or exposition to the public of a text, an opinion, a sign or any other support including a discrimination; at last, access to and participation in, as well as exercise, of an economic, social, cultural or political activity normally accessible to the public. In most cases, where discrimination is indeed committed, it will lead to civil sanctions. Only exceptionally are certain criminal sanctions provided for discriminatory acts. Chapter III of the Law of 25 February 2003 contains the criminal provisions. This chapter describes the offences based on the notion of discrimination, both direct and indirect, defined in Art. 2. These offences only concern a) those who publicly incite to discrimination, to hate or violence against a person, a group, a community or the members of a community on the basis of one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, b) those who give a publicity to their intention to commit discrimination, or c) the public servants who commits a discrimination, as defined by the Law, in the exercise of their public functions42. Although situations might be imagined where these offences will be committed in the employment context (public incitement to discriminate made in the workplace, employee boasting about the “selective” procedures he/she has put in place, e.g.), it is in general very doubtful that these provisions will serve in this context, because the incitement to discrimination or the public vindication of discrimination is only made an offence if it takes place in a context characterised by certain conditions of publicity43, and because covert acts of discrimination are thus not criminalized. Aside from these new offences it creates, however, the Law also provides (at Art. 7-14) that certain offences will lead to an augmentation of the penalty (fine or imprisonment) if they appear to be motivated by hate or hostility against a person because of one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination (hate crimes). These offences which may thus lead to stronger convictions if driven by such an “abject motives” are : sexual assaults (attentats à la pudeur ou viols : Art. 372 to 375 Code pénal); homicide (Art. 393 to 405bis Code pénal); refusal to 41 The full list of the prohibited grounds of discrimination is : “le sexe, une prétendue race, la couleur, l'ascendance, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, l'orientation sexuelle, l'état civil, la naissance, la fortune, l'âge, la conviction religieuse ou philosophique, l'état de santé actuel ou futur, un handicap ou une caractéristique physique” (Art. 2 § 1 of the Law of 25 February 2003). 42 Art. 6 of the Law. 43 These conditions are those defined by Art. 444 of the Criminal Code (Code pénal). 14 assist a person in danger (Art. 422bis and 422ter Code pénal); deprivation of liberty (Art. 434 to 438 Code pénal); harassment (Art. 442bis Code pénal); attacks against the honor or the reputation of an individual (Art. 443-453 Code pénal); putting a property on fire (Art. 510514 Code Pénal); destruction or deterioration of goods or property (Art. 528-532 Code Pénal). Except for the offence of harassment, these situations are not normally met in the field of employment and occupation. The civil provisions contained in chapter IV of the Law may be more readily applicable in the employment context. The Law provides for the invalidity of any contractual clauses which go against its provisions, making this law imperative (Art. 18); it gives the judge the power to deliver an injunction prohibiting the continuation of the discriminatory practice, when the aggrieved parties lodge an action en cessation alleging discrimination (Art. 19); it also gives the judge the power to order the cessation of that practice, under the threath of a fine (astreinte) (Art. 20). It is in this chapter too that the provisions relating to the burden of proof have been located. The location of these provisions however is unfortunate, as these provisions (in Article 19, §§ 3 and 4 of the Law) are presented as alineas of an Article which concerns the power of the judge to enjoin the cessation of a discriminatory practice – which may lead to a narrow interpretation of these provisions, as not applicable in other situations, for instance where the victim of a past discrimination seeks to obtain damages, without seeking injunctory relief. The Law of 25 February 2003, which is currently facing a constitutional challenge before the Court of Arbitration44 – a decision is expected to be adopted in September 2004 – will be analyzed in detail below. We now turn, in this general presentation of the legal framework, to relevant measures adopted by the Regions/Communities. II.3. Regions and Communities II.3.1. Flemish Community (Vlaamse Gemeenschap / Vlaamse Gewest) A Decree on equitable participation in the employment market (Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt45) has been adopted on 8 May 2002. This Decree seeks to implement directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC with respect to the competences of the Flemish Region and Community, but it also seeks its inspiration from the Canadian 1995 Employment Equity Act46 as well as from the Dutch Law on the Promotion of Labour Participation of Ethnic Minorities (Wet stimulering arbeidsdeelname minderheden (SAMEN)) of 29 April 1998, which improves on the previously existing Law on the Promotion of proportional labour participation of Ethnic Minorities (Wet bevordering evenredige arbeidsdeelname allochtonen) of 1 July 1994, and essentially imposes on individual companies to target proportionate representation of ethnic minorities within their workforce, Register n° 2780 and n° 2783 of the Court. The actions for annulment are lodged respectively by four parlimentarians of the extreme-right Vlaams Blok party and by Mr Matthias Storme. 45 Mon. b., 26.7.2002, p. 33262. 46 The Canadian1995 Employment Equity Act obliges federal employers (public employers of the Federal State or private employers beyond a minimum size who are federal contractors) to analyze their workforce as well as policies and practices in the management of human resources, and to submit an annual report on the implementation of “equity plans in the field of employment”. In practice, this leads to the distribution of questionnaires to employees who self-identify themselves as members of particular groups; the results are then compared with the representation of these groups in the qualified pool of the labour market. 44 15 by setting annual objectives47. Another clear source of inspiration were the objectives set forth in the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council, which vowed to upgrade the level of employment within the active population up to 65 % by 2004 and 70 % by 2010. The Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt, on which the Flemish Social and Economic Council (Sociaal-Economische Raad van Vlaanderen) gave an opinion on 19 December 200148 – which led to a number of modifications from the initial proposal –, seeks to improve the representation in the labour market of target groups (kansengroepen). These “target groups” are defined in general terms as all groups within the active segment of the population which are underrepresented on the labour market (“alle groepen van de bevolking op actieve leeftijd die niet of een evenredige wijze vertegenwoordigd zijn op de arbeidsmarkt”) (Art. 2, 1°, of the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt). The executive regulation adopted on 30 January 2004 by the Flemish government, implementing the Decree of 8 May 200249, because it defines the principle of proportionate participation in the labour market (evenredige participatie in de arbeidsmarkt) in numerical terms, as “participation of target groups in the labour market in proportion to the composition of the active population” (“de deelname van kansengroepen aan de arbeidsmarkt in verhouding tot de samenstelling van de beroepsbevolking”) (Art. 2(1)), offers a general definition of “target groups” as “all categories of persons whose level of employment, defined as the percentage of the active population of that category who effectively work, are under the average level of employment for the total Flemish population” (“alle categorieën van personen waarbij de werkzaamheidsgraad, zijnde het procentueel aandeel van de personen uit de betrokken categorie op beroepsactieve leeftijd die effectief werken, lager ligt dan het gemiddelde bij de totale Vlaamse beroepsbevolking”) (Art. 2(2), al. 1). However, the Regulation of 30 Januari 2004 then goes on to identify certain groups which, “in particular” (“inzonderheid”, “notamment”), fall under that definition : these groups are persons of nonEU origin and background (“allochtonen”), persons with a disability, workers above 45 years of age, persons who have not completed their secondary education, or persons belonging to the underrepresented sex in a specific profession (Art. 2(2), al. 2). “Persons with a disability” are defined here as “persons with a physical, sensorial, mental or psychic disturbance or limitation which may constitute a disadvantage for an fair participation in the employment market” (“personen met een fysieke, sensoriële, verstandelijke of psychische stoornis of beperking die een belemmering kan vormen voor een evenwaardige participatie aan de arbeidsmarkt”) (Art. 2(2), al. 2, 2°, of the executive regulation adopted on 30 January 2004). With a view to improving the representation of the “target groups” thus defined on the labour market, the Decree implements two guiding principles : the principle of proportionate participation in the labour market (evenredige participatie in de arbeidsmarkt), which implies that “integration in the labour market stands in relationship to the composition of the active 47 The goal is to make the employers “ethnic-conscious”, rather than blind to the representation of minorities within their workforce. Although no time-limit is set for perfectly proportionate representation of ethnic minorities to be achieved, the goal is to attain progressively a better representation by individual efforts of the employer : the numerical targets are set up annually, at the level of the company, which guarantees that the objectives will be defined realistically. 48 Parl. St., Vl. Parl. 2000-2001, nr. 653/2. 49 Besluit [van 30 Januari 2004] van de Vlaamse regering tot uitvoering van het decreet van 8 mei 2002 houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt wat betreft de beroepskeuzevoorlichting, beroepsopleiding, loopbaanbegeleiding en arbeidsbemiddeling, B.S. (Belgisch Staatsblad / Moniteur belge), 4.3.2004, p. 12050 (Regulation [of 30 January 2004] of the Flemish Government concerning the execution of the decree of 8 May 2002 on equitable participation in the employment market concerning professional orientation, vocational training, career counseling and the action of intermediaries on the labor market). 16 population and that the proportionate representation of target groups is guaranteed” ; and the principle of equal treatment (gelijke behandeling), which refers to the elimination of all forms of direct or indirect discrimination or harrassment (intimidatie) on the labour market50. The prohibition of discrimination is not general, but extends to a long list of prohibited grounds of discrimination : sex, “pretended race” (“een zogenaamd ras”), color, ascendancy, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation (referred to as “seksuele geaardheid”), civil status, birth, fortune, age, belief or conviction, present or future state of health (“huidige or toekomstige gezondheidstoestand”), disability or physical characteristic (“een handicap of een fysieke eigenschap”). It should be emphasized from the outset that this Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt has a limited scope of application, as it may only touch upon fields which fall under the competences of the Flemish Region or Community51. It therefore imposes obligations not on all employers, but only on52 : a) persons or organisations which act as intermediates on the labour market by giving information on employment opportunities, offer vocational guidance and vocational training53, and generally mediate between offer and demand on the labour market (intermediaire organisaties)54; b) the public authorities of the Flemish Region/Community, including the field of education (which is a competence of the Communities in the Belgian federal organisation); c) the other employers and employees with respect only to vocational training and integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market (vocational training and disability policy are a competence of the Regions in the Belgian federal organisation). Although the scope of application of the Decreet is thus rather limited, it does have a rather broad scope of application with respect to one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, i.e. disability. Indeed, although the adoption of general anti-discrimination legislation would be a Federal competence, disability policy (the integration of disabled persons on the labour market) is a competence of the Regions, and a general prohibition on discrimination against persons with disabilities in the field of employment and occupation thus could be adopted at that level, insofar as it can be justified as an element of disability policy. This implies, first, that this Report will include the analysis of the Decreet systematically in following the suggested Template, because of the importance this Decreet may have in the Flemish Region. It implies, second, that the adoption of anti-discrimination legislation as an instrument to encourage the professional integration of persons with disabilities is a competence shared between the Regions and the Federal State, which may entail certain redundancies and problems of coordination. 50 51 See Art. 5 § 1 of the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt. In contrast to the French-speaking part of Belgium, the Region and Community are merged in the Flemish part. 52 See Art. 3 of the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt. 53 This refers essentially to the Vlaamse Dienst voor Arbeidsbemiddeling (VDAB) and the Vlaams Instituut voor Zelfstandig Ondernemen (VIZO). 54 In the course of the debates in the Flemish Parliament, an Amendment was put forward, which intended to extend the scope of application of the Decree to organisations of workers or employers, when such organisations make themselves guilty of discrimination when deciding on the membership of, or involvement in, these organisations (amendment n° 91, by Mr Van Goethem). By 10 votes to 3 in the Committee of Economy, Agriculture, Employment and Tourism, the amendment was considered redundant : either these organisations of workers or employers were acting as intermediates on the labour market (intermediaire organisaties), and in that case they fall under Art. 3 of the Decree ; or else, the Flemish Parliament would be acting beyond its competence, as the prohibition of discrimination in trade unions and employers’ organisations is a federal competence. 17 The general perspective of the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt may be described thus. Chapter I is an introductory chapter which defines the terminology used in the Decree as well as its scope of application. Certain terms have been left undefined, deliberately, by the legislator : the intention was that these terms would be further detailed by the Flemish government, in consultation with either the Flemish Social and Economic Council (Sociaal-Economische Raad van Vlaanderen (SERV)) – with respect to vocational guidance (beroepskeuzevoorlichting), vocational training (beroepsopleiding), career guidance (loopbaanbegeleiding) and employment intermediation (arbeidsbemiddeling) – or the representative workers’ organisations of the Flemish public authorities or educational system – with respect to employment and working conditions –55. This is one way in which Article 13 of the Framework Directive is implemented. Indeed, the executive regulation adopted on 30 January 2004 by the Flemish government, implementing the Decree of 8 May 200256, offers a number of definitions left open in the Decree of 8 May 2002, on the basis in particular of an opinion delivered by the Flemish Social and Economic Council (Sociaal-Economische Raad van Vlaanderen (SERV)) on 24 April 2003. Chapter II of the Decree contains the general principles. After the two guiding principles of proportionate participation and equal treatment have been defined in Art. 5 § 1 (see above), a long list of prohibited forms of discrimination is contained in Art. 5 § 2. With respect to the prohibited grounds listed above, it is prohibited to refer to these grounds in the description of conditions or criteria in employment intermediation, or to other criteria which could lead to discrimination on the basis of the prohibited grounds (Art. 5 § 2, 1°); to present certain employment opportunities as better suited to persons presenting one of the prohibited characteristics (2°); to impede access to placement services on the basis of justifications which, explicitly or implicitly, relate to one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination (3°); to mention one of the prohibited grounds in job announcements, or to allude to either of these grounds (4°); to use one of the prohibited grounds as an access or selection criterion for any function, in whichever branch of the industry – this includes access to self-employed activities –, or to resort to conditions which could lead to discrimination on any of these grounds (5°); to deny or discourage access to employment on the basis of either of the prohibited grounds or on the basis of reasons which implicitly refer to such grounds (6°); to refer to either of the prohibited grounds in the description of conditions or criteria for access to vocational guidance, vocational training or career guidance (7°); in information or publicity about vocational guidance, vocational training or career guidance, to refer to these as better suited to persons defined by reference to such prohibited grounds (8°); to deny access to vocational guidance, vocational training or career guidance, on the basis of a prohibited ground or of reasons which implicitly refer to such ground (9°); to impose conditions for the obtention and delivery of titles, diplomas, etc., which are defined differently according to one’s race, color, etc. (10°); to refer to either of the prohibited grounds in the definition of working conditions or conditions of dismissal, or to refer to conditions and criteria which, although not referring explicitly to these grounds, may lead to discrimination on the basis of such grounds (11°); to define or to apply criteria or conditions in employment and dismissal which are based on any of the prohibited grounds (12°); to use techniques or tests which, in vocational guidance, 55 56 See Art. 4 of the the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt. Besluit [van 30 Januari 2004] van de Vlaamse regering tot uitvoering van het decreet van 8 mei 2002 houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt wat betreft de beroepskeuzevoorlichting, beroepsopleiding, loopbaanbegeleiding en arbeidsbemiddeling, B.S. (Belgisch Staatsblad / Moniteur belge), 4.3.2004, p. 12050 (Regulation [of 30 January 2004] of the Flemish Government concerning the execution of the decree of 8 May 2002 on equitable participation in the employment market concerning professional orientation, vocational training, career counseling and the action of intermediaries on the labor market). 18 vocational training, career guidance or employment intermediation, may lead to direct or indirect discrimination (13°). Chapter III of the Decree relates to reporting obligations and incentives. It is in this Chapter that the influence of Canadian legislation is most visible. The Flemish public service – which are to act in full cooperation with the representative workers’ organisations of the public sector57 – and the intermediate organisations are to present annually both an “action plan” setting targets, procedures, methods of evaluation, and the steps to be achieved for the objective of proportionate participation in the labour market of target groups, and a “progress report” evaluating what has been achieved (Art. 7). The latter report is to be submitted to the Flemish authorities. It is also provided that the Flemish government should take measures to encourage undertakings and sectors to strive towards proportionate participation and equal treatment (Art. 8). The executive regulation adopted on 30 January 2004 by the Flemish government, implementing the Decree of 8 May 200258, details these reporting obligations as well as the notion of “action plan” mentioned in Article 7 of the Decree. The regulation of 2004 also promotes social dialogue between employers’ and workers’ organisations and states that certain financial incentives will be provided, by the conclusion of protocol agreements between the Flemish government and the actors involved59. Chapter IV of the Decree related to supervision of the Decree and sanctions where its provisions are breached. Art. 10 of the Decree provides that the Flemish government shall designate public servants entrusted with the surveillance of the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt. Rather extensive investigatory powers should be recognized to these officials : they will have the power, in particular, to conduct searches on business premises of undertakings suspected of discriminatory practices. The other provisions of this chapter relate to criminal sanctions (Art. 11), victimisation (the protection against reprisals of the employee complaining of discriminatory practices) (Art. 12), the invalidity of waiver of the rights guaranteed under the Decree (Art. 13), the burden of proof in discrimination cases (Art. 14), the power of tribunals, even acting ex officio, to deliver injunctions against the party having made itself guilty of discrimination, and to enjoin immediate discontinuation of discriminatory practices (Art. 15), the right of qualified organisations to file suit on the basis of the Decree (Art. 16), administrative fines (Art. 17), and the competence of the industrial tribunal (tribunal du travail, arbeidsrechtbank) (Art. 18). These provisions will be commented upon in the course of the report, in accordance with the Template for the baseline study. II.3.2. French-speaking Community (Communauté française) Legislation implementing the Framework Directive The French-speaking Community adopted the Decree on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment (Décret relatif à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement) on 57 See Art. 4 of the the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt. This is another provision relevant for the evaluation of the implementation of Article 13 of the Framework Directive. 58 Besluit [van 30 Januari 2004] van de Vlaamse regering tot uitvoering van het decreet van 8 mei 2002 houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt wat betreft de beroepskeuzevoorlichting, beroepsopleiding, loopbaanbegeleiding en arbeidsbemiddeling, B.S. (Belgisch Staatsblad / Moniteur belge), 4.3.2004, p. 12050 (Regulation [of 30 January 2004] of the Flemish Government concerning the execution of the decree of 8 May 2002 on equitable participation in the employment market concerning professional orientation, vocational training, career counseling and the action of intermediaries on the labor market). 