Category: Publications

A new collective labour agreement no. 162 was concluded within the National Labour Council to transpose European Directive 2019/1158 of 20 June 2019 on work-life balance for parents and family carers (Work-Life Directive).

What does this mean for the employer?

Employees with families have the right to request flexible working arrangements within the company to care of young children up to the age of twelve, or seriously ill family members. This is not about new schemes or leave but the possibility of adjusting the existing working arrangement by mutual agreement, where possible.

For these adjustments to the working arrangements the needs expressed by the workers should be taken into account. The employer, however, may take into account economic or organisational reasons to justify any postponement or refusal, or it may also propose an alternative solution.

There is a seniority condition of six months prior to written application.

The request for a flexible working arrangement is possible for a period of up to 12 months and relates to an adjustment of the employee’s existing work pattern, in particular in the form of:

• remote working (e.g. teleworking no. 85 structural teleworking);

• an adjustment of the work schedule (e.g. flexible working hours);

• a reduction of working hours.

The possibility, with safeguards, of an early return from the flexible working arrangement to the original working arrangement.

Employees making use of this system are protected against any adverse treatment (indemnity of two to three months’ salary), therefore also protected from redundancy (indemnity of four to six months’ salary).

***

The new collective agreement came into force on 1 October 2022.

For more information, please contact the employment law team.

In 2020, the European Union introduced their strategy for Europe’s Digital Future. Since then, the Union has focused on making the transformation towards a more digital Europe ‘work for people and businesses, while helping to achieve its target of a climate-neutral Europe by 2050’. By doing so, the Commission proposed in relation to digital services a ground-breaking new legislative regulation: the Digital Services Act (DSA), introducing ‘a common set of rules on intermediaries’ obligations and accountability across the single market’. Recently, on the 5th of July 2022, almost 18 months after the Proposal was first published, the European Parliament officially adopted the legislative act whereas earlier this month, on the 4th of October, the European Council followed the Parliament’s decision in its first Competitiveness Council meeting, almost settling the DSA as a ‘done deal’.

The realisation of such legislative act is no surprise. As the enormous expansion over the last decades of new technologies, such as digital platforms and other applications of data, has introduced new opportunities and innovations, law inevitably has to follow, resulting in yet another set of obligations laid down from the supranational level on businesses performing their services in the EU. The question at hand however, according to stakeholders, remains whether the new legislative act will not lead to overregulation, making it law-after-law more difficult to fulfil all requirements of the European regulatory framework.

According to the European Commission, the term ‘digital services’ encompasses a large number of services that contain an online element, diverging from ‘simple websites’ to ‘internet infrastructure services and online platforms. In short, a digital service contains two main elements, being the delivery via the internet or another electronic network to a receiver in an automated way and the need for no to little human intervention. Therefore, similar to the GDPR, the DSA will apply to a very broad spectrum of businesses, namely all online intermediaries/platforms that offer services within the Union, as long as the recipient is situated in the Union. As such, non-EU companies will have to appoint a legal representative in the Union to ensure a level playing field within the Single Market.

Due to its large scope of application, a lot of businesses will be forced to adapt to the new regulation, based on their place in the act’s provided taxonomy. Intermediary services, hosting services and (very large) online platforms will each have to comply with their own new set of asymmetrical designed obligations, with very large online platforms as the smallest group with the most extensive set of rules. SME’s on the other hand will face obligations proportionate to their size, impact, role and ability, while large enterprises will be subject to a stricter set of rules. Think of risk preventing measures, transparency increasing obligations on online advertisements or provisions against illegal content. Whether or not these rules apply will depend on the size of the company.

With the recent adoption of both the Parliament and the Council, the only question that remains is when this new set of rules will come into force. First, the act will need to be published in the EU Official Journal, entering into force the very earliest twenty days after publication, but more likely around Christmas. Since the legislator opted for a regulation, the DSA will be directly applicable across the EU, which results that in early 2024 we can expect the application of the rules for all relevant parties (except for very large online platforms who will have to conform with the obligations already one year earlier).

If you have any questions or want more information on your obligations under the Digital Services Act, please do not hesitate to contact Steven De Schrijver or Thomas Charon.