59 See chap. III of the executive regulation. 19 19 May 200460. This text prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, including the instruction to discriminate, 1° against public servants of the administration of the French-speaking Community, 2° against the personnel of certain public interest organs depending of the Community, 3° at all levels of education in the French-speaking Community, and 4° with respect to the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Liège, which depends of the Community (article 3 § 1). It extends the prohibition of discrimination to the associations subsidized or otherwise recognized by the French-speaking Community (article 3 § 2). The decree specifies that it applies in the domains covered by the competences of the French-speaking Community, as defined in the Belgian Constitution and the Special Law of 9 August 1980 on institutional reforms. II.3.3. Walloon Region (Région wallonne) Legislation implementing the Framework Directive On 27 May 2004, the Walloon Region has adopted a Decree on equal treatment in employment and professional training (Décret relatif à l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de formation professionnelle)61. This scope of application of this Decree is limited to the competences of the Walloon Region, including those attributed to it by the Frenchspeaking Community in 199362 in the area of vocational training : under Articles 8 and 9 therefore, the prohibition of discrimination it contains applies to vocational guidance, socioprofessional integration, the placement of workers, the allocation of aids for the promotion of employment, and vocational training, in both the public and the private sectors. Measures adopted to promote the professional integration of persons with disabilities The Walloon Government has adopted an important Executive Decree (Arrêté) on 5 November 1998 on the promotion of the equality of chances of persons with disabilities on the employment market (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 5 novembre 1998 visant à promouvoir l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi) 63, on the basis of the powers conferred on the Walloon Government by the Decree of 6 April 1995 on the integration of persons with disabilities64. This Executive Decree has been modified by 60 61 M.B., 7.6.2004. M.B., 23.6.2004. 62 See Article 3, 4°, of the Decree of 19 July 1993 attributing the exercise of certain competences of the Frenchspeaking Community to the Walloon Region and the French Community Commission (Décret attribuant l’exercice de certaines compétences de la Communauté française à la Région wallonne et à la Commission communautaire française), M.B., 10.9.1993. 63 Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 5 novembre 1998 visant à promouvoir l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi, Mon. b., 6.1.1999. 64 Décret (du Conseil régional wallon) du 6 avril 1995 relatif à l’intégration des personnes handicapées, Mon. b., 25.5.1995. In particular, Article 6, 7° and 8°, provide that the Walloon Government shall adopt measures ensuring rehabilitation and vocational training of persons with disabilities, as well as their adequate professional integration. Article 10, 1st al., provides that the Government will take measures guaranteeing the equal opportunity of disabled persons on the labour market, by encouraging the creation of new jobs and by resorting to incentives (“Le Gouvernement arrête les mesures destinées à promouvoir l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi. Ces mesures portent notamment sur des soutiens à la création de nouveaux emplois et des incitations positives à l’emploi”). 20 the Executive Decree of 18 May 200065, by the Executive Decree of 13 December 200166, by the Executive Decree of 5 May 200267, and by the Executive Decree of 27 August 200268. The Decree of 5 November 1998 is divided in 10 Titles. Titles 1 to 9 of the Decree enumerate a diversity of mechanisms through which, as its heading indicates, the Decree encourages the integration of persons with disabilities in the labour market, under the supervision and with the assistance of the competent Agency (Agence wallonne pour l’intégration des personnes handicapées (AWIPH)). Although not all of these mechanisms bear a relationship to the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC or may be said to relate to anti-discrimination legislation, these titles of the Decree may nevertheless be listed, as the list offers a good understanding of its underlying philosophy : • Title I (Du stage de découverte) concerns the organisation of one or more short periods during which the disabled person, without receiving a remuneration, will be put in the context of the undertaking, to “confront that person to the realities of a profession” (Art. 2). • Title II (Du contrat d’adaptation professionnelle) concerns the provision of vocational training to a disabled person, either by a private undertaking or by a public institution; the goal of such training, which lasts for a maximum period of one year renewable twice (up to a total of three years, thus) is to prepare the disabled person to “work in normal working conditions” (Art. 11); the financial compensation of the disabled person, called “stagiaire” in this context, is shared between the employer (private or public) and the AWIPH. • Title III (De l’intervention dans le cadre de dispositifs de formation professionnelle en alternance ou d’insertion) provides for the possibility of a financial compensation paid by the AWIPH to the private undertaking or the public administration, which may complement other compensations received by the employer without, however, exceeding 100 % of the remuneration; the intervention of the AWIPH is limited to a maximum period of two years. • Title IV (Du tutorat) provides for the possibility of a financial compensation to the employer who chooses to designate a “tutor” to the disabled person whom the employer recruited under an employment contract. Such a “tutor” must accompany and guide the disabled person, to facilitate his/her professional integration. The “tutorat” may not last for more than six months, during which the AWIPH may compensate the employer at a level of 250 euros per month. • Title V (De la prime à l’intégration) relates to the premium the employer may be granted if he/she recruits a disabled person who has been unemployed for a minimum of six months or has had to interrupt work for at least six months due to medical reasons. The premium is granted for a maximum period of one year and may not exceed 33 % of the remuneration. 65 66 Mon. b., 6.6.2000. Mon. b., 23.1.2002. 67 Mon. b., 4.6.2002. 68 Mon. b., 3.10.2002. 21 • Title VI (De la prime de compensation) relates to the premium the employer of a disabled person may receive to compensate for the lack of productivity due to the disability : Art. 57 of the Decree mentions “une intervention dans la rémunération et les charges sociales, destinée à favoriser l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi, (...) accordée à l’employeur en vue, notamment, de compenser la perte de rendement”. The premium is granted for one year, but it is renewable. It may not be granted to employers who do not comply with the statutory obligation to recruit a certain quota of persons with disabilities (Art. 63, 3°). • Title VII (De la prime aux travailleurs indépendants) provides for premiums to self-employed disabled persons whom, either seek to establish themselves on the territory of the French-speaking Region, or seek to resume an independant activity after an interruption period of six months or more due to medical circumstances, or seek to maintain their professional activity despite health problems (Art. 66). The premium may be granted for a maximum period of one year, and it is not renewable. • Title VIII (De l’aménagement du poste de travail) provides (in its chap. I) that the employer who takes measures to accommodate the working post of a disabled person whom he/she has recruited or is training may be fully compensated for the investment, which is considered necessary to accommodate the particular disability (Art. 76). Chap. II of that Title extends this to self-employed disabled persons. • Title IX (Des frais de déplacement) concerns the reimbursement of travel from residence to work disabled persons may pretend to. II.3.4. Region of Brussels-Capital (Région de Bruxelles-Capitale) Anti-Discrimination Legislation The Region of Brussels-Capital has adopted, on 26 June 2003, an ordinance69 on the mixed management of the employment market in the Region of Brussels-Capital (Ordonnance relative à la gestion mixte du marché de l'emploi dans la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale)70. The Ordonnance of 26 June 2003 essentially defines which entities, and under which conditions, may act as intermediaries on the labour market. Whether public (ORBEM: l'Office régional bruxellois de l'emploi) or private (authorised private employment agencies), these intermediaries are obliged to respect a general requirement of non-discrimination. Indeed, Article 4(2) of the Ordonnance71 lists as one of the obligations of these entities not to discriminate against job-seekers on the basis, inter alia, of disability. It should be emphasised however that the rest of the ordinance is silent about the prohibition of discrimination (although Article 4(4) states that the intermediaries on the labour market must abide by the applicable legislation concerning the protection of private life vis-à-vis the processing of personal data), which therefore is much less detailed on that issue than the Flemish Decree of 69 70 The ordinance is a legislative act adopted by the Region of Brussels-Capital in its area of competence. Moniteur Belge, 29.7.2003. 71 The French text of the provision reads: ‘ne pas pratiquer à l'encontre des chercheurs d'emploi de discrimination fondée sur la race, la couleur, le sexe, l'orientation sexuelle, la langue, la religion, les opinions politiques, ou toutes autres opinions, l'origine nationale ou sociale, l'appartenance à une minorité nationale, la fortune, la naissance, le statut matrimonial ou familial, l'appartenance à une organisation de travailleurs, ou tout autre forme de discrimination telle que l'âge ou le handicap. Par dérogation à l'alinéa précédent, des actions positives au besoin de certains chercheurs d'emploi appartenant à un groupe à risques sont toutefois autorisées par le Gouvernement’. 22 8 May 2002. In the remainder of this report, therefore, this ordinance will not be referred to systematically, as it has a limited scope of application and does not make any significant contribution to our understanding of the means Belgium has chosen to implement the vaguer or more ambiguous terms of the Framework Directive. II.3.5. Commission communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale Legislation implementing the Framework Directive It has already been noted that, although the Commission communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale has received from the French-speaking Community, as a result of a Decree adopted in 199372, competences in the field of vocational training in the Region of Brussels, it should exercise those competences to ensure full implementation in Belgium of the Framework Directive. Other measures promoting the professional integration of persons with disabilities The Commission communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale has nevertheless not been passive with respect to the professional integration of persons with disabilities. Many of the mechanisms described in the Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 5 novembre 1998 visant à promouvoir l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi are also provided for in the Décret relatif à l'intégration sociale et professionnelle des personnes handicapées, adopted on 4 March 1999 by the Commission Communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale73. Section 3 of Chap. II of that Decree is titled “Les mesures et interventions en faveur des personnes handicapées”. The second sub-section of Section 3 relates to the professional integration of persons with disabilities. It stipulates that the Executive (called “Collège”) of the Assembly of the Commission Communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale will define the conditions under which its administration will be authorized (Art. 26): to approve an adaptation contract (“contrat d’adaptation professionnelle”), providing for a remuneration to be paid by the employer, but for which the employer may be partially compensated (1°); to grant a “prime d’insertion”, a premium compensating the employer for the lesser productivity of the disabled employee (2°) (this premium is to compensate exactly the loss entailed by the employer (see Art. 29 : “la perte objective de rendement du travailleur”)); to grant an “establishment premium” (“prime d’installation”) to a self-employed disabled person (3°); to compensate the employer for the costs of accommodating a working post to the needs of the disabled employee (4°); or to authorize employment in a sheltered undertaking (5°). II.3.6. German-speaking Community (Communauté germanophone) Legislation implementing the Framework Directive On 26 April 2004, the Council of the German-speaking Community (Rat der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft) discussed the draft Decree proposed for the implementation, with respect to the competences of the Community, of Directive 2000/43/EC, 72 Decree of 19 July 1993 attributing the exercise of certain competences of the French-speaking Community to the Walloon Region and the French Community Commission (Décret attribuant l’exercice de certaines compétences de la Communauté française à la Région wallonne et à la Commission communautaire française), M.B., 10.9.1993. 73 Mon. b., 4.3.1999. 23 Directive 2000/78/EC, and Directive 2002/73/EC. The Decree (Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt) was originally adopted in draft form on 26 November 2003, and submitted to the Council of State which delivered its opinion on 1 February 2004. This opinion led to important changes being brought to the original proposal. The proposed Decree74, the publication of which in the official journal is imminent, seeks to implement these directives with respect to the bodies or persons who fall under the powers of the German-speaking Community. Therefore, ratione personae, the Decree applies to the administration of that Community, to the personnel of the educational system of the Community, to the intermediaries (zwischengeschalteten Dienstleister) with respect to the services they offer, to employers with respect to the provision to persons with disabilities of the reasonable accommodation (angemessenen Vorkehrungen) prescribed by Article 13 of the Decree (Article 3). Article 4 of the Decree defines its scope of application ratione materiae. The Decree is to apply in particular to vocational guidance, professional counseling, vocational training and retraining (Berufsorientierung, der Berufsberatung, beruflichen Ausund Weiterbildung, Umschulung, Berufsbegleitung, Arbeitsvermittlung und des Zugangs zur Bildung). As it seeks to realize the principle of equal treatment in its limited scope of application, the proposed Decree imposes a general prohibition of discrimination, however it does not provide for positive action actions such as, for example, the preparation of diversity plans and annual reports which are prescribed by the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002 and the implementation Executive Regulation adopted on 30 January 2004 by the Flemish government. Other measures promoting the professional integration of persons with disabilities A number of Executive Decrees by the Government of the German-speaking Community seek to encourage the professional integration of persons with disabilities. Thus, an Executive Decree of 10 September 199375 creates a mechanism by which the disabled person should be trained, by being given a first professional experience, to join a “normal employment in an undertaking” : the mechanism consists in an individual contract of training in enterprise (“contract individuel de formation en entreprise”), concluded between the apprentice and the employer, under the supervision of the Dienststelle der deutschsprchigen Gemeinschaft für Personen mit einer Behinderung sowie für die besondere soziale Fürsorge, which is the competent administration in the German-speaking Community. An Executive Decree of 26 April 1994 encouraging the employment of disabled persons on the “free labour market”76 provides to the employers an incentive for the recruitment of persons with disabilities whose productivity could be lessened in comparison to other workers, by giving to the Dienststelle der deutschsprchigen Gemeinschaft für Personen mit einer Behinderung sowie für die besondere soziale Fürsorge the possibility to compensate financially for the costs the employment of such a disabled person may entail for the employer : the Dienststelle may intervene in the payment of the remuneration and social charges, up to a maximum of 40 % of the total cost to the employer ; the intervention is for a maximum period of 12 months, but it 74 The last document which could be consulted in the preparation of the report is doc. n°166, Sitzungsperiode 2003-2004, discussed within the Rat der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft on 26 April 2004. 75 Arrêté du Gouvernement de la Communauté germanophone (deutschsprchigen Gemeinschaft) instaurat et réglant un système de formation en entreprise en vue de préparer l’intégration professionnelle de personnes handicapées (Mon. b., 21.12.1993). 76 Arrêté du Gouvernement de la Communauté germanophone promouvant l’occupation de personnes handicapées sur le marché libre du travail (Mon. b., 25.8.1994). 24 may be renewed. Finally, an Executive Decree of 28 November 199577 creates stages for the professional rehabilitation of disabled persons, preparing these persons to work in normal working conditions. During the stage, the disabled person is not paid any remuneration, but may be reimbursed for his/her costs ; the employer must supervise the stage or designate a “moniteur de stage” within his workforce, to ensure that supervision. * * * 77 Arrêté du Gouvernement de la Communauté germanophone relatif aux stages de réadaptation professionnelle pour handicapés (Mon. b., 12.9.1996). 25 III. The Normative and Conceptual Framework III.1. The Notion of Equality under current law Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, although they are not currently used to combat discrimination in employment and occupation – which they could do theoretically –, have been interpreted by the Cour d’Arbitrage in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights78 : the rules on equality and non-discrimination of the Constitution do not exclude a difference in treatment between certain categories of persons, provided that an objective and reasonable justification may be offered for the criterion of differenciation; the existence of such a justification must be assessed in relation to the aim and the effects of the contested measure and to the nature of the principles applying to the case; the principle of equality is violated where it is established that there exists no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means used and the aim sought to be realised79. More recently, the Constitutional Court has enriched its understanding of the constitutional requirement of non-discrimination by deciding that the legislator may have to offer a reasonable and objective justification for not making a distinction between – i.e., offering the same treatment to – situations which are “essentially different”80. This case-law interprets the Constitution as requiring the legislator not to commit indirect discrimination against certain categories. III.2. Definitions of direct and indirect discrimination III.2.1. Direct discrimination. The Federal Law implementing the Framework Directive The Federal Law of 25 February 2003 says that direct discrimination occurs where a difference in treatment lacking an objective and reasonable justification (une différence de traitement qui manque de justification objective et raisonnable) is directly based on sex, a socalled race, color, ascendancy, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical conviction, actual or future state of health, disability or another physical characteristic. In the Law of 25 February 2003 therefore, direct discrimination is defined as a difference in treatment which lacks an objective and reasonable justification (“qui manque de justification objective et raisonnable”) and is based on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. The possibility of such a justification of differences in treatment based on a prohibited ground has been provided in the Law – according to the preparatory works – because of its particularly large scope of application, ratione materiae and ratione personae, which exceeds the protection offered by the Article 13 EC directives both in terms of the prohibited grounds of discrimination and in terms of the areas in which discrimination is prohibited81. However, such a definition would seem to imply that a person basing directly a difference in treatment 78 79 Eur. Ct. H.R., Belgian Linguistic Case of 23 July 1968 (Series A n° 6, § 10). C.A., n° 23/89, 13 October 1989, Sprl. Biorim, Mon. b., 8.11.1989, B.1.3. 80 C.A., n° 28/92, 2 April 1992, Mon. b., 5.B.4. 81 See Doc. parl., Ch., doc. 50-1407/005, p. 10 ; “Les définitions dans les deux directives européennes pour qualifier la discrimination indirecte [read : directe] figurent expressément dans le texte, sous une réserve : il a été décidé de réintroduire le concept de justification objective et raisonnable, ce qui est inévitable compte tenu du fait qu’il s’agit d’une loi anti-discrimination qui n’est pas ciblée sur certaines discriminations bien précises, comme le sont les directives précitées, mais qui a une portée générale”. 26 on, e.g., the actual or future state of health of a person, a disability or a physical characteristic (“l’état de santé actuel ou futur, un handicap ou une caractéristique physique”), would escape the accusation of discrimination by putting forward a reasonable and objective justification for operating on that basis82. With respect to employment and occupation, however, this definition of direct discrimination as consisting in a differential treatment for which no reasonable and objective justification can be offered should be read with the provision of Article 2 § 5 of the Law of 25 February 2003. This provision states that a differential treatment will only be justified in employment and occupation – i.e., within the scope of application of Directive 2000/78/EC – “where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate”. This wording reproduces that of Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC (Occupational requirements). It seeks to ensure that, despite the difference in formulation between the Belgian Law of 25 February 2003 and the Directive – the former admitting of an objective and reasonable justification being offered for a difference in treatment, the latter excluding in principle such a justification –, there is no contradiction between the two instruments83. It is doubtful however that this solution is completely in line with the requirements of the Framework Directive. Recital 23 of the Preamble of the Framework Directive states 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”84. This last sentence suggests that the notion of “genuine and determining occupational requirement” should not be left to a case-by-case identification under judicial control, but should be given a precise definition beforehand, such situations In the course of the discussions within the Committee of Justice of the Belgian Senate, a Senator, Ms Clothilde Nyssens, proposed an amendment which would have placed the notion of direct discrimination more in line with Article 2 § 1 of the Framework Directive 2000/78/CE, i.e., which would have excluded any justification of the use of a prohibited ground for imposing a difference in treatment (in fact, for imposing a less favourable treatment, both in Article 2 § 1 of the Directive and in the proposed amendment). The amendment was defeated by 10 votes to 4 with one abstention ; no explanation was offered for that rejection. 83 On the reasons for the introduction for this clause, see Doc. parl., Ch., sess. 2001-2002, Projet de loi tendant à lutter contre la discrimination et modifiant la loi du 15 février 1993 créant un Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme, Rapport fait au nom de la Commission de la justice par M. J. Arens et Mme K. Lalieux, 26 July 2002, doc. 50 1578/008, pp. 40-41. On its terms at least, the precision offered by Article 2(5) of the Law of 25 February 2003 does not extend to membership of, and involvement in, trade unions or professional organisations : indeed, it only refers to access to employment, working conditions, and nomination in public functions, and not to the broader question of “access to, participation in or other form of exercise of an economic, social, cultural or political activity accessible to the public”. But the obligation under which Belgian courts are to apply national law in conformity with the requirements of European Community Law (Case C106/89, Marleasing SA [1990] European Court Reports I-4135 (recital 9); with respect to the interpretation of national rules which were adopted with the purpose of implementing a directive, see alerady Case 14/83, S. von Colson and E. Kamann [1984] European Court Reports 1891; and Case 79/83, D. Harz [1990] European Court Reports 1921) will probably compensate for this apparent contradiction, and exclude any justification of a less favourable treatment imposed on grounds of, inter alia, disability, with respect to participation in trade unions or professional organisations. 84 On the requirement that the member States report to the European Commission, see Article 18 of the Framework Directive. 82 27 being described by the member State as part of the reporting requirements of the implementation of the Framework Directive. The instruments implementing the Framework Directive at regional and Community levels By way of contrast with the solution adopted by the Federal legislator, the Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt, the Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt proposed for the German-speaking Community, the Decree on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment (Décret relatif à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement) of the French-speaking Community, and the Decree on equal treatment in employment and professional training of the Walloon Region define direct discrimination in accordance with the Directives, as instances where “one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on any [prohibited] ground” (Article 2(2)(a) of the directive)85. The Ordinance of the Region of Brussels-Capital of 26 June 2003 (Ordonnance relative à la gestion mixte du marché de l'emploi dans la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale), prohibits discrimination in the areas and with respect to the persons it applies to, but offers no definition of discrimination. III.2.2. Indirect discrimination. The Federal Law implementing the Framework Directive The notion of indirect discrimination is defined in the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 (see Art. 2 § 2) as a situation where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice, would put persons defined by one of the prohibited grounds at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, criterion or practice is based on an objective and reasonable justification (“à moins que cette disposition, ce critère ou cette pratique ne repose sur une justification objective et raisonnable”) (Article 2(2) of the Law of 25 February 2003). The formula used by the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 seems to impose a somewhat looser requirement on the person which must justify a suspect provision, criterion or practice, than what is required by the Framework Directive, which includes the requirement that the means used be not only appropriate, but also “necessary” (Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC). The choice of a looser formulation, not including a condition of necessity, may be explained by the position expressed by the section of legislation of the Council of State in its opinion n° 30.462/2 of 16 November 2000 on the initial wording of the draft legislation, in which the Council of State expressed doubts as to the adequacy of the solution requiring from the individual to identify with precision which objectives he/she was aiming to realize by adopting a particular course of action, and why he/she had not considered other alternatives, perhaps less restrictive of the principle of equal treatment86. The result is nevertheless See Article 2, 8°, of the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002, this definition of direct discrimination: 'wanneer iemand ongunstiger wordt of is behandeld dan een ander in een vergelijkbare situatie op grond van (...) seksuele geaardheid (...)'. The Decree of the Walloon Region defines direct discrimination as “tout traitement réservé à une personne se produisant de manière moins favorable qu’il ne l’est, ne l’a été ou ne le serait pour une autre personne placée dans une situation comparable” (article 4 al. 2), which is in accordance with the French text of Directive 2000/78/EC. See also Article 2 § 1, 2°, of the Decree on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment (Décret relatif à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement) of the French-speaking Community. 86 According to the Conseil d’Etat, “Si une loi poursuit toujours un but indiqué dans l’exposé des motifs par rapport auquel la pertinence de la discrimination peut être appréciée, il n’en va pas de même pour les particuliers 85 28 regrettable. Moreover, the definition of indirect discrimination in the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 contrasts with the definition contained in the Framework Directive also in another respect : the Federal Law does not refer to the legitimacy of the aim pursued by the measure alleged to be constitutive of an indirect discrimination. The instruments implementing the Framework Directive at regional and Community levels The regional and Community instruments are also generally closer to the Directives they seek to implement than the Federal legislation. Thus, under the Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt, indirect discrimination occurs where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons belonging to certain protected categories at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary: Article 2(2)(b) of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC have been simply reproduced in Article 2 of the Decree, which defines the notion of indirect discrimination. Similarly, the Decree which is to be adopted for the German-speaking Community (Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt) contains a definition of “indirect discrimination” which replicates precisely that of the formulation in German of the Framework Directive, Article 2(2)(b) of which seems to be more protective than in its English formulation. Article 2 of the Dekret defines indirect discrimination to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice “could” (compare with the expression “would” in the English version of the Framework Directive; the French version uses the expression “est susceptible de”), put a person having, i.a., a specific actual or future state of health, a disability or a particular physical characteristic (“einem bestimmten aktuellen oder zukünftigen Gesundheitszustand, einer bestimmten Behinderung oder einem bestimmten physischen Merkmal”)87, at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the measure is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary (“…gegenüber anderen Personen in besonderer Weise benachteiligen können […]es sein denn diese Bestimmungen, Kriterien oder Verfahren sind durch ein rechtmäßiges Ziel sachlich gerechtfertigt, wobei die Mittel zur Erreichung dieses Ziels angemessen und erforderlich sein müssen”). Article 2 § 1, 3°, of the Decree on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment (Décret relatif à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement) of the French-speaking Community also reproduces the wording of the Directive, thus containing the requirement of necessity. The Décret relatif à l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region constitutes the exception among the instruments adopted at regional or Community levels, as Article 4 al. 3 of the Decree omits a reference to the principle of necessity in its definition of indirect discrimination. III.2.3. Instruction to discriminate The Federal Law implementing the Framework Directive Article 2(7) of the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 replicates the wording of Article 2(4) of Directive 2000/78/EC, stating that an instruction to discriminate shall be considered to be a dont les comportements ne sont pas nécessairement rationnels et susceptibles d’être appréciés à l’aune du critère utilitariste de l’ ‘efficacité supérieure ou comparable’”. 87 Article 2(1), 7°, of the 29 form of prohibited discrimination88. However, with respect to discrimination committed by the public servant in the exercise of his/her functions under Article 6(2) of the Law of 25 February 2003, the compliance with an order received from his/her hierarchical superior is exclusive of the criminal liability of the individual public servant who committed the discrimination : if discrimination is indeed established, only these superiors will be fined or imprisoned under the terms provided by the law. The instruments implementing the Framework Directive at regional and Community levels At the level of the Regions and Communities, Article 2, 10°, of the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002, Article 2(2) of the Décret relatif à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement adopted by the French-speaking Community, Article 7 of the Décret relatif à l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region, and Article 5(1) of the Decree adopted by the German-speaking Community (“Die Anweisung zur direkten oder indirekten Diskriminierung ist einer direkten Diskriminierung gleichzustellen”) provide that the instruction to discriminate should be considered an act of discrimination. III.2.4. Persons associated with a disabled person I would not think that the protections provided by the non-discrimination norms described in this Report cover those “associated with” a person with a disability. Neither the Convention collective du travail n° 38, nor the Federal Law of 25 February 2003, nor the instruments adopted by the Regions or Communities provide for such an extension, and the case-law offers no example of such an extension. However, there seems to be no obstacle in principle for such an extension, which could result from the case-law. The wording of Article 2(1) of the Law of 25 February 2003 where it defines direct discrimination does not refer explicitly to the fact that the disability – which cannot in principle form the ground for a difference in treatment – should necessarily be a disability of the victim of the alleged discrimination89. This leaves the possibility open for the protection from discrimination on the ground of disability to be invoked by, e.g., a family member of the disabled person who is discriminated against because of the help he brings to the person with a disability. The author of this Report has not identified, however, any case-law pointing in that direction. III.2.5. Harassment The Federal Law implementing the Framework Directive With respect at least to the criminal offences provided for by these legislations, this solution appears to be imposed anyway by a general provision of the Penal Code – Article 67, al. 2 – according to which those who give instructions to commit a criminal offence shall be considered accomplices and, thus, criminally liable. This provision is applicable to the criminal offences defined in the Law of 25 February 2003: see Article 16 of the Law. 89 According to this definition, indeed, “Il y a discrimination directe si une différence de traitement qui manque de justification objective et raisonnable est directement fondée sur (…) l'état de santé actuel ou futur, un handicap ou une caractéristique physique” (Art. 2 § 1 of the Law of 25 February 2003). 88 30 The Federal Law of 25 February 2003 identifies harassment (harcèlement, pesterijen90) as a form of discrimination, and defines the notion in strict conformity with the Directives91. The usefulness of including harassment amongst the forms of discrimination prohibited under the legislative instruments implementing Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC has been questioned by the legislative section of the Council of State, in the second opinion it gave on the draft Bill, when it was pending before the Chamber of Representatives92. The Council of State noted that Article 442bis of the Penal Code, introduced by the Law of 30 October 1998, already criminalises harassment in general93. It also remarked that, under Article 11 of the Law of 25 February 2003, when harassment (as defined under Article 442bis of the Penal Code) is committed with a discriminatory purpose – i.e., when it appears to be a 'hate crime', motivated by hostility towards a person because of a particular characteristic suspected as being held by the victim – the penalties may be doubled94. At last, at a time when the Bill which was to become the Law of 25 February 2003 was still under discussion in Parliament, a Law of 11 June 2002 on the protection against violence and moral or sexual harassment at work inserted a new Chapter Vbis (‘Dispositions spécifiques concernant la violence et le harcèlement moral ou sexuel au travail’) in a Law of 4 August 1996 ('Loi du 4 août 1996 relative au bien-être des travailleurs lors de l'exécution de leur travail'), again with a similar object95. In view of these other instruments, should we consider that the inclusion of the notion of harassment in the definition of discrimination in the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 is purely redundant, as the Council of State seems to believe ? Of course, the inclusion of the prohibition of harassment in the Law of 25 February 2003 would ensure that a civil action may be lodged against the harasser, with the possibility of a shift of the burden of proof under Article 19(3) of the Law. However, Art. 32undecies of the Law of 4 August 1996, inserted in that Law by the Law of 11 June 2002, provides in similar terms for such a reversal of the burden of proof96. In fact, the coexistence of the notion of During the discussion held within the Chamber of Representatives, an amendment suggested to retain the terminology of the Directives, and substitue the Dutch 'intimidatie' for 'pesterijen' (amendment n° 136 of Ms F. Moerman). The author of the amendment was convinced, however, by the argument that in another Belgian legislation dealing with harassment (Law of 11 June 2002 on moral and sexual harassment at work), the term of 'pesterijen' was retained in the Flemish version. 91 See Article 2(6) of the Law. 92 See Conseil d'État (sect. légis.), Avis n°32.967/2 du 4 février 2002, Doc. Ch., sess. 2001-2002, 18 février 2002, doc. 50 1578/002, p. 7. 93 Article 442bis of the Penal Code refers to 'Quiconque aura harcelé une personne alors qu’il savait ou aurait dû savoir qu’il affecterait gravement par ce comportement la tranquillité de la personne visée'. 94 New Article 422bis of the Penal Code, introduced by Article 11 of the Law of 25 February 2003. 95 Loi du 11 juin 2002 relative à la protection contre la violence et le harcèlement moral ou sexuel au travail, Moniteur belge, 22 June 2002. The ground of sexual orientation is not mentioned explicitly, however article 32ter(3) of the Law of 4 August 1996 (as modified by the Law of 11 June 2002, inserting a new chapter Vbis in that Law), defines 'sexual harassment' as 'toute forme de comportement verbal, non-verbal ou corporel de nature sexuelle, dont celui qui s'en rend coupable, sait ou devrait savoir, qu'il affecte la dignité de femmes et d'hommes sur les lieux de travail': the reference to any form of sexual harassment affecting the dignity of men or women is broad enough to cover harassment vis-à-vis persons of the same sex or against homosexuals. See also, giving detailed instructions on the implementation by employers of the legislation of 11 June 2002, the 11 July 2002 Circulaire relative à la protection des travailleurs contre la violence et le harcèlement moral ou sexuel au travail (Moniteur belge, 18 July 2002). 96 Under Art. 32undecies of the Law of 4 August 1996 (as modified by the Law of 11 June 2002, inserting a new chapter Vbis in that Law): “Where a person having a legal interest establish before the competent court facts from which it may be presumed that there has been violence or moral or sexual harassment in employment, it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no such violence or moral or sexual harassment committed” (“Lorsqu'une personne qui justifie d'un intérêt établit devant la juridiction compétente des faits qui permettent de présumer l'existence de violence ou de harcèlement moral ou sexuel au travail, la charge de la 90 31 harassment in the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 and in the Law of 4 August 1996 as amended by the Law of 11 June 2002 could create legal uncertainty, as it is obvious that harassment on the workplace would fall under both – more precisely, either – legislation. When confronted with an action by a victim alleging that harassment as occured, which legislation should the judge apply? This choice may produce very concrete consequences. For instance, under Art. 32duodecies(7) of the Law of 4 August 1996 as amended in 2002, witnesses of the harassment are protected from forms of reprisals by the employer; there is no such protection under the Law of 25 February 2003. On the other hand, under the Law of 25 February 2003, the victim of any form of discrimination – including, presumably, harassment – may request that the judge deliver an injunction prohibiting the continuation of the discrimination (action en cessation), where such a possibility does not exist under the Law of 4 August 1996. But there is no clear criterion to choose between the the two pieces of applicable legislation. It is unclear, for instance, which is the lex specialis, and which is the lex generalis : whilst the notion of harassment as inserted in the Law of 4 August 1996 concerns specifically the employment relationship, which is a narrower scope of application ratione materiae than the Law of 25 February 2003, the notion of harassment contained in the latter legislation is on the other hand narrower, as it concerns only harassment on grounds of one of the suspect characteristics it identifies. The instruments implementing the Framework Directive at regional and Community levels The instruments adopted by the Regions and Communities in implementation of the Framework Directive offer contrasted approaches to the question of the inclusion of harassment within the forms of discrimination they prohibit. Both the Decree adopted by the German-speaking Community and the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002 identify harassment (Belästigung in the original German-speaking version of the Decree adopted by the Germanspeaking Community) as a form of discrimination, however only the Decree proposed for the German-speaking Community explicitly assimilates harassment to a form of direct discrimination97. Moreover, while referring to harassment, the Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt of 8 May 2002 also refers to harassment, however, after having offered a definition of harassment (intimidatie) which closely replicates the wording of the Directives98, it then states that “The principle of equal treatment implies the absence of any form of direct or indirect discrimination or of harassment in the employment market” (“Het beginsel van gelijke behandeling houdt de afwezigheid van elke vorm van directe of indirecte discriminatie of intimidatie op de arbeidsmarkt in”)99. In the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt, therefore, the concept of harassment remains analytically separate from that of discrimination. This categorisation could be of more than purely conceptual importance. For instance, Article 5(2) of the Flemish Decree presents a long list of (13) forms of conduct which are prohibited, but the definitions of these prohibitions systematically refer to conduct which may lead to discrimination, thereby seemingly excluding “harassment” from the forms of conduct which the Decree formally prohibits. Article 9 of the Decree, which concerns the institution of an authority which should promote equitable participation (evenredige participatie) and equal treatment (gelijke behandeling), the two guiding principles of the Decree, mentions that such an preuve qu'il n'y a pas eu de violence ou de harcèlement moral ou sexuel au travail incombe à la partie défenderesse”). 97 See Article 5(2) of the Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt. 98 See Article 2, 11°, of the Decree. 99 Article 5(1), 2°, of the Decree. 