Sources:

https://dsa-observatory.eu/2022/09/12/digital-services-act-adoption-entry-into-force-application-dates-dsa/

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age_en

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/10/04/dsa-council-gives-final-approval-to-the-protection-of-users-rights-online/

Good marketing is storytelling. It is making the consumer believe they have to be part of an experience. Today, we see a surge in fashion houses adopting marketing strategies and campaigns centered around sustainability and the environmentally-friendliness of their garments. As consumers tend to make more environmentally conscious decisions in their day-to-day lives, the fashion industry also has jumped on the e-bandwagon.

Trademarks make great assets within green marketing strategies, as they can play a key role in conveying the “eco-friendliness” of goods and services.

One way of conveying certain green credentials of goods and services is by using certification and collective marks. Worldwide more than 60 different collective and certification marks have been established in the textile and garment industry 1. Certification and collective marks guarantee that certain goods and services bearing the mark comply with specific standards set out by the owner of the marks.

Certification marks indicate that the goods and services have specific characteristics. The owner of a certification mark sets forth the regulations of use and has to grant its permission to companies before they can affix the mark. Such regulations of use set sustainable standards.

Example of a certification mark:

The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) is the worldwide leading textile processing standard for organic fibres, including ecological and social criteria, backed up by independent certification of the entire textile supply chain.

Collective marks on the other hand indicate the commercial origin of certain goods and services by informing the consumer that the producer of the goods or the service belongs to a certain association which unite companies with similar interests. Members of an association can for example have the same sustainable development goals.

Swiss Textiles, unites more than 200 internationally oriented, innovative small and medium-sized companies from the Swiss textiles industry.

Lately a shift has been noticeable. Fashion companies are increasingly resorting to their individual trademarks to indicate their environmental engagement. In doing so the main function of individual trademarks, being source identifiers, is evolving to indicating sustainable credentials of certain goods and services.

Some examples of green individual trademarks:

Prada

“PATAGONIA WE’RE IN BUSINESS TO SAVE OUR HOME PLANET”

Ganni

As the amount of green trademarks and green campaigns is rapidly growing, the other side of the coin is the increasing concern for the phenomenon of greenwashing. Greenwashing refers to the use of false, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims about the sustainability of goods and services.

This month the fast-fashion giant “BOOHOO” made headlines launching her new “sustainable” capsule collection and appointing Kourtney Kardashian Barker as her sustainability ambassador. Both BOOHOO as well as Kourtney Kardashian Barker received enormous backlash and were accused of greenwashing.

In the same way as green branding can boost the image of your company, greenwashing could be detrimental to it. You even risk being held accountable on the grounds of unfair commercial practices.

Use the following tips to avoid greenwashing:

– Back your claims with verifiable data

– Specify your claims

– Use clear and easy claims

– Be transparent about the sustainability practices.

Nowadays there is a pressure for companies to show their commitment to sustainability. The different kind of trademarks are great tools for conveying the sustainable credentials of your goods and services. But be Aware ! Make sure you are able to back up your claims ! Contact an expert to guide you , IP@astrealaw.be.

Our experts: Christine De Keersmaeker, Levi Van Dijck, Thaïssa Nuyens, Katrijn Huon, Yuki Choy.

1 https://www.standardsmap.org/en/identify?products=Textiles%20%2F%20Garment&sectors=

As traffic jams are getting longer every day, more and more employees are discovering the bicycle as a method of commuting.

To encourage this movement, the federal government has presented its Federal Action Plan “BE CYCLIST” with measurable goals in September 2021. It is a three-year plan with interim evaluations every year in September.

At the request of the ministers concerned, the Central Business Council and the National Labour Council issued an advisory report. This report highlights the bicycle allowance as an important instrument for getting more employees to commute by bike.

A bicycle allowance is exempted from social contributions and withholding taxes up to an amount of 0.24 EUR per kilometer for income year 2021 (0.25 EUR /km for income year 2022).

Employers are not obliged to provide a bicycle allowance, unless the competent joint committee provides for a specific (bicycle) allowance in sectoral collective labour agreements. These sectoral collective labour agreements then provide for a specific amount of the bicycle allowance (which may or may not be the maximum exempted amount) or an alternative allowance.

Of course, employers can always grant a bicycle allowance on a voluntary basis.

If you want to find out more about this for your own business, you can get in touch with our employment law team: Rudi Desmet, Steve Tronckoe, Fréderique Vermaete, Wendy Denoodt, Karine Roobrouck, Jonas Jespers.