32 authority will have the competence, in particular, to assist victims of discrimination in filing their complaints : it is to be hoped that this will not be read as excluding assistance to victims of harassment, which the Decree distinguishes from discrimination per se. Or to take another example of the consequences which may follow from not including harassment as a form of discrimination, while including it in the principle of equal treatment : Article 11 of the Decree provides that those who commit discrimination may be sentenced to a prison sentence and / or to the payment of a fee ; under a strict interpretation as is required of such criminal provisions, these penalties may be considered not to apply to acts of harassment. For these reasons, and because of the difficulties of interpretation it could create in the future, the choice to present harassment as a violation of the principle of equal treatment but as distinct from either direct or indirect discrimination may be contested. The Decrees adopted by the German-speaking Community and by the Flemish Community are exceptions among the instruments adopted at regional or Community level to implement the Framework Directive. Neither the Décret relatif à l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region on 27 May 2004, nor the Décret relatif à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement adopted on 19 May 2004 by the French-speaking Community refer to harassment. This omission is deliberate. It is based on the idea that the prohibitions of harassment which already exist at federal level100 should be considered sufficient, and that any further action would be redundant. Moreover, the Council of State has clearly stated its opinion that the adoption at the federal level of the Law of 4 August 1996 on the well-being of the workers in the execution of the contract of employment constituted an exercise by the federal legislator of its general competences in regulating the employment relationship, and that in principle the Regions and Communities could not legislate on the same subject-matter without exceeding their own competences101. III.2.6. Reasonable Accommodation The Federal Law implementing the Framework Directive The initial drafts of what is now the Law of 25 February 2003 did not include the notion of “reasonable accommodation” as an element of the protection of persons with disabilities against discrimination. The justification offered for this omission was that a specific legislation would be adopted for that purpose, which moreover – it was argued – fell rather under the competences of the Regions and/or Communities, and – because it would impose new obligations on the employer – would have to be discussed between the social partners within the Conseil national du travail102. However, on 17 May 2002, the Federal Government Or for the protection of the personnel of the French-speaking Community : see esp. the Arrêté du gouvernement de la Communauté française du 26 juillet 2000 organisant la protection des membres du personnel des services du Gouvernement de la Communauté française et de certains organismes d’intérêt public contre le harcèlement sexuel ou moral sur les lieux de travail. 101 See the Opinion of the section of legislation of the Council of State n° 24.143/1 of 16 March 1995, on the draft text which was later to become the Law of 4 August 1996; and, more recently, the Opinion n° 36.415/2 delivered on 11 February 2004 on a draft decree of the German-speaking Community on the guarantee of equal treatment in the employment market (Dekretentwurf bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt), 102 See, in the course of the discussion of the proposal within the Senate, the reaction of the Minister of Employment, Ms L. Onkelinx, to an amendment by Ms De Schamphelaere suggesting to include the notion of reasonable accommodation the legislation under discussion : Sénat, sess. 2001-2002, Proposition de loi tendant à lutter contre la discrimination et modifiant la loi du 15 février 1993 créant un Centre pour l’égalité des chances et 100 33 (Council of Ministers) has set aside these objections and proposed an amendment to the legislation under preparation, enriching the definition of prohibited discrimination by the notion of reasonable accommodation. Article 2, § 3, of the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 now reads : L’absence d’aménagements raisonnables pour la personne handicapée constitue une discrimination au sens de la présente loi. Est considéré comme aménagement raisonnable l’aménagement qui ne représente pas une charge disproportionnée, ou dont la charge est compensée de façon suffisante par des mesures existantes. Although the notion of “reasonable accommodation” was directly borrowed by the government from the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC, it seems to be understood rather broadly as going beyond the adaptation of the working post or even the “essential functions” of the job. It is not, however, unlimited, and remains confined to the working environment. According to the explanation offered by the government in support of its Amendment103 : Par ‘aménagements’, il convient d’entendre entre autres : les aménagements architecturaux garantissant par exemple l’accès aux fautueils roulants, les dispositifs techniques permettant aux sourds et aux aveugles de communiquer, l’utilisation d’un langage simplifié pour les personnes atteintes d’un handicap mental, la réorganisation de la répartition des tâches, l’octroi d’une assistance aux personnes handicapées, bref : toutes les mesures concrètes nécessaires, susceptibles de contribuer de manière raisonnable à ce que les personnes handicapées ne soient pas lésées par des facteurs environnementaux. The inclusion of the absence of reasonable accommodation in the definition of discrimination will represent a true innovation. The legislations in force before the adoption of the Federal Law of 25 February 2003, although they do not ignore the concept of reasonable accommodation, define this concept as the accommodation the employer may be compensated for if it is deemed necessary for the employment of a disabled person, but without there being an obligation imposed on the employer to provide such a reasonable accommodation or, for that matter, to seek compensation for whichever investment he/she decides – voluntarily – to make. This is the status of “reasonable accommodation”, for instance, under Title VIII of the Executive Decree of 5 November 1998 on the promotion of the equality of chances of persons with disabilities on the employment market (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 5 novembre 1998 visant à promouvoir l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi)104: the employer may request compensation for the adaptation costs of the working post occupied by a disabled person insofar as such an adaptation is considered necessary, but he is not obliged to provide for such an adaptation. In the Flemish Region/Community la lutte contre le racisme, Rapport fait au nom de la Commission de la Justice par Mme Kaçar, doc. 2-12/15, 18 December 2001, pp. 149-152. 103 Projet de loi tendant à lutter contre la discrimination et modifiant la loi du 15 février 1993 créant un Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme, Ch. Repr., sess. 2001-2002, 22 mai 2002, Amendement n°3 du Gouvernement. 104 This Title of the Executive Decree of 5 November 1998 is based on Article 15 of the Decree of 6 April 1995 on the integration of persons with disabilities, which states the Agence wallonne pour l’intégration des personnes handicapées (AWIPH) may subsidize, under the conditions defined by the Walloon Government, “l’achat, la construction, la transformation d’infrastructures ou d’équipements spécifiques destinés aux personnes handicapées”. 34 The only exception is the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt, although even in this Decree, the concept of “reasonable accommodation” has a rather ambiguous status : although their adoption is described as a requirement entailed by the principle of equal treatment, the reasonable accommodations mentioned in Art. 5 § 4 do not appear under the definitions either of direct discrimination, or of indirect discrimination105. The hesitation of the Flemish legislator, in this respect, may be attributed to the vague character of the “reasonable accommodations” called for by the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt. This vagueness, in turn, is explained by the rather remarkable definition of the concept of reasonable accommodation (“redelijke aanpassingen”), which is mentioned without a specific reference to disability, but as a general requirement of equal treatment. According to Art. 5 § 4 of the Decree, the concept entails that the employer or the persons or organisations acting as intermediates on the labour market 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 clause, shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by existing measures. The wording of this provision is of course borrowed from Article 5 of the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC, except for its extension beyond disabled persons. In the Region of Brussels-Capital Article 26, 4°, of the Décret relatif à l'intégration sociale et professionnelle des personnes handicapées, adopted on 4 March 1999 by the Commission Communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale106 provides that the Executive of that organ will stipulate the conditions under which its administration will be authorized to compensate the employer for the costs of the accommodation of the working post, which is recognized as necessary (“d'accorder à l'employeur une intervention dans les frais d'adaptation du poste de travail justifiée par la déficience du travailleur en vue, soit d'engager une personne handicapée, soit de favoriser l'accession du travailleur à une fonction qui répond mieux à ses capacités, soit de maintenir au travail une personne qui devient handicapée”). The compensation should cover the full cost of the accommodation provided for, if it is deemed necessary (Art. 31). Like under the Decree of the Walloon Government of 5 November 1998, however, the employer is under no obligation to provide this form of reasonable accommodation to his/her disabled employee. Nevertheless, such provisions on the possibility for employers to draw upon public grants for the provision of reasonable accommodation indirectly does influence the level of the obligation of the employer to provide such an accommodation : indeed, under the Federal Law of 25 February 2003, under the Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt, and under the Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt proposed for the German-speaking Community (see hereunder), the burden imposed on the employer because of the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation will not be considered disproportionate if the employer may request the aid of public funds. German-speaking Community The Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt adopted by the German-speaking Community comprises a provision on the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation the wording of which paraphrases that of the the Council Directive 2000/78/EC (Art. 5) and of the Federal Law of 25 February 2003. Like in these 105 106 Comp. with Art. 2 § 2, b), ii) of the Framework Directive. Mon. b., 3.4.1999. 35 instruments, the use of the notion is reserved to persons with disabilities. Article 13 of the Dekret (“Angemessene Vorkehrungen für Personen mit Behinderung”) states : Um die Anwendung des Grundsatzes der Gleichbehandlung für Personen mit Behinderung zu gewährleisten, sind angemessene Vorkehrungen zu treffen. Das bedeutet, dass die zwischengeschalteten Dienstleister und die Arbeitgeber die geeigneten und im konkreten Fall erforderlichen Maßnahmen ergreifen, um den Personen mit Behinderung den Zugang zur Berufsorientierung, zur Berufsberatung die Teilnahme an Aus-, Weiterbildungs- und Umschulungsmaßnahmen zu ermöglichen, es sei denn, diese Maßnahmen würden diesen zwischengeschalteten Dienstleister oder diesen Arbeitgeber unverhältnismäßig belasten. Diese Belastung ist nicht unverhältnismäßig, wenn sie durch existierende Maßnahmen ausreichend kompensiert wird.107 French-speaking Community Article 8 of the Décret relatif à la mise en oeuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement adopted on 19 May 2004 by the French-speaking Community provides that : Afin de garantir le respect du principe de l'égalité de traitement à l'égard des personnes handicapées, des aménagements raisonnables sont effectués. La personne responsable prend les mesures appropriées, en fonction des besoins dans une situation concrète, pour permettre à une personne handicapée de se voir dispenser une formation, sauf si ces mesures imposent à la personne responsable une charge disproportionnée. The emphasis on education or training (“formation”) as a means to provide effective accommodation is regrettable. Read a contrario, this implies that a failure to provide other forms of accommodation as may be required were not considered to constitute a form of discrimination under the terms of Article 8 of the Decree. However, the Decree applies, for instance, to all services of the French-speaking Community108, and not only to those services or institutions which provide education or training. All the addressees of the requirement of non-discrimination as imposed by the Decree should be imposed an obligation to provide reasonable accommodation, under whichever form appears to be required. This requirement should not be confused with a very different question, which is to which entities, public or private, the Decree is addressed, i.e., what is the scope of application ratione personae of the Decree. Walloon Region Under Article 6 of the Décret relatif à l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted on 27 May 2004 by the Walloon Region : Afin de garantir le respect du principe de l'égalité de traitement à l'égard des personnes handicapées, des aménagements raisonnables doivent être effectués. Cela signifie que 107 According to an unofficial French translation of Article 13 : Afin de garantir la mise en oeuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement à l’égard des personnes handicapées, des aménagements raisonnables doivent être réalisés. Cela signifie que les intermédiaires et les employeurs prennent les mesures appropriées et nécessaires dans une situation concrète pour permettre aux personnes handicapées d’accéder à un emploi ou à un stage professionnel, d’exercer une profession, d’y progresser, d’accéder à l’orientation professionnelle, à l’information sur les professions, de participer à des mesures de formation, de perfectionnement et de reconversion, sauf si ces mesures imposent à l’intermédiaire ou à l’employeur concerné une charge disproportionnée. Cette charge n’est pas disproportionnée lorsqu’elle est suffisamment compensée par des mesures en vigueur. 108 See Article 3, 1°, of the Decree. 36 l'opérateur prend les mesures appropriées, en fonction des besoins, dans une situation concrète, notamment pour permettre qu'une formation ou toute aide à l'insertion socio-professionnelle soit dispensée à une personne handicapée, sauf si ces mesures imposent à l'opérateur une charge disproportionnée. Le Gouvernement wallon est habilité à définir la notion d'aménagement raisonnable et à préciser les modalités d'application du principe contenu dans l'alinéa précédent. This formulation may be criticized for the same reasons as the one offered in the Decree of the French-speaking Community, recalled hereabove. There appears to be no reason to restrict the forms under which effective accommodation may have to be provided : although the definition retained in the Decree of the Walloon Region is slightly broader, as it refers not only to training but also to assistance in order to facilitate socio-professional integration, it is doubful whether this extends, for instance, to the removal of certain architectural barriers impeding access to the workplace or occupation within a particular occupation. Of course, this restrictive approach is to be explained by the limited scope of application, ratione materiae, of the Decree, which restricts itself to implementing the principle of equal treatment as defined in the Race Directive and the Framework Directive with respect to the employment policy of the Region109. However, to the extent that the Decree applies to certain persons, whether private (for instance private employment agencies) or public administrations, it would have been preferable to stipulate that these persons are discriminating where they to do not provide accommodation, if this does not impose on them a disproportionate burden. Another relevant consideration is that a broader approach of the requirement to provide reasonable accommodation would have created the risk of a conflict with the requirements of the Federal Law of 25 February 2003, which also contains such a requirement. However, it can be argued that the Federal legislator has legislated beyond its competences, in adopting a provision on reasonable accommodation whilst disability policy is a competence of the Communities (delegated to the Walloon Region with respect to the French-speaking Community). The current situation may create the source of confusion, as those to whom the Decree of the Walloon Region is addressed may be led to believe that the form of accommodation they must provide should not go beyond training and assistance. III.2.7. Positive Action, Quotas and Wage subsidies a) Positive Action In the Federal legislation The Law of 25 February 2003 leaves the door open to the adoption of positive actions, defined in Art. 4 as “measures which, with a view to ensuring full equality in practice, seek to prevent or to compensate for disadvantages linked to any of the grounds” listed in Article 2 of the Law. The wording chosen is identical to that of Article 7 § 1 of the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC. The Law of 25 February 2003 does not include a clause equivalent to that of Art. 7 § 2 of the Framework Directive (measures promoting the integration of disabled persons). However, the omission is probably due to the fact that the admissibility of measures seeking to promote the professional integration of disabled persons is obvious, and obviously compatible with the principle of equal treatment ; moreover, this matter is essentially a See Article 8 of the Decree : “Dans le respect de la compétence en matière d'emploi exercée par la Région, le présent décret s'applique à toute personne, tant dans le secteur public que dans le secteur privé, en ce qui concerne l'orientation professionnelle, l'insertion socio-professionnelle, le placement des travailleurs et l'octroi d'aides à la promotion de l'emploi” 109 37 competence of the Regions, and should normally not be dealt with in a Federal legislation ; at last, the Law imposes an obligation not to discriminate directly or indirectly on actors, both private and public, in a number of spheres, but it is not directed towards the legislator – but it is the legislator which may seek to adopt regulations promoting the professional integration of persons with disabilities : in doing so, the legislator is obliged to respect the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination (Art. 10 and 11 of the Constitution), but must not respect, of course, the legislation in preparation. The constitutional provisions on equality and non-discrimination have been interpreted by the Court of Arbitration as imposing certain restrictions on the possibility to introduce forms of positive action under Belgian law. Positive action, when it leads to imposing differences in treatment between categories on the basis of a suspect characteristic110, should be seen as a restriction imposed on the right to equal treatment – the right of each individual to be judged according to his or her abilities, needs, or merits, rather than on the basis of characteristics such as sex, national origin, religious affiliation or physical ability. Such a form of positive action will be considered discriminatory unless four conditions are fulfilled, which the Court of Arbitration has identified in a judgement of 27 January 1994111: first, such “positive discrimination” must constitute an answer to situations of manifest inequality, i.e., it must be based on a clear demonstration that, in the absence of such action, a clear imbalance between the groups will remain ; second, the legislator must have identified the need to remedy such an imbalance – in other terms, a private party may not take the initiative of introducing a scheme of positive discrimination, such an initiative must be based on a legislative mandate ; third, the “corrective measures” must be of a temporary nature: as a response to a situation of demonstrated manifest imbalance, these measures must be abandoned as soon as their objective – to remedy this imbalance – is attained ; fourth, these corrective measures must not reach further than is required, i.e., they must be restricted to what is strictly necessary, so that the limitation of the right to equality will remain within well-defined boundaries : the cure must not appear worse than the evil to be combated. When confronted with the Bill which was to become the Law of 25 February 2003, the Council of State reaffirmed the validity of these limits imposed by the Constitution to the use of positive action112. However, the text of Article 4 of the Law of 25 February 2003 is not completely faithful to these criteria. This provision, indeed, states that “Les dispositions de la présente loi ne constituent aucunement un empêchement à l'adoption ou au maintien de mesures qui, afin de garantir la pleine égalité dans la pratique, visent à prévenir ou à compenser les désavantages liés à un des motifs visés à l'article 2”. The indication that positive action may be maintained may be seen to contradict the constitutional requirement that positive action measures remain temporary in character ; and the preventive character Some forms of positive action, while designed to improve the representation of certain target groups in certain spheres of social life, will not take the form of measures introducing a difference in treatment between distinct categories, on the basis of a suspect characteristic: consider, e.g., the publication of job advertisements in periodicals directed towards a particular ethnic community, or encouraging minority applications, whilst subjecting the candidacies from those communities to the same selection criteria and avoiding the setting of 'quotas' or any numerical goals to be achieved in the representation of those target groups. 111 Cour d'Arbitrage, 27 January 1994, judgment n° 9/94, recital B.6.2. The Council of State has aligned itself with this understanding of the constitutional limits imposed on the tool of positive action: see Opinion n° 28.197/1 on the Bill which would become the Law 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 complementary regimes of social security. 112 Doc. parl., Ch., doc. 50-1578/002, p. 7. The proposal to formally mention in the Law these limitations was rejected, because this was considered to be self-evident : see Doc. parl., Ch., doc. 50-1578/005, p. 9. 110 38 such measures may take seems to be in tension with the requirement, also expressed by the Court of Arbitration, that the positive action measure must constitute a response to a manifest imbalance. At last, the judgment of the Court of Arbitrage suggests that, whilst positive action measures could be adopted by the legislator, it would not be acceptable for a private person to take the initiative of introducing such measures, on the basis of his/her own estimation of what is required for effective equality – a possibility which, again, Article 4 of the Law of 25 February 2003 seems to envisage. In the Flemish Region/Community The Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt explicitly states that its guiding principles of proportionate participation and equal treatment should not be considered an obstacle to the maintaining or the adoption of specific measures which, to ensure full equality in the professional sphere, seek to prevent or to compensate for the disadvantages suffered by the identified target groups113. Here again, there is no clause equivalent to the clause we find in Art. 7 § 2 of the Framework Directive. This may be explained by the fact that the Decreet is not addressed to the Regional Legislator or even to the Regional Government, which adopt regulations for the professional integration of persons with disabilities, but to public and (in a limited set of situations) private employers. In the Region of Brussels-Capital Article 4(2) of the Ordinance adopted on 26 June 2003 by the Region of Brussels-Capital, after having stated the general prohibition of discrimination which is imposed on the (public and private) intermediaries of the employment market in Brussels (the obligation is to “ne pas pratiquer à l'encontre des chercheurs d'emploi de discrimination fondée sur la race, la couleur, le sexe, l'orientation sexuelle, la langue, la religion, les opinions politiques, ou toutes autres opinions, l'origine nationale ou sociale, l'appartenance à une minorité nationale, la fortune, la naissance, le statut matrimonial ou familial, l'appartenance à une organisation de travailleurs, ou tout autre forme de discrimination telle que l'âge ou le handicap”), immediately adds the following autorisation of positive action for the benefit of “target groups” (“groupes à risques”) : Par dérogation à l'alinéa précédent, des actions positives au besoin de certains chercheurs d'emploi appartenant à un groupe à risques sont toutefois autorisées par le Gouvernement. It will be noted that, here, the positive actions envisaged are to be decided by the Government of the Region of Brussels-Cpaital. They are not adopted on the initiative of private organisations or individuals; neither can they be adopted on the initiative of the competent public employment agency (ORBEM). In the German-speaking Community The Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt proposed for the German-speaking Community comprises a provision stating that specific measures may be adopted or maintained to prevent or compensate disadvantages, inter alia, resulting from the actual or futur state of health, a disability or a physical characteristic. Article 16 reads : 113 See Art. 5 § 3 of the the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt. 39 Ungeachtet des Grundsatzes der Gleichbehandlung können spezifische Maßnahmen ergriffen oder beibehalten werden, die zur Gewährleistung einer vollen Gleichstellung im Berufsleben beitragen, in dem sie Nachteilen, die in Zusammenhang mit dem Geschlecht, einer sogenannten Rasse, der Hautfarbe, der Abstammung, der nationalen oder ethnischen Herkunft, der sexuellen Ausrichtung, dem Zivilstand, der Geburt, dem Vermögen, dem Alter, der Religionszugehörigkeit oder Weltanschauung, dem aktuellen oder zukünftigen Gesundheitszustand, einer Behinderung oder einem physischen Merkmal entstehen, vorbeugen oder diese ausgleichen.114 French-speaking Community Article 7 of the Décret relatif à la mise en oeuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement adopted on 19 May 2004 by the French-speaking Community provides that : Le principe de l'égalité de traitement n'empêche pas de maintenir ou d'adopter des mesures spécifiques destinées à prévenir ou à compenser des désavantages liés à l'un des motifs visés à l'article 2, § 1er, 1° [la prétendue race, l'origine ethnique, la religion ou les convictions, le handicap, l'âge ou l'orientation sexuelle]. Walloon Region Article 10 of the Décret relatif à l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region on 27 May 2004 stipulates in almost identical terms that : Pour assurer la pleine égalité des travailleurs avec ou sans emploi, le Gouvernement wallon maintient ou adopte, aux fins de garantir le principe d'égalité de traitement, des mesures spécifiques destinées à prévenir ou à compenser des désavantages liés à un des motifs visés à l'article 4, alinéa 1er [les convictions religieuses, philosophiques, un handicap ou une caractéristique physique, l'état de santé actuel ou futur, l'âge, l'état civil, le sexe, le genre, l'orientation sexuelle, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, l'origine ou la situation familiale ou socioéconomique]. b) Quotas Federal level Article 21 of the Law of 16 April 1963 on the social reintegration of disabled persons (Loi relative au reclassement social des handicapés)115 originally intended to impose on certain employers, both from the private and from the public sector, an obligation to employ a certain number of workers with disabilities : 1° private undertakings and in particular industrial, commercial or agricultural undertakings, occupying at least 20 workers ; 2° public administrations and certain institutions of public interest. For each branch of activity, after consultation of the social partners, the Federal Government was to define the number of persons with disabilities which these employers must integrate in their workforce. The 1963 According to a non-official French translation of this provision : Sans préjudice du principe de l’égalité de traitement, des mesures spécifiques peuvent être adoptées ou maintenues, qui contribuent à assurer la pleine égalité dans la vie professionnelle en prévenant ou compensant les désavantages liés au sexe, à une prétendue race, à la couleur, l'ascendance, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, l'orientation sexuelle, l’état civil, la naissance, la fortune, l'âge, la conviction religieuse ou philosophique, l'état de santé actuel ou futur, un handicap ou une caractéristique physique. 115 Mon. b., 23.4.1963. This is a legislation adopted at the federal level before the delegation of its subject matter to the Regions and Communities, and which therefore today is only partially applied, some of its provisions, e.g., being superseded by legislation adopted in one Region but remaining valid in the others. 114 40 Law states that in defining this quota, the Governement is to take into account the nature and the importance of the undertakings concerned as well as the degrees of incapacity of the disabled employed. However, with respect to private employers, this legislative provision were never applied : the required implementation measures were never adopted. With respect to public administrations, Article 21 of the Law of 16 April 1963 was implemented by a Royal Decree of 11 August 1972, setting for them a quota of 1200 disabled persons; later Decrees set quotas for certain public institutions (90), Belgacom (telephone operator) (150), the postal service (80). The goals successively set during the 1970s are now achieved. According to a Royal Decree of 3 February 1977, the provinces, municipalities (communes / gemeentes) and social welfare centers (centres publics d’aide sociale) must recruit one disabled person for 55 workers. This latter obligation, however, seems not to be subject to control, and it may not be respected116. With respect to the Federal administration, Art. 25 of the Law of 22 March 1999 (Loi portant diverses mesures en matière de fonction publique)117 now has abrogated Art. 21 of the Law of 16 April 1993, and provides for the recruitment of persons with disabilities by the Federal authorities and certain public institutions118. The Federal Government has implemented Art. 25 of the Law of 22 March 1999 by stipulating, in a Royal Decree initially approved by the Council of Ministers in 25 February 1999, that in the future 2,5 % of the posts in the Federal Administration should be set aside for persons with disabilities, whom moreover will be supported by an “accompanying agent” (“agent d’accompagnement”) to guide them in the accommodation of their working post and verify the accessibility of the working area. This Decree, however, has not yet been published, so that it is not officially in force yet. Walloon Region (Région wallonne) Article 10, 2nd al., of the Decree of 6 April 1995 on the integration of persons with disabilities119 adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Walloon Region provides for an obligation to employ a particular quota of disabled persons. This obligation is imposed on the public administrations and the public interest entities depending from the Region. No obligation is imposed on private employers. The Decree of 6 April 1995 entrusts the Walloon It is generally the case that the violation of the quota obligations in the public sector does not lead to sanctions, so that it is difficult to assess the degree of compliance. 117 Mon. b., 30.4.1999. 118 Article 25 of the Law of 22 March 1999 provides : “§ 1. Selon les modalités fixées par le Roi par arrêté délibéré en Conseil des ministres, les services publics énumérés ci-après sont tenus de recruter des personnes handicapées, reconnues par l'autorité compétente à cet effet. § 2. Le présent article est applicable aux services publics suivants : 1° les ministres fédéraux et autres services des ministères fédéraux; 2° le personnel attaché aux greffes et aux parquets; 3° les organismes d'intérêt public fédéraux des catégories A, B et D de la loi du 16 mars 1954 sur le contrôle de certains organismes d'intérêt public; 4° les institutions publiques de sécurité sociale; 5° l'Office de contrôle des mutualités et des unions nationales de mutualités; 6° l'Office de contrôle des assurances; 7° le secrétariat du Conseil national du travail; 8° le secrétariat du Conseil central de l'Economie; 9° le secrétariat du Conseil supérieur des classes moyennes.” 119 Décret (du Conseil régional wallon) du 6 avril 1995 relatif à l’intégration des personnes handicapées, Mon. b., 25.5.1995. 116 41 Government with the fixation of the number of disabled persons to be employed. This number is fixed, says the Decree, “taking into account the nature and the importance of the services [which public administrations or undertakings pursuing a public interest objective] offered, and the capacity / productivity (capacité de rendement) of the disabled persons” (Art. 10, 3rd al.). On this basis, an initial figure of 98 disabled persons in the regional administration was set, representing 2 % of the workforce of that institution. This quota has now been ungraded to 2,5 %120, and until it is attained, 5 % of the new recruitments will benefit persons with disabilities121. In fact, according to a report prepared within the Awiph (Agence wallonne pour l’intégration des personnes handicapées) in the Fall 2003, this objective is far from being attained. The services of the Walloon government and the public interest entities concerned by this obligation should comprise 338,35 equivalent full-time employees with a disability; however, they totalized only 196,35, representing 1,45 % of the workforce, instead of the 2,5 % prescribed objective122. Other measures also should be cited here. An Executive Decree of 4 March 1999 of the Walloon government prescribes that, in the public social aid centres (centres publics d’aide sociale), for every twenty full-time employee, one disabled person should be recruited on a half-time basis123. Article 5 of that Executive Decree states that, although those persons with disabilities should fulfill the normal conditions of recruitment, specifically adapted recruitment examinations can be organized. Region of Brussels-Capital Article 32 of the Décret relatif à l'intégration sociale et professionnelle des personnes handicapées, adopted on 4 March 1999 by the Commission Communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale provides that the Executive (called “Collège”) will set the minimal number of disabled persons which should be employes in the services dependant of the Commission communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-capitale (“Le Collège fixe le nombre minimal de personnes handicapées qui doivent être occupées par ses Services et par les organismes d'intérêt public qui dépendent de la Commission communautaire française”). Flemish Region/Community Since 1993, the goal of 2 % of disabled within the inferior ranks of the Flemish administration has been set (levels D and E). At the end of 1999, 139 disabled persons were employed by the Flemish Administration. Since an agreement reached on 19 June 2000 between the Flemish Government and the social partners within the VESOC, the Government has undertook to Arrêté du 14 janvier 1999 du Gouvernement wallon relatif à l'emploi de personnes handicapées dans les Services du Gouvernement et dans certains organismes d'intérêt public, Mon. b., 29.1.1999. The figure of 2,5 % is stipulated in Article 2. According to Article 5 of this Decree, the introduction of such quotas should however not lead to the recruitment of persons not capable of performing the essential functions of the job : “Pour chaque emploi, la personne handicapée doit satisfaire aux conditions de recrutement et réussir une épreuve de recrutement adaptée aux contraintes liées à son handicap et destinée à vérifier son aptitude à occuper l'emploi”. 121 See Article 10 of the Arrêté du 14 janvier 1999 du Gouvernement wallon relatif à l'emploi de personnes handicapées dans les Services du Gouvernement et dans certains organismes d'intérêt public. 122 See Alter Echos n° 153, 17 November 2003, p. 3 (ref. 3750/CME). 123 Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 4 mars 1999 fixant le nombre de personnes handicapées que les centres publics d'aide sociale doivent occuper, Mon. b., 26.3.1999. See esp. Art. 3 (“Le nombre de personnes handicapées occupées dans les centres publics d'aide sociale est fixé à un mi-temps par tranche de vingt équivalents temps plein”). 120 42 encourage the integration of disabled on the labor market by positive action plans, including target setting and regular monitoring of the results achieved. c) Wage subsidies The single most important instrument relating to the provision of wage subsidies to compensate for the lower productivity by a worker with a disability is a Collective Agreement, concluded between the social partners (the most representative organisations of workers and employers) within the Conseil National du Travail (Nationale Arbeidsraad). The Convention collective du travail n° 26 du 15 octobre 1975 concernant le niveau de rémunération des handicapés occupés dans un emploi normal124 has been modified on two occasions since it was initially adopted125. It provides that under certain conditions, the employer may pay only part of the total remuneration of the worker with a disability, the remainder being paid either by the Fonds national de reclassement social des handicapés or by the Office national de l’Emploi. These conditions have been defined by the Conseil National du Travail in its opinion (avis) n° 502 of 15 October 1975 : in exceptional cases, work inspectors may authorize the employer to pay to workers recognized as having disabilities remunerations under the minimum level set either in collective agreements or by custom, insofar as this reduction – which may never fall under 50 % of the normal remuneration – is justified by the reduced productivity of the worker (“dans la mesure où le rendement de ces travailleurs est inférieur à la normale”). The difference between what the employer is authorized to pay and the normal level of remuneration will be paid to the disabled person by either of the two administrations mentioned. This mechanism, which requires the employer to go through rather heavy bureaucratic hurdles before he/she may be pay a reduced remuneration to take into account the diminished productivity, is also now to be found in the Executive Decree of the Walloon Government (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon) of 5 November 1998 on the promotion of the equality of chances of persons with disabilities on the employment market (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 5 novembre 1998 visant à promouvoir l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi). Indeed, as already mentioned, Title VI (De la prime de compensation) of this Decree relates to the premium the employer of a disabled person may receive to compensate for the lack of productivity due to the disability : Art. 57 of the Decree mentions “une intervention dans la rémunération et les charges sociales, destinée à favoriser l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi, (...) accordée à l’employeur en vue, notamment, de compenser la perte de rendement”. Article 65 of the Decree of 5 November 1998 stipulates that the employer may not combine both interventions in the payment of the remuneration to the worker with a disability : this implies, in fact, that the employer will have to choose either of the mechanisms. Art. 26, 2°, of the Décret relatif à l'intégration sociale et professionnelle des personnes handicapées, adopted on 4 March 1999 by the Commission Communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale provides that the Executive (Collège) may grant to the Ratified by Royal Decree of 11 March 1977 (Mon. b. 23.4.1977), and previously implemented by the Ministerial Decree of 3 February 1977 (Arrêté ministériel du 3 février 1977) defining the precise conditions of intervention. This ministerial decree is now still is in force with respect to the Walloon Region and the Region of Brussels-Capital. It has been abrogated with respect to both the Flemish Community and the German-speaking Community, which adopted their own implementation measures. 125 Respectively, by Collective Agreement n° 26bis of 2 May 1988 (Royal Decree of 29 July 1988 (Mon. b., 1.9.1988) and by Collective Agreement n° 26ter of 16 May 1989 (Mon. b., 22.8.1989)). 124 43 employer a “prime d’insertion”, rather identical to the one provided for in Art. 57 of the Executive Decree adopted by the Walloon Government on 5 November 1998. This “prime d’insertion” consists in a public intervention in the remuneration or social charges of the disabled worker, with the intention of compensating for his/her lack of productivity. In the Flemish Community, the Collective Agreement n°26 has been implemented by an Executive Decree of 5 April 1995 defining the conditions for the intervention of the competent Fund. The authorisation to remunerate disabled workers at a salary below the normal salary is given by the Administration, on the basis of an opinion of the Fund and of a doctor. The remuneration paid by the employer cannot be under 50 % of the normal remuneration. The Fund completes the remuneration, up to the normal level of remuneration. In 1998, 2.765 employees with disabilities benefited from such an intervention in the costs of the remuneration. In the German-speaking Community, this mechanism is provided for by Art. 2 of the Executive Decree of 26 April 1994 (Arrêté du Gouvernement de la Communauté germanophone promouvant l’occupation de personnes handicapées sur le marché libre du travail)126, which stipulates that the competent Office (Dienststelle der deutschsprchigen Gemeinschaft für Personen mit einer Behinderung sowie für die besondere soziale Fürsorge) affords employers an intervention in the costs of the remuneration and the social charges which corresponds to the lack of productivity (“qui correspond au manque de rendement constaté de ce travailleur”). The public intervention may not exceed 40 % of the total cost. The same Executive Decree details the procedures and conditions to be followed by the employer to benefit from such an intervention. III.3. Medical examinations III.3.1. The Treatment of Medical Examinations under Current Law The Règlement général sur la protection du travail et le bien-être au travail (mostly known as the “R.G.P.T.”) was initially adopted by two Decrees of the Regent in 1946-1947127. Although the main structure of the text has remained since, the R.G.P.T. has been modified on numerous occasions. The most recent amendment to the R.G.P.T. resulted from the Royal Decree of 28 May 2003 on the monitoring of the health of workers128, which concerns the functions of occupational medicine and, in many important respects, completes the general prescriptions of the Law of 28 January 2003 on medical examinations in the context of employment129. The Belgian legislation protects the independancy of the occupational physician (previously called médecin du travail, now called conseiller en prévention-médecin du travail) 130, and strictly regulates the medical examinations which may be performed in the context of employment, to limit the risk of discriminatory practices. Mon. b., 25.8.1994. Arrêtés du Régent du 11 février 1946 et du 27 septembre 1947, Mon. b., 3-4.4.1946, Mon.b., 3-4.10.1947. The Law of 10 June 1952 has later given a more adequate legal basis to the R.G.P.T. 128 Arrêté royal du 28 mai 2003 relatif à la surveillance de la santé des travailleurs, Mon. b., 16.6.2003. 129 Loi du 28 janvier 2003 relative aux examens médicaux dans le cadre des relations de travail, Mon. b., 9.4.2003. 130 The médecin du travail is protected from reprisals by the employer for adopting positions perhaps unfavorable to the employer : see Loi du 28 décembre 1977 garantissant la protection des médecins du travail (Mon. b., 18.1.1978). However, an economic competition exists between the services on prevention and protection at work, which are in many cases external to the individual undertaking; the existence of certain pressures, the employer playing one external service against another, cannot therefore bu fully excluded. 127 126 44 The preventive role of occupational medicine The R.G.P.T. has been partially replaced by the Law of 4 August 1996 on the well-being of the workers during the execution of the employment contract (loi relative au bien-être des travailleurs lors de l’exécution de leur travail)131. This legislation, which sought to implement Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work132, defines the “well-being” of the worker as concerning all the factors which may influence the conditions under which a job is performed. These conditions relate to safety at work, the protection of health, the psychosocial burden imposed by the employment, ergonomics, health at work, the embellishment of the premises where work is performed, and the environment to the extent that it affects the above-mentioned factors. This new legislation entered into force on 1 October 1996, with the exception of a number of chapters, including especially the chapter on preventive / occupational medecine. It was first envisaged that this chapter should enter into force on 1 October 1997. When this date appeared unrealistic, it was decided to postpone the entry into force of that chapter until 1 April 1998. Four Royal Decrees were adopted on 27 March 1998133. Among those, one Decree further defined the missions of the “conseillers en prévention du Service interne pour la Prévention et la Protection au Travail” – previously called “médecins du travail” –. This Royal Decree offers a useful reminder of the goals of protective occupational medecine134. It says that the “conseillers en prévention” must : “1° examiner l'interaction entre l'homme et le travail et contribuer dès lors à une meilleure adéquation entre l'homme et sa tâche, d'une part, et à l'adaption du travail à l'homme, d'autre part; 2° assurer la surveillance de la santé des travailleurs notamment afin : a) d'éviter l'occupation de travailleurs à des tâches dont ils seraient incapables, en raison de leur état de santé, de supporter normalement les risques ainsi que l'admission au travail de personnes atteintes d'affections graves qui soient transmissibles, ou qui représentent un danger pour la sécurité des autres travailleurs; b) de promouvoir les possibilités d'emploi pour tout un chacun, notamment en proposant des méthodes de travail adaptées, des aménagements du poste de travail et la recherche d'un travail adapté, et ce également pour les travailleurs dont l'aptitude au travail est limitée; c) de dépister aussi précocement que possible les maladies professionnelles et les affections liées au travail, de renseigner et conseiller les travailleurs sur les affections ou déficiences dont ils seraient éventuellement atteints, de collaborer à la recherche et l'étude des facteurs de risque des maladies professionnelles et des affections liées à l'exécution du travail”. For the purposes of this report, especially important is that the “conseillers en prévention” must propose any adaptations to the working post which could facilitate the integration of the workers whose aptitude to work is limited135. Mon. b., 18.9.1996. OJ L 183 of 29.6.1989, p. 1. 