Usain Bolt, also known as the world’s fastest man, submitted a trade mark application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( USPTO), requesting the registration of his iconic victory pose the lightning bolt. (see also: De Standaard, The Guardian en Washington Post)

According to the application, the Olympian seeks to protect a mark consisting out “of the silhouette of a man in a distinctive pose, with one arm bent and pointing to the head, and the other arm raised and pointing upward”. Usain Bolt claims protection for the use of the bolting trademark for a number of goods such as sunglasses, jewelry, bags, clothing, sporting goods, restaurants and sport bars.

A trademark is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises. A sign may consist out of letters, words, symbols, shapes, sounds, etc. or a combination thereof.

Although the possibilities are almost endless, physical poses do not qualify as a registerable sign as such. Nonetheless, the image or the stylized contour of the pose can be registered as a trademark when filed as a symbol. A renowned example of a trademarked pose is the image of Michael Jordan dunking, also called the “Jumpman”.

You can consult another gesture mark here.

In the sporting industry we notice an increase of athletes registering individual trademarks as a strategy to build and commercialize their personal brand. These trademarks often consist out of nicknames, signatures or catchphrases.

Important to note is that in 2009 Usain Bolt already successfully obtained trademark protection for 2 variations of his iconic “Bolting” move in the US. Unfortunately, due to the lack of proof of use of these preceding trademarks they were cancelled.

That’s why we predict that the current trade mark application will most likely mature to registration. But we will keep you posted!

If you have any questions on filing a (maybe not so conventional) trademark, please do not hesitate to contact our IP-team: Christine De Keersmaeker, Levi Van Dijck, Thaïssa Nuyens, Katrijn Huon, Yuki Choy.

In a previous article (“NFT, THE NEW HYPE. WHAT ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS?”) we took a closer look at Non Fungible Tokens or NFTs and explained what exactly these NFTs are. Even though NFTs are not completely new, the first ones appeared in 2015, we are currently entering unknown territory with this relatively new phenomenon. NFTs give rise to various legal questions, including their relationship to intellectual property rights. Since there is no specific legislation regulating NFTs, we are bound to rely on the general principles of current (intellectual property) law and its application in case law. With more companies venturing into the metaverse, we are also seeing more conflicts arising that are increasingly being brought before courts around the world. The importance of this case law cannot be underestimated given the legal vacuum in which NFTs find themselves. With this article, we would like to give you a brief but clear overview of four high-profile NFT-cases currently pending before the courts.

Hermès vs. Rothschild

One of the first cases that received a lot of attention is the Hermès vs. Rothschild case. In January 2021, the French luxury goods manufacturer Hermès, known among other things for the Birking bag, sued the artist Maso Rothschild after he had created a collection of 100 “MetaBirkins” NFTs. The NFTs refer to images of the famous “Hermès Birkin bags” covered in a fur coat in a range of different colours.

Hermès claims Rothschild “is a digital speculator who is seeking to get rich quick by appropriating the brand METABIRKINS for use in creating, marketing, selling, and facilitating the exchange of digital assets known as non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”). Defendant’s METABIRKINS brand simply rips off Hermès’ famous BIRKIN trademark by adding the generic prefix “meta” to the famous trademark BIRKIN.” Hermès argues that Rothschild’s widespread use of the “MetaBirkins” mark constitutes trademark infringement and dilution of the famous Birkin trademark.

In response Rothschild filed a motion to dismiss in which he argues that, because the digital images of the “Birkin bags” that are tied to the NFTs he sells are ‘art,’ the Second Circuit’s test in Rogers v. Grimaldi applies, and that applying the Rogers test requires dismissing Hermès’s claims on First Amendment grounds. The Rogers v. Grimaldi ruling allows artists to use trademarks provided it is artistically relevant and does not explicitly mislead the consumers as to the source or content of the work. Although the court found the Rogers test to be applicable in the Hermès vs. Rothschild case, the motion to dismiss was eventually denied. The court found Hermès sufficiently alleged that Rothschild intended to associate the “MetaBirkins” mark with the popularity and goodwill of Hermès’s Birkin trademark, rather than intending an artistic association. In this regard, the court referred to Rothschild’s statements that his “MetaBirkins” were intended as a tribute to Hermès’ most famous handbag, “the Birkin” and that he wanted to see as an experiment if he could create that same kind of illusion that “the Birkin bag” has in real life as a digital commodity. Furthermore, the court found the use of “MetaBirkins” mark was explicitly misleading. In this regard, the court referred to the fact that consumers had already expressed their confusion on the “MetaBirkins” Instagram about Hermès’ involvement in the “MetaBirkins” collection. Similarly, there was also confusion in the media as magazines Elle, L’Officiel and the New York Post had all mistakenly reported that the “MetaBirkins” NFTs were unveiled by Hermès in partnership with Rothschild.