133 All were published in Mon. b., 31.3.1998 (3d ed.). 134 See Art. 6 of the Arrêté royal du 27 mars 1998 relatif au Service interne pour la Prévention et la Protection au Travail (Mon. b., 31.3.1998). 135 Art. 6, 2°, b) of the Royal Decree of 27 March 1998. A more recent legislation offers an encouraging signal that the enforcement of such recommendations will be ameliorated in the future. Law of 25 February 2003 on the reinforcement of prevention in the field of the well-being of workers in the execution of the employment contract (Loi portant des mesures pour renforcer la prévention en matière de bien-être des travailleurs lors de l'exécution de leur travail) (Mon.b., 14.3.2003) adds the following provision to Article 3 § 1, al. 2, of the Law of 16 November 1972 on employment inspection (loi du 16 novembre 1972 concernant l'inspection du travail). These employment inspectors are recognized under this legislation a competence to “ordonner de prendre des mesures, mesures organisationnelles y comprises, qui sont recommandées aux employeurs par des conseillers en 132 131 45 The restrictions imposed on medical examinations in the context of employment The Law of 28 January 2003 regarding medical examinations in the framework of an employment relationship136 - which entered into force on 19 April 2003 – regulates specifically pre-employment medical examinations – which of course are only one aspect of occupational medecine in general –. The Law appears to have been directly influenced by a very richly reasoned opinion delivered on 18 November 2002 by the Consultative Committee on Bioethics on predictive genetic testing and HIV tests in employment137. Medical tests are authorized only insofar as they relate to the professional aptitude of the candidate, at the moment when the examination is performed, to occupy a post : according to Article 3 § 1, 1st al., of the Law, “Les tests biologiques, examens médicaux ou les collectes d'informations orales, en vue d'obtenir des informations médicales sur l'état de santé ou des informations sur l'hérédité d'un travailleur ou d'un candidat travailleur, ne peuvent être effectués pour d'autres considérations que celles tirées de ses aptitudes actuelles et des caractéristiques spécifiques du poste à pourvoir”. HIV tests and genetic tests are therefore explicitly forbidden, although a Royal Decree may authorize exceptions in certain cases. III.3.2. Relationship to the duty of “reasonable accommodation” In the chapter of the R.G.P.T. concerning occupational medecine138, it stipulated that the occupational physician (médecin du travail) to suggest changes in affectations, adaptations of the working positions, or the adoption of individual or general measures of protection : under the R.G.P.T. therefore, the médecin du travail must combine the results of the medical examinations he/she performs with the study of the working position the individual worker is occupying or might occupy. This provision of the R.G.P.T. (Art. 123bis) has been abrogated by the Royal Decree of 28 May 2003 on the monitoring of the health of workers139. However, the same idea is retained now in Article 41 of the Royal Decree of 28 May 2003 on the monitoring of the health of workers. This provision defines the content of the form which the occupational physician must complete after the medical examination by which he/she seeks to identify any contra-indications to the employment of certain persons, either who belong to a category subjected to such examinations, or upon request of the worker. Article 41 provides that the physician may indicate either that the worker may be empolyed in the activity prévention de services internes ou externes de prévention et de protection au travail afin de garantir la sécurité et la santé des travailleurs, lorsqu'ils constatent que ces employeurs ne prennent pas ces mesures ou qu'ils ne les prennent que partiellement, lorsqu'en raison de cette abstention, ils contreviennent à la réglementation en matière de bien-être des travailleurs lors de l'exécution de leur travail. Ils peuvent également ordonner de prendre des mesures alternatives, conduisant à un résultat au moins équivalent en ce qui concerne la sécurité et la santé des travailleurs”. Thus, the recommendations made by the “services de prévention et de protection au travail”, with respect to which accommodations should be made in the workplace to protect the workers from the risks of the working environment, should in the future be better enforced. It is unclear however whether these “inspecteurs du travail” also will use these powers to ensure the full enforcement of accommodating measures recommended for individual workers, for instance workers with a disability which requires some form of accommodation. 136 Loi relative aux examens médicaux dans le cadre des relations de travail, Mon. b., 9.4.2003. 137 Avis n° 20 du 18 novembre 2002 relatif aux tests génétiques prédictifs et tests HIV dans le cadre des relations de travail. 138 See esp. chap. III – Dispositions relatives à la protection des travailleurs contre les risques liés à l’exposition à des agents chimiques, physiques et biologiques, and within that chapter see section 1 – Surveillance médicale des travailleurs et surveillance sanitaire des lieux de travail, sous-section 2 – Surveillance de la santé des travailleurs (according to the new title, as modified by Art. 100 of the Arrêté royal du 28 mai 2003 relatif à la surveillance de la santé des travailleurs). 139 Article 101 of the Arrêté royal du 28 mai 2003 relatif à la surveillance de la santé des travailleurs, Mon. b., 16.6.2003. 46 concerned, or that he may be employed provided that certain accommodations are made (“le travailleur peut exécuter le travail convenu, moyennant certains aménagements qu’il détermine”), or that the worker may be employed in another position than the one initially envisaged for the performance of which the worker is not fit (“le travailleur a les aptitudes suffisantes pour exercer une autre fonction, le cas échéant moyennant l’application des aménagements nécessaires et dans les conditions qu’il fixe”), or that the worker is “definitively unfit” (“le travailleur est inapte définitivement”). Moreover, Article 48 al. 5 of the Royal Decree seeks to protect the worker subjected to a medical examination from any discrimination which would result from medical data being communicated to the employer, which could lead to adverse reactions of the employer : this provision states that the form completed by the occupational physician will not offer a medical diagnosis, but strictly stipulate whether or not the worker is suitable, or – as has been mentioned – which accommodations should be made to make his employment possible140. Although there is no explicit relationship between the concept of accommodation as defined here (as recommendations the médecin du travail could make with a view to facilitating the maintenance of an employee on a working post) and the concept of reasonable accommodation as included in the new anti-discrimination legislation141, such a relationship could be established in the future. In fact, once the refusal to provide to provide reasonable accommodation is considered a form of discrimination – and taking into account, especially, the public support which is available to the employer wishing to accommodate the working position to take the disability into account –, it will probably be a natural development that the refusal by an employer to follow such a suggestion by the médecin du travail will presumptively constitute a form of discrimination. III.4. The Defences available under current law The justification of differences of treatment based on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. It will be recalled that, under the definition of direct discrimination offered by the Federal Antidiscrimination Law of 25 February 2003, “direct discrimination” will only occur where the differential treatment lacks any objective and reasonable justification. Despite the fact that, in the context of employment and occupation, such justification can only consist in demonstrating that the differential treatment is based on a “genuine and determining occupational requirement” (see Art. 2(5) of the Law), this Report has expressed a doubt as to the compatibility of such a definition of direct discrimination with the requirements of the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC142, because of the difficulty to reconcile the open-ended character of this definition with the requirement that the Member State to which the Directive is addressed inform the Commission about precisely which situations (occupational requirements) fall under the exception of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive. Article 48 al. 5 of the Arrêté royal du 28 mai 2003 relatif à la surveillance de la santé des travailleurs : “Le formulaire d’évaluation de santé ne peut porter aucune indication diagnostique, ni comporter toute autre formulation, qui serait de nature à porter atteinte au respect de la vie privée”. 141 Notably in Article 2, § 3, of the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 : see above. 142 This is true also, and even more obviously, with respect to Directive 2000/43/EC, the scope of application ratione materiae of which is significantly broader. However, this Report is limited to examining the adequacy of the implementation in Belgium of the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC. 140 47 The justification of apparently neutral measures which put certain protected categories at a particular disadvantage (Art. 2(2), (b), i), of the Framework Directive). In the system of the Federal Law of 25 February 2003, indirect discrimination is defined as a situation where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice, would put persons defined by one of the prohibited grounds at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, criterion or practice is based on an objective and reasonable justification (“à moins que cette disposition, ce critère ou cette pratique ne repose sur une justification objective et raisonnable”)143. The preparatory works of the Law clearly illustrate that this criterion was understood to replicate the criterion classicly used by the Belgian constitutional Court, the Court of Arbitration, when it is requested to decide whether a particular difference in treatment constitutes a discrimination. However, the case-law of the Court of Arbitration is ambiguous as to the precise definition of this criterion. In particular, it is still unclear whether a measure which is not the least restrictive (for which a less restrictive alternative would have been available to produce the same effect) may be considered as “objectively and reasonably justified”. Is it enough, in other terms, that the measure putting a certain category of persons at a particular disadvantage is appropriate for the fulfilment of certain legitimate objectives, or should that measure also be the only one which could have achieved the objective pursued ? Judicial interpretation will be required to clarify the precise content of this requirement; the case-law of the Court of Arbitration is not a fully reliable guide in this respect. In its first opinion on the draft Law, the section of legislation of the Council of State also expressed its doubts as to the parallel which was being made between the acts of the legislator, and the public interest motives which must furnish these acts their justification, and the acts of a private person, which may legitimately seek to pursue a number of goals which cannot be limitatively enumerated nor even, perhaps, evaluated in the same way – is the individual not free to choose his reasons for acting? The Council of State wrote : “Si une loi poursuit toujours un but indiqué dans l’exposé des motifs par rapport auquel la pertinence de la discrimination [read : distinction] peut être appréciée, il n’en va pas de même pour les particuliers dont les comportements ne sont pas nécessairement rationnels et susceptibles d’être appréciés à l’aune du critère utilitariste de ‘l’efficacité supérieure comparable’ retenu par l’article 2 § 1er, al. 2, de la proposition”144. However valid this may be as a general proposition, in the particular field of employment relationships, it seems to have comparatively little weight: as illustrated by the use of the concept of “business necessity” in the United States case-law, the only aim which an employer may in principle seek to achieve through the adoption of measures affecting (prospective) employees is the economic objective of improving the productivity and performance of the business. With respect to the notion of indirect discrimination on which the instruments adopted by the Regions and Communities rely, the reader is referred to what has been presented hereabove, III.2.2. The justification of exceptions to the prohibition of differences in treatment based on a prohibited ground, including disability, where genuine and determining occupational requirements are concerned (Art. 4(1) of the Framework Directive). 143 144 Art. 2 § 2 of the Law of 25 February 2003. C.E. (sect. Légis.), avis du 16 novembre 2000, Doc. parl., Sénat, sess. 2000-2001, n° 12/5, p. 7. 48 It will be recalled that, under the Law of 25 February 2003, there will be “direct discrimination” only where a difference in treatment on a suspect ground is without any objective and reasonable justification. This creates the impression that the definition of direct discrimination is open-ended and therefore could be in violation of the directive's requirement with respect to the outlawing of any difference in treatment based on a suspect ground. However, to avoid this situation - and thus to keep in line with the requirements of the directive -, in the field of “employment relationships”145, Article 2(5) of the Law of 25 February 2003146 states that the only “reasonable and objective justification” which will be accepted will be that corresponding to the notion of occupational requirements as defined in Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive. Article 2(5) is a general formulation, the wording of which is closely inspired by Article 4(1) of the Directive, and the result of which is to exclude any form of differential treatment based on one of the grounds classified by the Belgian Law as suspect in work and employment (however this does not include vocational training and guidance e.g.), unless this difference in treatment corresponds to a genuine occupational requirement. This concerns the state of health or disability as well as the other grounds enumerated by the Law of 25 February 2003. The instruments adopted by the Regions and Communities contain similar formulations. Thus, Article 5 of the Décret relatif à la mise en oeuvre du principe de l'égalité de traitement adopted on 19 May 2004 by the French-speaking Community mentions that there will be no direct discrimination where a difference in treatment is made on the basis of a prohibited ground (“where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate”), a formulation which replicates that of Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC. Article 5 al. 1 of the Décret relatif à l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region on 27 May 2004 contains an identical provision. While it stipulates that the prohibition to refer to certain characteristics may be removed in certain cases, Article 6 of the Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt of 8 May 2002 entrusts the Flemish government with the task to identify which positions in particular are concerned by this “genuine occupational requirements” exception, after consulting the Flemish Socio-Economic Council. However, although one provision of the Regulation of 30 January 2004 of the Flemish Government concerning the execution of the decree of 8 May 2002 on proportionate participation in the employment market does identify in which provisions sex may constitute such a genuine occupational requirement147 – and thus the reference to sex be justified –, no such list is proposed in the executive regulation with respect to the other grounds. Therefore, as Article 6 of the Flemish Decree of 8 May This corresponds to the definition of Art. 2(4), al. 2 and 3 of the Law : ‘les conditions d'accès au travail salarié, non salarié ou indépendant, y compris les critères de sélection et les conditions de recrutement, quelle que soit la branche d'activité et à tous les niveaux de la hiérarchie professionnelle, y compris en matière de promotion, les conditions d'emploi et de travail, y compris les conditions de licenciement et de rémunération, tant dans le secteur privé que public; la nomination ou la promotion d'un fonctionnaire ou l'affectation d'un fonctionnaire à un service’. 146 Article 2(5) states: ‘Dans le domaine des relations de travail (...), une différence de traitement repose sur une justification objective et raisonnable lorsque, en raison de la nature d'une activité professionnelle ou des conditions de son exercice, la caractéristique en cause constitue une exigence professionnelle essentielle et déterminante, pour autant que l'objectif soit légitime et que l'exigence soit proportionnée’. 147 See Article 4. 145 49 2002 clearly seems to limit the invocability of this exception to the situations which the Executive will have identified, it would seem that, in the domains covered by the Flemish Decree, the “genuine occupational requirements” exception will have no role to play. The justification for not providing reasonable accommodation for disabled persons (Art. 5 of the Framework Directive). The provisions which define the requirement of reasonable accommodation in the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 (Article 2(3)) or in the instruments adopted at regional or Community level (see hereabove, III.2.6.) all limit such requirement to situations where this would not impose a disproportionate burden on the person concerned. A protocol is currently in the process of being completed between the different entities of the State to clarify what this entails precisely, as there was a general sense that the definitions as they currently stand are too vague to be fully functional and offer the required legal certainty. Which justifications the private employer will have for not providing a form of accommodation to the worker with a disability will depend on the measures which, in the context of the disability policies of the Communities, have been taken to help the employer meet the cost of the accommodations he / she decides to make. For instance, on the basis of Article 26, 4°, of the Decree on the professional and social integration of persons with disabilities (Décret relatif à l’intégration sociale et professionnelle des personnes handicapées), adopted on 4 March 1999 by the Commission communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale148, the Executive (Collège) of the Commission communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale has taken a decree on 25 February 2000 to that effect149. This initiative concerns the Region of Brussels-Capital. In the Walloon Region, the Executive Decree of 5 November 1998 – modified since on a number of occasions150 - is the relevant departure point (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 5 novembre 1998 visant à promouvoir l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi)151. This Executive Decree has been adopted on the basis of the Decree of the Walloon Regional Council of 6 April 1995 on the integration of persons with disabilities (Décret du Conseil régional wallon du 6 avril 1995 relatif à l’intégration des personnes handicapées152), Article 10 al. 1 of which states that “Le Gouvernement arrête les mesures destinées à promouvoir l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi. Ces mesures porrtent notamment sur des soutiens à la création de nouveaux emplois et des incitations positives à l’emploi”. Article 15 of the same Decree of 6 April 1995 states that the competent Agency (Agence wallonne pour l’intégration des personnes handicapées (AWIPH)) may subsidize, at the conditions defined by the Walloon government, “the acquisition, the This provision states that the Executive (Collège) of the Commission communautaire française will take measures making it possible “d’accorder à l’employeur une intervention dans les frais d’adaptation du poste de travail justifiée par la déficience du travailleur en vue, soit d’engager une personne handicapée, soit de favoriser l’accession du travailleur à une fonction qui répond mieux à ses capacités, soit de maintenir au travail une personne qui devient handicapée”. 149 Arrêté 99/262/A du 25 février 2000 du Collège de la Commission communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-capitale relatif aux dispositions individuelles d'intégration sociale et professionnelle des personnes handicapées mises en oeuvre par le Service bruxellois francophone des personnes handicapées, Mon. b., 8.6.2000. See esp. chap. V of this text, concerning individual aid to integration. This Decree has been modified on a number of occasions, lastly on 13 March 2003 (see Arrêté 2002/253 du 13 juin 2002 (M.B., 6.7.2002), and Arrêté 2002/791 du 13 mars 2003 (M.B., 14.4.2003)). 150 It has been modified on 18 May 2000 (M.B., 6.6.2000), on 13 December 2001 (M.B., 23.1.2002), on 5 May 2002 (M.B., 4.6.2002), and on 27 August 2002 (M.B., 3.10.2002). 151 Mon. b., 6.1.1999. 152 Mon.b., 25.5.1995. 