Nike vs. StockX

In February 2022, Nike sued StockX, the operator of an online resale platform for various brands of sneakers, apparel, luxury handbags, electronics, and other collectible goods, for the unauthorized and infringing use of Nike’s famous marks in connection with StockX’s “Vault NFTs”. Nike alleges StockX is minting “Vault NFTs” that prominently use Nike’s trademarks without Nike’s previous authorization or approval, marketing those NFTs using Nike’s goodwill, and selling those NFTs at heavily inflated prices to unsuspecting consumers who believe or are likely to believe that those NFTs are minted or authorized by Nike which they are not. Nike bases its claims on trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, trademark dilution and injury to business reputation and dilution.

StockX in turn argues the NFTs are not virtual products or digital sneakers but only serve to track ownership of a physical Nike product secured in its vault. According to StockX each Vault NFT is tied to a specific physical good that has been authenticated by StockX. Consumers who purchase the Vault NFTs have two options regarding ongoing possession: (1) retain digital possession of the Vault NFT and leave the authenticated physical good in StockX’s vault; or (2) take possession of the physical good from the vault in which case the Vault NFT is removed from the customer’s digital portfolio and permanently removed from circulation. The Vault NFT itself would have no intrinsic value and merely functions as a claim ticket, or a “key” to access the underlying physical item.

Furthermore, StockX’s asserts its use of images of Nike sneakers and descriptions of re-sale Nike products in connection with StockX Vault NFTs constitute fair use. StockX claims “It is no different than major e-commerce retailers and marketplaces who use images and descriptions of products to sell physical sneakers and other goods, which consumers see (and are not confused by) every single day. Nike’s suit threatens the legitimate use of NFTs not just by StockX, but by other innovators that also use NFTs to track title to physical goods held in a vault, such as fine art, whiskey, and wine”.

On 25 May 2022 Nike amended its complaint due to the discovery of additional facts which Nike found to be “highly relevant to its claims against StockX”. Nike refers to its entry into the NFT market since the filing of its complaint in February and more in particular the release of the Nike Dunk Genesis CryptoKicks™ NFTs, along with the Evo Skin Vial NFTs, which allow owners of the Nike Dunk Genesis NFTs to customize the colorway of the digital shoes. Furthermore, Nike alleged it obtained 4 pairs of counterfeit “Nike” shoes from StockX, which were verified as authentic.

In an answer to Nike’s amended complaint, StockX says “StockX’s 100% Verified Authentic process is understood by its customers and has been praised by consumers, commentators and industry participants alike, including Nike. StockX is at the forefront of combatting counterfeiting”, concluding Nike’s initial claims and new allegations lack any merit.

Miramax LLC vs. Tarantino

In November 2021, Miramax filed a lawsuit against Quentin Tarantino after the movie director revealed his plans to auction off seven exclusive scenes from the 1994 motion picture Pulp Fiction in the form of NFTs. Each NFT would contain one or more previously unknown secrets of a specific scene from Pulp Fiction (“the secrets from Pulp Fiction”). Miramax claims this is particularly problematic as Tarantino granted and assigned nearly all of his rights to Pulp Fiction to Miramax in 1993, including the rights necessary to mint the secrets from Pulp Fiction that Tarantino intends to sell. According to Miramax “Tarantino’s limited “Reserved Rights” under the operative agreements are far too narrow for him to unilaterally produce, market, and sell the Pulp Fiction NFTs”.

In essence, this case revolves around contract interpretation, and in particular which party has the right to develop, mint, market and sell the NFTs relating to Pulp Fiction on that basis.

Roc-A-Fella Records Inc. v. Damon Dash.

Damon Dash, co-owner of the record label Roc-A-Fella Records Inc. alongside Jay-Z and Kareem Burke, announced plans to mint and sell an NFT of the debut album of Jay-Z ‘Reasonable Doubt’. Roc-A-Fella Records Inc. then sued Dash to prevent him from auctioning off this NFT in June 2021. A temporary restraining order was granted in favour of Roc-A-Fella Records Inc. by a district court in New York prohibiting Dash from “altering in any way, selling, assigning, pledging, encumbering, contracting with regard to, or in any way disposing of any property interest in Reasonable Doubt, including its copyright and including through any means, such as auctioning a non-fungible token (“NFT”) reflecting such interests”.