148 50 construction, the transformation of infrastructures or specific equipments for persons with disabilities” (“l’achat, la construction, la transformation d’infrastructures ou d’équipements spécifiques destinés aux personnes handicapées”). III.5. Personal and Material Scope of Current Law III.5.1. Definition of ‘Person with a Disability’ under current law For the purposes of analyzing the competing notions of disability under the legislations commented upon in this report, it is useful to distinguish between two uses of the notion, respectively in antidiscrimination legislation strictly speaking (a) and in legislations seeking instead to encourage the social or professional integration of persons with disabilities by means other than the prohibition of discrimination, and which seek equal treatment in the broader sense (b) : (a) The Federal Law of 25 February 2003 does not define the notion of “disabled person”, because it simply excludes any form of discrimination, either direct or indirect, on the basis of “current or future state of health, a disability (handicap) or a physical characteristic”, whatever the severity of impairment – real or imaginary. The same can be said of the instruments adopted at the level of the Regions and Communities to implement the Framework Directive. This is also valid, in particular, with respect to the non-discrimination provisions of the Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt adopted on 8 May 2002 for the Flemish Region/Community : this Decree simply lists among the prohibited grounds of discrimination “huidige of toekomstige gezondheidstoestand, een handicap of een fysieke eigenschap”, without offering a definition of disability. On the other hand, as this latter Decree provides for a richer notion of equal treatment, going beyond a simple prohibition of discrimination to impose the adoption of diversity plans and annual reporting on the representation of “target groups” (kansengroepen) in the workforce of the administrations concerned, the Executive Regulation adopted on 30 January 2004 by the Flemish government to implement certain provisions of the Decree of 8 May 2002 does identify persons with disabilities among these “target groups”, and defines them “persons with a physical, sensorial, mental or psychic disturbance or limitation which may constitute a disadvantage for an fair participation in the employment market” (“personen met een fysieke, sensoriële, verstandelijke of psychische stoornis of beperking die een belemmering kan vormen voor een evenwaardige participatie aan de arbeidsmarkt”) (Art. 2(2), al. 2, 2°, of the executive regulation adopted on 30 January 2004). (b) As the latter example illustrates, the legislations or regulations which afford advantages to disabled persons or encourage their professional integration by incentives to their employer categorize disabled persons otherwise. The Loi relative au reclassement social des handicapés of 16 April 1963 benefits persons153 the possibilities of employment of whom are effectively reduced because of an unsufficiency or an impairment (une insuffisance ou une diminution) of at least 30 % of their physical capacity or at least 20 % of their mental capacity (Art. 1). The Fonds national de reclassement social des handicapés, created under the responsibility of the Initially, only of Belgian nationality (see Art. 1 of the Law). But see, now, the extension to foreigners of this legislation : Royal Decree of 20 November 1975. 153 51 Federal Ministry of Employment and Labour (Ministère fédéral de l’Emploi et du Travail), registers the disabled persons who wish to be thus recognized154. The Decree of 6 April 1995 of the Walloon Regional Council on the integration of disabled persons (Décret relatif à l’intégration des personnes handicapées) is deliberately more open : its Art. 2 does not quantify the degree of severity of the impairment, but simply states that the impairment must be important enough to require an intervention of the collectivity (“... est considérée comme handicapée toute personne mineure ou majeure présentant une limitation importante de ses capacités d’intégration sociale ou professionnelle suite à une altération de ses facultés mentales, sensorielles ou physiques, qui engendre la nécessité d’une intervention de la société”). It is this broad definition that the Executive Decree of the Walloon Governement of 5 November 1998 (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon visant à promouvoir l’égalité des chances des personnes handicapées sur le marché de l’emploi) also refers back to (see Art. 1, 1°). The Décret relatif à l'intégration sociale et professionnelle des personnes handicapées, adopted on 4 March 1999 by the Commission Communautaire française de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, stipulates that to be recognized the advantages of the Decree, the beneficiary my present a disability which results from an impairment of at least 30 % of the physical capacity or at least 20 % of the mental capacity (Art. 6 a). However, an element of flexibility is added : if a disability is manifest while neither of these two quantitatively-defined levels is attained, the person concerned may nevertheless benefit from the provisions of the Decree to take into account the effective consequences of the impairment. One interesting feature of the definition of the beneficiary of this legislation is that it makes a step towards recognizing the fact that the disability is a product of the interaction of the individual with the environment, at least to some extent: Art. 6 a) states that “Par handicap, il faut entendre le désavantage social résultant d’une déficience ou d’une incapacité qui limite ou empêche la réalisation d’un rôle habituel par rapport à l’âge, au sexe, aux facteurs sociaux et culturels”. Perceived disability. None of these definitions include instances of perceived disability, when such a perception would be totally unfounded. However, in cases where such a perception, even ill-founded, is to be explained by the physical appearance of a person, the victim of discrimination will be protected to the extent that such an appearance constituted a prohibited ground for making distinctions (“caractéristique physique”, “fysieke eigenschap” : the Federal Law of 25 February 2003, the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002, the Décret relatif à l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de formation professionnelle of the Walloon Region and the Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt adopted by the Germanspeaking Community all refer to this as a prohibited ground of discrimination; the Decree adopted on 19 May 2004 by the French-speaking Community does not, although the list of prohibited grounds it contains is not presented as limitative (“grounds such as…” (“des motifs tels que…”)). Future disability. None of the definitions include a propensity towards “future” disabilities, although the anti-discrimination legislations mentioned above do include, as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, the future state of health (état de santé futur, The Fonds national de reclassement social des handicapés also is entrusted with publicizing its missions and the services it can offer to persons with disabilities : this is what the Law of 16 April 1963 calls the “finding” (“dépistage”) of disabled persons in the meaning of Art. 1 of the Law. However, registration as a disabled person is always optional (performed exclusively on a voluntary basis). 154 52 toekomstige gezondheidstoestand, aktuellen oder zukünftigen Gesundheitszustandes) – a ground, however, distinct from disability (handicap) as such. It will also be recalled that the Law of 28 January 2003 regarding medical examinations in the framework of an employment relationship, referred to above, prohibits genetic testing in pre-employment medical examinations, where such testing purports to identify the future state of health of the prospective employee (examen génétique prévisionnel) (see Art. 3 § 1 of the Law). 53 III.5.2. Definition of ‘Employment, Occupation, Training’, etc., under current law In the Federal legislation implementing the Framework Directive The Federal Antidiscrimination Law of 25 February 2003 does not define the notion of “employment” it refers to to identify the scope of application of the prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination. This prohibition extends to “les conditions d’accès au travail salarié, non salarié ou indépendant, y compris les critères de sélection et les conditions de recrutement, quelle que soit la branche d’activité et à tous les niveaux de la hiérarchie professionnelle, y compris en matière de promotion, les conditions d’emploi et de travail, y compris les conditions de licenciement et de rémunération, tant dans le secteur privé que public” (Art. 2 § 4, 2°). In comparison to Art. 3 § 1 of the Framework Directive, this would seem to be a restricted understanding of equal treatment “in employment and occupation”. Indeed, in its present formulation, the scope of application of the Law of 25 February 2003 covers neither vocational training or guidance (comp. Art. 3 § 1, (b) of the Framework Directive), nor membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or employers (comp. Art. 3 § 1, (d) of the Framework Directive). However, such an impression would be misleading : • Article 2 § 4 of the Law of 25 February 2003 prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, inter alia, for all “access to, participation in or other form of exercise of an economic, social, cultural or political activity accessible to the public” (“l’accès, la participation et tout autre exercice d’une activité économique, sociale, culturelle ou politique accessible au public”). This very broad formulation must be interpreted as covering membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or employers155. • As to vocational training or guidance, it may be considered to be covered by the broad terms of Art. 2 § 4, 2° of the Federal Law of 25 February 2003, which have been recalled. The difficulty with respect to this latter subject matter, however, is that this is an area which is of the competence of the Communities or Regions in Belgium156 – as illustrated, for instance, by the adoption of the Ordinance of 26 June 2003 of the Region of Brussels-Capital. Doubts remain, therefore, as to the competence of the Federal legislator in these areas. It also can be asserted that, in the absence of a regulation adopted, under the form of a Regional Decree, by the Walloon Region (corresponding to the kind of instrument adopted for the Flemish Region/Community by the Decree of 8 May 2002), the requirements of the Framework Directive are not fully complied with in these areas. In the instruments adopted by the Regions and Communities The preparatory works of the Law leave no doubt on this question: see esp. the statement by Ms L. Onkelinx, vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Employment and Equality of Opportunities, before the Justice Committee of the Chamber of Representatives (Documents parlementaires, Chambre des Représantants, session 2001-2002, Projet de loi tendant à lutter contre la discrimination et modifiant la loi du 15 février 1993 créant un Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme, Rapport fait au nom de la Commission de la justice par M. J. Arens et Mme K. Lalieux, 26 July 2002, doc. 50 1578/008, p. 37). 156 Vocational guidance is of regional competence, under Art. 6 § 1, IX of the Special Law of institutional reforms of 8 August 1980; under Art. 4, 15° and 16° of the same Special Law, vocational training is of the competence of the Communities (see above, however, on the transferral of this competence from the Frenchspeaking Community to the Walloon Region). 155 54 The Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt is broader in its material scope of application157. It includes a prohibition of discrimination in vocational guidance (beroepskeuzevoorlichting), vocational training (beroepsopleiding), and career guidance (loopbaanbegelieding ) (see Art. 5 § 2, 7° to 9° of the Decreet). In accordance with Article 4 of the Decree, these terms are defined after consultation with the Flemish Social and Economic Council (Sociaal-Economische Raad van Vlaanderen (SERV)) in the Executive Regulation of 30 January 2004 adopted by the Flemish government in implementation of the Decree158. the Region of Brussels-Capital adopted an Ordonnance on 26 June 2003 specifically seeking to ensure that public and private intermediates on the employment market will not commit discrimination on any of the mentioned grounds, including disability. This Ordonnance has a material scope of application limited to what it calls ‘employment activities’ (‘activités d'emploi’). This covers: • the activity consisting in helping offer and demand on the employment market to meet (the intermediates in the strict sense); • the activity of employment of interim agencies, employing persons who will be put at the disposal of other ‘users’ on a temporary basis; • lastly, other services facilitating access to employment.159 The Decree on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment (Décret relatif à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement) adopted by the French-speaking Community on 19 May 2004160 prohibits direct and indirect discrimination, including the instruction to discriminate, 1° against public servants of the administration of the French-speaking Community, 2° against personnel of certain public interest organs depending on the Community, 3° at all levels of education in the French-speaking Community, and 4° with respect to the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Liège, which depends on the Community (article 3 § 1). It extends the prohibition of discrimination to the associations subsidized or otherwise recognized by the French-speaking Community (article 3 § 2). The Décret relatif à l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region has a scope of application limited to the competences of the Region in the domains of employment policies and retraining : under its Articles 8 and 9, therefore, the prohibition of discrimination applies to vocational guidance, socioprofessional integration, the placement of workers, the allocation of aids for the promotion of employment, and vocational training, in both the public and the private sectors161. Although the Decree does not cover membership of, or involvement in, organisations of workers or employers or professional organisations. 158 See Art. 1 of the Besluit [van 30 Januari 2004] van de Vlaamse regering tot uitvoering van het decreet van 8 mei 2002 houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt wat betreft de beroepskeuzevoorlichting, beroepsopleiding, loopbaanbegeleiding en arbeidsbemiddeling, cited above. 159 Art. 2(1), al. 3, of the Ordonnance: ‘tous les autres services ayant trait à la recherche d'emploi, sans pour autant viser nécessairement à rapprocher l'offre et la demande sur le marché de l'emploi, à l'exception de la simple publication d'offres et de demandes d'emploi’. 160 M.B., 7.6.2004. 161 Under Art. 8 of the Decree adopted by the Walloon Region : “Dans le respect de la compétence en matière d’emploi exercée par la Région, le présent décret s’applique à toute personne, tant dans le secteur public que dans le secteur privé, en ce qui concerne l’orientation professionnelle, l’insertion socioprofessionnelle, le placement des travailleurs et l’octroi d’aides à la promotion de l’emploi”. Under Art. 9 : “Dans le respect de la 157 55 The Decree adopted by the German-speaking Community (Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt) extends its scope of application, ratione personae, to the administration of that Community, to personnel of the educational system of the Community, to intermediaries (zwischengeschalteten Dienstleister) with respect to the services they offer, to employers with respect to the provision to persons with disabilities of the reasonable accommodation (angemessenen Vorkehrungen) prescribed by Article 13 of the Decree (Article 3). Article 4 of the Decree defines its scope of application ratione materiae. The Decree is to apply in particular to vocational guidance, professional counseling, vocational training and retraining (Berufsorientierung, der Berufsberatung, beruflichen Ausund Weiterbildung, Umschulung, Berufsbegleitung, Arbeitsvermittlung und des Zugangs zur Bildung). Although some relationships or situations are, arguably, covered by more than one instrument, which may create problems of co-ordination we should pay careful attention to other situations which remain insufficiently covered by the existing instruments combating discrimination. In particular, it would seem that the adoption by the Region of BrusselsCapital of the Ordonnance of 26 June 2003 does not ensures that the principle of equal treatment as defined in Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC is fully implemented. The scope of application of the prohibition of discrimination in the Ordonnance is restricted to the “employment activities” (“les activités d’emploi”), defined as162 : a) tout acte d'intermédiation visant à rapprocher l'offre et la demande sur le marché de l'emploi, sans que l'intermédiaire ne devienne partie aux relations de travail susceptibles d'en découler; b) les services consistant à employer des travailleurs dans le but de les mettre à la disposition d'un tiers utilisateur, personne physique ou morale, qui fixe leurs tâches et en supervise l'exécution, dans le cadre du travail temporaire, du travail intérimaire et de la mise à la disposition des travailleurs auprès d'utilisateurs, en application de la loi du 24 juillet 1987 sur le travail temporaire, le travail intérimaire et la mise de travailleurs à la disposition d'utilisateurs; c) tous les autres services ayant trait à la recherche d'emploi, sans pour autant viser nécessairement à rapprocher l'offre et la demande sur le marché de l'emploi, à l'exception de la simple publication d'offres et de demandes d'emploi. Under the Belgian constitutional scheme however, the Regions have received the competence in the field of employment policy (including placement and professional integration)163, and they alone are competent to regulate the employment relationship between the Region and the personnel of the regional administrations164. Moreover, since 1993, the French-speaking Community has attribued to the French Community Commission (commission communautaire française) the power to exercise its competences in the field of vocational training for the Region of Brussels.165 Therefore, quite apart from the unsatisfactory protection from discrimination offered by the Ordinance of 26 June 2003 whenever it is compétence en matière de recyclage et de reconversion professionnels exercée par la Région, le présent décret s’applique à toute personne, tant dans le secteur public que dans le secteur privé, en ce qui concerne l’insertion socioprofessionnelle et la formation professionnelle, y compris la validation des compétences”. 162 Article 2, 1, of the Ordonnance. 163 Article 6 § 1, IX of the Loi spéciale de réformes institutionnelles of 8 August 1980, cited above. 164 See Article 87 of the Loi spéciale de réformes institutionnelles of 8 August 1980, cited above. 165 See Article 3, 4°, of the Decree of 19 July 1993 attributing the exercise of certain competences of the Frenchspeaking Community to the Walloon Region and the French Community Commission (Décret attribuant l’exercice de certaines compétences de la Communauté française à la Région wallonne et à la Commission communautaire française), M.B., 10.9.1993. 56 applicable, this restricted scope of application may be problematic when compared to the scope of application of Directive 2000/78/EC, as defined in Article 2(1) of the Directive. Indeed, the commission communautaire française has not acted, as it should have, to implement the principle of equal treatment in the field of vocational training. The Region of Brussels-Capital has not implemented Directive 2000/78/EC – nor, for that matter, Directive 2000/43/EC – with respect to its own personnel. At the date of this writing, therefore, the implementation of the Directives adopted on the basis of Article 13 EC therefore still remains incomplete in Belgium. III.6. Vicarious Liability of the Employer Following the general principles of civil liability, the employer’s civil liability may be triggered when an employee commits the fault which causes the damage the victim seeks reparation from (the rule is codified in Art. 1384, al. 3, of the Code Civil). Thus, the employer would be liable for any discrimination practiced by his/employee, following this general rule. Article 67, al. 2, of the Criminal Code (Loi du 8 juin 1867 portant le nouveau Code pénal) provides that shall be considered accomplices of the crime or delict (crime ou délit) those who gave instructions to commit it. This provision shall be applicable to the offences described in the Law of 25 February 2003166, but which, it will be recalled, will hardly ever be invoked in the employment context (see under ‘The Legal Framework’). Moreover, with respect to the discrimination committed by the public servant in the exercise of his/her functions, the compliance with an order received from his/her hierarchical superior is exclusive of the criminal liability of the individual who was in fact committed the discrimination : if discrimination is indeed established, only these superiors will be fined or imprisoned in the terms provided by the law. III.7. Remedies, Enforcement and Sanctions against discrimination under current nondiscrimination law Standing of organisations (Article 9(2) of the Framework Directive) Federal legislation implementing the Framework Directive The Federal Law of 25 February 2003, seeking its inspiration from the Law of 30 July 1981 on Racism and Xenophobia (mentioned hereabove, in the section ‘Legal Framework’) gives to the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight against Racism (Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme / Centrum voor Gelijkheid van Kansen en Racismebestrijding / Zentrum für die Chancengleichheit und die Bekämpfung des Rassismus) – an independant Agency funded by the Government to combat certain forms of discrimination – the power to file suit on the basis of the provisions of the draft legislation, and thus to contribute to the preservation of legality in the name of the public interest (Art. 24 and Art. 31 of the draft Law). The same power is also recognized to certain organisations which have the legal personality since at least five years and the social purpose of which is the promotion of human rights and combating discrimination (this refers, in practice, to a number of non-governmental organisations such as the Ligue des droits de l’homme, the Liga voor Mensenrechten, Amnesty International, etc., but also organisations specialized in certain particular forms of discrimination), and to workers’ and employers’ organisations which are 166 See Art. 16 of the Law of 25 February 2003. 