Meanwhile, a settlement has been reached between parties clarifying that “Roc-A-Fella Records Inc. owns all rights to the album ‘Reasonable Doubt,’ including its copyright. No shareholder or member of Roc-A-Fella Records Inc. holds a direct ownership interest in ‘Reasonable Doubt’”.

***

We note that an increasing number of NFT lawsuits are being filed in courts that do not only deal with intellectual property issues but also with other legal aspects. We refer to lawsuits such as Yuga Labs, Inc. (the company behind the popular collections of Bored Ape Yacht Club tokens) v. Ryder Ripps, Jeeun Friel v. Dapper Labs, Lil Yachty v. Opolous, etc.

It is recommended that these and other cases be closely monitored as they will provide a first set of indications regarding how courts will handle NFT-related intellectual property claims.

For more information regarding NFT4s and intellectual property rights, contact our IP-team: Christine De Keersmaeker, Levi Van Dijck, Thaïssa Nuyens, Katrijn Huon, Yuki Choy.

Whilst you may be enjoying a lunch at some sunny holiday destination, the Court of Justice of the EU has, on the 14th of July, rendered a judgment in the case of the EU Commission against Denmark (C-159/20), that concerns the very salad you may be eating for lunch.

The discussion centered around the typical ingredient for a tasty Greek salad (and many other dishes), namely Feta cheese.

Feta is, since 2002, registered as a protected designation of origin (PDO) and as such cheese can only be named Feta when it comes from the defined area in Greece where it is traditionally produced according to applicable product specifications.

Denmark however had allowed that cheese produced in its country and intended for export to third countries was named Feta, which was not appreciated by the EU Commission, who brought action against the country for allowing ‘Danish Feta’ to be exported to non-EU countries, an action supported by Greece and Cyprus.

Denmark argued that the EU Regulation 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (which amongst others deals with PDOs and the similar protected geographical indications – PGIs) only applies to products sold in the EU and does not apply to products intended for export to non-EU countries, so there was no obligation for them to prevent or stop production of products for which the name Feta was used.

The Court of Justice however did not follow Denmark’s reasoning and decided the Regulation in question also applies in this case where the cheese was intended for export, as the use of PDOs/PGIs to designate a product that is produced in the EU but does not comply with the product specifications, violates the intellectual property rights protecting producers of products resorting under PDOs/PGIs. Allowing such violation would deprive these producers of fair returns for the qualities of their products, which for that reason are protected by PDOs/PGIs.

The same applies for other PDOs/PGIs in the EU, which protect against market imitations with the same name popping up outside of where the product traditionally comes from, even if they are purely intended to be exported outside of the EU.

So bottom line, the Feta cheese in your Greek salad really needs to be Greek or you will have to name it a Danish salad, which does not really have the same sunny ring to it, does it?

On 1st August 2022, the Belgian law transposing the European Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market n° 2019/790 was published in the Belgian Gazette. The implemented provisions entered into force on that same day.

The DSM-Directive focuses on the next key points:

– 4 new mandatory exceptions to copyright ad related rights

– Wider access to out-of-commerce protected content

– New measures for improving the position of right holders

– New right for press publishers

– New legal framework for online content-sharing service providers

– Measures ensuring appropriate and fair remuneration for authors and performers

For more information concerning the changes brought by the DSM-Directive we refer to our blogpost of 4th July.

For more information please contact : IP@astrealaw.be

or contact Christine De Keersmaeker, Levi Van Dijck, Thaïssa Nuyens, Katrijn Huon, Yuki Choy.

The market in crypto-assets has frequently been compared to the wild west due to its lack of regulatory framework. This is however about to change to a certain extent now the Council of the EU and the European Parliament have finally reached a provisional agreement on the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation. The proposal, dating back to September 2020, is meant to create a safer market for investors while also providing the right tools to enhance the digital revolution.

A Framework to embrace the digital age

The emergence and triumph of crypto currencies, like Bitcoin, did not go unnoticed. For the last few years, its popularity has been increasing tremendously. This rapid innovation has, however, caused many regulatory gaps. National jurisdictions worldwide have tried to remedy some of these gaps by implementing national regulation. For example, the Belgian legislator has taken some (small) regulatory steps by amending its anti-money laundering act from 2017 and requiring crypto exchanges (insofar they trade between virtual and fiat currency) and wallet providers to register with the Belgian regulator. Non-EEA providers of such services have even been banned from Belgium.