57 recognized as representative under the relevant Belgian legislations (Art. 31 of the Law). However, this power to file suit on the basis of the provisions of the Law remains subordinated to the agreement of the victim of the discrimination, where such a victim is a natural or legal person : whenever there exists an identifiable victim, therefore, the complaint may not be filed without his/her consent (Art. 31, in fine, of the Law). This mechanism appears to be in conformity with Art. 9 § 2 of the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC. Instruments adopted by the Regions and Communities The Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt provides for the same possibilities. Art. 16 of the Decree states that organisations having an interest, according to their statutes, to file suit against violations of the Decree, may do so; representative organisations of workers and employers have the same power; the introduction of suits by these organisations requires the victim to consent to the legal action, whenever the victim of the alleged violation is a natural or legal person. The Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt moreover provides that the Flemish Government shall identify one or more authorities which will be responsible for the further implementation of the objectives of proportionate participation and equal treatment (Art. 9). The designated organ(s) will, in particular, assist the victims of discrimination with the lodging of a complaint167; adopt opinions on the implementation of the objectives sought by the Decree; and be responsible for the dissemination of information with respect to rights to proportionate participation and equal treatment168. The Executive Regulation of 30 January 2004 has entrusted the existing Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight against Racism with these missions169. The Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt proposed for the German-speaking Community provides that the organisations having an interest, according to their statutes, to file suit against violations of the Dekret, may do so; representative organisations of workers and employers have the same power (Article 20). Similarly to both the Federal Antidiscrimination Law of 25 February 2003 and the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002, these organisations are however required to act with the consent of the victim of the alleged discrimination, where such a victim exists, whether a legal or a natural person. The Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight against Racism is not given any role directly under the proposed Dekret in its surveillance. However, Article 15 of the proposed instrument provides that the Executive of the German-speaking may entrust one or more organs with the promotion of the principle of equal treatment, including assistance to the victims of discrimination under the Dekret and the preparation of reports and recommendations. To assign this mission to the existing Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight against Racism would require a protocol to be concluded between the German-speaking Community and the Federal State – of which the Centre, indeed, is an Agency, and from which it receives its funding –. See Art. 9 § 2 of the Framework Directive. See Art. 12 of the Framework Directive. 169 See Art. 8 of the Besluit [van 30 Januari 2004] van de Vlaamse regering tot uitvoering van het decreet van 8 mei 2002 houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt wat betreft de beroepskeuzevoorlichting, beroepsopleiding, loopbaanbegeleiding en arbeidsbemiddeling, cited above. 168 167 58 By way of contrast, it does not seem that the Décret relatif à l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region on 27 May 2004, nor the Décret relatif à la mise en oeuvre du principe de l'égalité de traitement adopted on 19 May 2004 by the French-speaking Community, accord with Article 9(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC. Indeed, these latter instruments do not provide for any possibility by such organisations having a legally recognized interest in combating discrimination to engage in procedures in support of the victim. Injunctory powers of the competent jurisdiction The Federal Law of 25 February 2003, the Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt, the Décret relatif à l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region on 27 May 2004 and the Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt adopted by the Germanspeaking Community all provide that the judge shall be competent to enjoin the continuation of discriminatory practices (Art. 19 of the Law of 25 February 2003 ; Art. 15 of the Flemish Decreet; Article 15 of the The Décret relatif à l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region on 27 May 2004; Article 19 of the Dekret adopted by the German-speaking Community). Where discrimination in employment and occupation is concerned, it is the industrial tribunal (Tribunal du travail) which will be the competent court. III.8. Burden of proof (Art. 10 of the Framework Directive) Federal legislation implementing the Framework Directive The Federal Law of 25 February 2003 provides that, in civil proceedings in which the new legislation will be relied on, the burden of proof may be reversed by the victim of the alleged discrimination by the establishment of certain facts, such as statistical data or situation tests, which may lead to the presumption that there has been direct or indirect discrimination (Art. 19 § 3)170. This latter mode of proof (by “testing”) has been most controversial during the discussion of the proposed legislation in Parliament, especially within the Senate Justice Committee. The draft legislation stipulates that such “tests” (in fact, presenting false candidates to an employer, or false prospective tenants to a landlord, and identifying on that basis whether the employer or the landlord do treat diffirently the candidates on the basis of a suspect ground) may – although it need not necessarily – be validated by a huissier, a public officer, and that the procedure should be further defined in a Royal Decree (Arrêté royal d’exécution). This instrument has not been proposed yet. Although a number of consultations have taken place on the content of this executive regulation, both within the Ministry of Labour and Employment and within the Ministry of Justice, no draft text is available yet. These consultations seem to have highlighted the difficulty there is in pursuing simultaneously two partially incompatible objectives : first, the “situation tests” should be strictly codified, and their methodology ascertained, to ensure that they will not lead to abuse by alleged victims of discrimination, but also to encourage the judge before which the results of such tests are presented to accept that this will result in the reversal of the burden of proof; The legislsative section of the Council of State (section de législation du Conseil d’Etat), in its opinion delivered on 16 November 2000 on the initial version of the draft legislation, expressed its concerns as to the extension to criminal provisions of the reversal of the burden of proof. The opinion was followed in that respect. In criminal procedures, the burden of proof remains at all times with the prosecution; no shifting of the burden of proof may occur. 170 59 second however, such “situation tests” must not be too burdensome to perform, and they should remain a relatively accessible means by which a presumption of discrimination may be established. In the context of victimisation, Article 21(2) of the Federal Antidiscrimination Law of 25 February 2003 provides that the employer may be obliged to prove that the measure which had been adopted, where a complaint alleging discrimination has been filed, is unrelated to that complaint, under certain conditions : this will be the case in case of dismissal or unilateral modification of the working conditions, either during the 12 months following the filing of a complaint for alleged violation of the principle of equal treatment, or after the filing of a legal action until 3 months after the judicial decision has the authority of res judicata. Legislation adopted by the Regions and Communities The Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt provides that the plaintiff in cases of discrimination may etablish facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, in which case it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment (Art. 14 al. 1 of the Decree). This mechanism, providing for a shift in the burden of proof, is directly inspired by Art. 10 of the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC. It is not applicable however to criminal procedures (see Art. 14 al. 2 of the Decree and Art. 10(3) of the Framework Directive). In contrast with the Federal Antidiscrimination Law, the legislator has not identified here which “facts” may lead to the burden of proof being shifted to the defendant in cases alleging discrimination. Under the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002, a “reversal” of the burden of proof also is provided under Article 12(2) of the Decree, in the specific context of alleged victimisation. There, the burden of proof lies on the employer (who will have to prove that the measure he/she had adopted is unrelated to the complaint or suit) in case of dismissal or unilateral modification of the working conditions, either during the 12 months following the filing of a complaint for alleged violation of the principle of equal treatment, or after the filing of a legal action until 3 months after the judicial decision has the authority of res judicata. Finally, it will be noted that the plaintiff may rely on more favorable rules relating to the allocation of the burden of proof (see Art. 10 § 2 of the Framework Directive). Article 18 of the Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt to be adopted by the German-speaking Community Decree provides for the possibility of certain facts being presented to the judge leading to shifting the burden of proof of discrimination (“Wenn diese Person vor dieser Gerichtsbarkeit Tatsachen vorbringt, die eine Diskriminierung vermuten lassen, obliegt die Beweislast der Beachtung des Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatzes der beklagten Partei”). This possibility is excluded with respect to criminal procedures. Like in the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002, which facts may lead to such a consequence is not specified. The Décret relatif à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement adopted by the French-speaking Community does not contain specific rules governing the proof of discrimination – a situation which is, in regard of Directive 2000/78/EC, problematic, although it is to be explained by the understanding of the French-speaking Community that all it could do in its sphere of competence was to impose obligations on the public servants of the Community, backed by the threath of disciplinary sanctions, whilst any civil or criminal 60 sanctions of discrimination were already contained in the Federal Law of 25 February 2003. The Décret relatif à l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region contains (in Article 17) a rule on the burden of proof, drafted in accordance with Article 10(1) of the Directive 2000/78/EC III.9. Victimisation (Art. 11 of the Framework Directive) Except on one relatively minor issue171, Article 21 of the Law of 25 February 2003 and Article 12 of the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002 are phrased in identical terms. It will therefore suffice to describe the regime laid down in the former provision. Article 21 of the Law of 25 February 2003 first states the principle that, when a complaint for discrimination or a legal action have been filed by the employee, he/she may not be dismissed unless for motives unrelated to that complaint or that procedure. During 12 months after a complaint has been filed, or, when a legal suit has been introduced, during 3 months after a final decision has been adopted and the litigation thus terminated, there is a presumption that the dismissal or the unilateral modification of the employment conditions by the employer are a form of reprisal against the employee: indeed, the burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal or the modification of the employment conditions are unrelated to the complaint of the employee, or to the legal procedure he/she initiated. Should the employer fail to prove this, the employee or the union of which he/she is a member may request the reintegration of the employee in his previous position, or the restoration of the conditions under which he/she was previously employed. A refusal of the employer to reintegrate in the workforce the employee whose dismissal appears to have been motivated by a desire to sanction the complaint or the legal action filed by the victim, may be very costly to the employer, who may be obliged to compensate the employee either according to the prejudice effectively caused, or by paying the equivalent of six months’ remuneration. Article 9 of Directive 2000/43/EC should be read as imposing on Member States to also ensure that employees or other persons connected to a complaint or to legal proceedings are protected from reprisal: for instance, not only the employee against whom the discrimination has been committed, but also witnesses, or members of the union which has assisted in the complaint, should be protected. Whether or not this reading also will be imposed in the context of Directive 2000/78/EC, Article 11 of which is drawn in narrower terms (referring to “employees” instead of “persons” having to be protected from reprisals). However, the wording of Article 21 of the Law of 25 February 2003 seems too narrow to include also such a protection beyond the individual complainant. If the broader reading of the Directives is confirmed, the Belgian implementing legislation should be improved in this regard. This remark also applies to Article 12 of the Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002 although it would appear from the formulation of this provision that it cannot be excluded that, by judicial interpretation, the protection could be extended beyond the plaintiff, for instance to witnesses172. Comp. Article 21(5) of the Law of 25 February 2003 with Article 12(5) of the Decree of 8 May 2002. The Federal Law is more protective, to the extent that it provides that the worker may be reintegrated in his/her previous function of receive a compensation worth 6 months’ salary where the competent jurisdiction has found that discrimination has occurred. 172 Indeed, Article 12(1) of the Flemish Decree states that 'Wanneer een lid van het Vlaams overheids- en onderwijspersoneel, overeenkomstig de vigerende procedures, een met redenen omklede klacht heeft ingediend of een rechtsvordering instelt tot naleving van het decreet, mag de arbeidsverhouding niet beëindigd worden, noch de arbeidsvoorwaarden eenzijdig gewijzigd worden, behalve om redenen die vreemd zijn aan die klacht of aan die rechtsvordering. werknemer de omvang van de geleden schade kunnen bewijzen' . It could be argued that 171 61 Neither the Décret relatif à la mise en œuvre du principe de l’égalité de traitement adopted by the French-speaking Community, nor the Décret relatif à l’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region, contain any provisions on reprisals. In the view of the author of this report, this is in violation with Article 11 of Directive 2000/78/EC and with Article 9 of Directive 2000/43/EC. The Decree adopted by the German-speaking Community presents the same deficiency. It should be added however that the initial version of the Dekretentwurf bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt (version of 26 November 2003) did contain a provision protecting the worker from reprisals (either in the form of a dismissal constituting a disguised sanction or in the form of a unilateral modification of the conditions of employment) (see Article 23 of the draft proposal : Schutz vor einer Entlassung). That provision was removed from the proposed Decree, in the version submitted to the discussion of the Rat der Deutschsprachigen Gemeinschaft on 26 April 2004, following an observation by the Council of State, made in the opinion it delivered on 11 February 2004 on the initial proposal for a Decree that legislating on this question – conditions of dismissal – may go beyond the powers of the German-speaking Community173. This provides a clear illustration of the difficulties the Regions and Communities may face when implementing Directives, where the limits attached to their competences are unclear, and where they risk legislating beyond their attributed powers in fulfilment of their obligations under EC Law. III.10. Sanctions (Art. 17 of the Framework Directive) The Federal Law of 25 February 2003 provides an extensive range of sanctions, both civil and penal. Focussing exclusively on the sanctions for discriminatory acts – leaving aside thus the other aspects of the Law of 25 February 2003 –, we can summarise the situation thus174 : Prohibition to discriminate Penal Sanction Discrimination by public Imprisonment from 2 months to 2 servant/officer in the exercise of years (10 to 15 years if his/her functions discrimination committed by forging the signature of a public officer) (Art. 6(2) of the Law of 25.2.2003) Harassment as defined under Art. The sanctions provided in Art. 442bis of the Penal Code (Art. 11 442bis Penal Code (imprisonment of the Law of 25.2.2003) from 15 days to 2 years of fine) may be doubled if the act has a discriminatory motive Any form of direct or indirect • contractual clause incompatible discrimination, including with the prohibition may be harassment voided (Art. 18 of the Law of 25.2.2003) Penal Civil reprisals against witnesses or other colleagues could not be presented as bearing no relationship to the complaint on which the suit is based, even where the reprisals are not against the victim/plaintiff him or herself. 173 174 See Opinion L. 36.415/2 delivered by the administration section of the Council of State on 11 February 2004. On the sanctions which can be imposed on legal persons where they are criminally liable, see Article 7bis of the Penal Code, inserted by the Law of 4 May 1999. 62 • discriminatory practice may be ordered to cease (judicial injunction) (Art. 19(1) of the Law of 25.2.2003), the decision may be posted publicly (Art. 19(2)), and the addressee (defendant) may be imposed fines (astreintes) in case of non-compliance with the judicial order (Art. 20) Civil Victimisation Where a dismissal is proven to be a form of reprisal, the employer may have to reintegrate the employee at his/her previous position, and back pay is due (Art. 21(3) of the Law of 25.2.2003); damages otherwise may be sought, presumed to be equivalent to 6 months’ remuneration Damages will be afforded every time a discrimination is proven to have occurred; this is not stated explicitly in the Law of 25 Feb 2003 but it is the general rule on non-contractual civil liability, which will be applicable (art. 1382 Civil Code). The other instruments adopted by the Regions and Communities are less developed in terms of which procedures they provide for in terms of effectively upholding the right not to be discriminated against and in terms of sanctions, although the solutions are varied. The Décret relatif à la mise en oeuvre du principe de l'égalité de traitement adopted on 19 May 2004 by the French-speaking Community provides no sanctions, except disciplinary proceedings against the agents of the Community which have committed discrimination. The Dekret bezüglich der Sicherung der Gleichbehandlung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt adopted by the Germanspeaking Community provides for penal sanctions, but only when a person publicises his/her intention to discriminate, within the conditions provided by Article 444 of the Penal Code (Article 17 of the Decree). The Décret relatif à l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de formation professionnelle adopted by the Walloon Region on 27 May 2004 provides that a person voluntarily or knowlingly committing discrimination may be convicted to a prison term of eight days to a year and to a fine running from 100 to 1,000 euros, or to one of the given penal sanctions (Article 14). As has been already mentioned, it also provides that in civil proceedings alleging a discrimination, the competent judge may grant an injunction to ensure that the discrimination ceases (action en cessation) (Article 15); the Decree refers to the procedure described in the Federal Law of 25 February 2003. The Flemish Decree of 8 May 2002 on proportionate participation in the labour market also contains a penal clause (Article 11 – the author of a discrimination may be sentenced to a prison term from one month to one year or/and to a fine; in contrast to what is provided by the Walloon Decree, the imposition of a criminal sanction is not limited to instances of intentional discrimination, but rather it covers, like in the Federal Law of 25 February 2003, all forms of prohibited discrimination, even indirect and therefore possibly unintentional). Also it provides that the competent jurisdiction may impose an order that the discrimination ceases (Article 15). The comparatively poorer approach the Regions and Communities have taken, in general, to the question of sanctions for instances of discrimination, is at least partly to be attributed to the uncertainties which remain about their competences to adopt such measures. Although the 63 Regions and Communities may, when adopting Decrees175, adopt ancillary penal clauses to ensure that these Decrees are effectively sanctioned, they have in principle no competence in the criminal law, which remains a federal domain – only the Federal legislator, for instance, may amend the Penal Code. And although controversies exist on this point, it is doubtful that the Regions and Communities may, when adopting Decrees in domains falling within their competence, include provisions about the competences of courts and tribunals or the modalities under which they will exercise these competences176. This uncertainty – or this incapacity – has constituted a serious obstacle for the full implementation of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC in the Belgian legal order. In particular, it may explain the failure of the Walloon Region and the French-speaking Community to comply with Article 9(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC and Article 7(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC. Another difficulty is due, more broadly, to the different understandings which still coexist concerning the level at which the different aspects of these Directives should be implemented in the Belgian legal order. For instance, to justify the fact that when adopting the Décret relatif à la mise en oeuvre du principe de l'égalité de traitement on 19 May 2004, the French-speaking Community has adopted neither civil nor penal sanctions, to ensure that any violations of the principle of equal treatment will be sanctioned effectively, the authors of the text mention that such civil or penal sanctions, to the extent they are required by Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, are provided for in the Federal Law of 25 February 2003, which would be sufficient. The Decree of the French-speaking Community in fact contains only one provision according to which discrimination committed by an agent of the Community will lead to disciplinary sanctions (see Article 9). However, this reasoning is based on the presumption that the Federal Law of 25 February 2003 applies to situations which in principle fall under the competences of the Communities in the Belgian Federal system – for instance, to the relationship between the Community and its personnel in the field of education. This presumption is at least debatable, and probably incorrect. “Ordonnances” for the Region of Brussels-Capital. For instance, Article 18 of the Flemish Decreet houdende evenredige participatie op de arbeidsmarkt of 8 May 2002 intended to modify the Judicial Code (Code judiciaire), specifically Article 581 of that Code listing the situations in which the employment tribunal (tribunal du travail) may deliver injunctions on the basis of proceedings requesting the cessation of a practice considered prima facie illegal (action en cessation). A compromise had to be reached after the Federal Government envisaged to refer this to the Court of Arbitration (Cour d’arbitrage), considering that the Flemish Community may not on its own motion modify this text. 176 175