Since crypto-assets are themselves block chain instruments that can easily be traded all over the world, there has been an obvious need for regulation with a wider scope. The EU has therefore finally agreed upon a regional legal framework which aims to provide more certainty, innovation, protection and financial stability in the light of the internal market.

Not all kinds of crypto-assets are subject to MiCA. The proposal makes a distinction between three different tokens: (1) utility tokens, (2) asset-referenced tokens and (3) electronic money tokens. The issuance of both asset-referenced tokens and electronic money tokens will be strongly regulated. Crypto currencies like Bitcoin do not fall into one of these categories. Most stablecoins on the other hand can be qualified as asset-referenced tokens.

A flood of regulation

Firstly, MiCA contains rules providing transparency and disclosure requirements for the issuance and admission to trading of crypto-assets. A so called ‘white paper’ will fulfill the role as information document containing all mandatory disclosure requirements. Detailed descriptions of the issuer, the type of crypto-asset, the underlying technology and standards, the rights and obligations attached to the crypto-asset and so on must be provided in this document. On top of that, the crypto-asset white paper must include a brief and non-technical summery including all key information.

Secondly, the framework entails the authorisation and supervision of crypto-asset service providers and issuers of asset-referenced tokens or electronic money tokens. Besides that, MiCA lays down rules concerning the operation, organisation and governance of these issuers and service providers. For example, effective policies and procedures to prevent, identify, manage and disclose conflicts of interest will have to be implemented.

Finally, with the aim of mitigating the risks of the market in crypto-assets for consumers and other actors, rules for the issuance, trading, exchange and custody of crypto-assets are provided as well as measures to prevent market abuse. Crypto-asset service providers will, inter alia, be subject to a general obligation to act in the best interest of their clients. Furthermore, the well-known prohibition of insider dealing will apply when acquiring or disposing crypto-assets.

Influence on the financial market

MiCA will fill a lot of gaps that urgently needed to be filled. Regulation on EU level definitely offers European citizens more certainty and protection than national legislation, ensuring also that the crypto industry can operate more freely and on the same level across the EU.

According to certain people it is regrettable that MiCA is not more ambitious, especially regarding sustainability. Industry backlash on previous versions of MiCA made certain compensations inevitable. Nevertheless, it is a first step in the right direction.

It could be questionned whether regional legislation will provide enough protection against a global phenomenon. Only worldwide standards for crypto-assets will ensure utmost protection. However, these are of course very difficult to reach. Perhaps the EU can be a leader in crypto regulation and more will follow, as they did with respect to privacy laws.

MiCA is expected to enter into force in 2024 following a vote in the European Parliament, which probably will adopt the text in first reading with limited amendments.

Contact: Dieter Veestreaten: dve@astrealaw.be, Jan Van loon: jvl@astrealaw.be

The European Directive of 17 April 2019 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Market
(Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC), the so-called DSM (Digital Single Market) Directive, had to be transposed into national law on 7 June 2021.

Belgium was one but not the only bad pupil in the class.

Belgium implemented the directive in the “Bill to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC”, adopted by the Federal Parliament on 16 June 2022.

It has thus taken three years to transpose the Directive of April 2019 into Belgian law. The law has not been published yet, but the publication will not be long in coming.

What does this mean in practice?

The Act contains many topics, such as:

– exceptions to copyright and related rights for text and data mining;

– exceptions to copyright and neighbouring rights for education in an electronic environment;

– provisions for the exploitation by museums, libraries and archives of works that are no longer available on the market;

– a new neighbouring right for press publishers;

– provisions on the sharing of protected content by online services;

– provisions on contract law for authors and performers.

So, in fact

a. new mandatory exceptions, inspired by the emergence of digital technologies for research, education, innovation and the preservation of cultural heritage, for which no exceptions existed before.

b. increased public access to protected content that is no longer available on the market

c. improving the position of right holders, in particular

° the press publishers through a new neighbouring right

° authors and performers, by means of new provisions on contract law

° users, via new provisions regarding the sharing of protected content (user generated content) by online services

We will only discuss point c., for questions regarding all points, you are of course always welcome to contact the Astrea IP team at ip@astrealaw.be.

A new neighbouring right for press publishers

The Act introduces a new neighbouring right for press publishers. This right regulates the granting by press publishers of licences for the online use of their publications, including through a compensation for their investments.

For each online use (reproduction and making available to the public), the service providers in the information society such as Google, Yahoo and others, not the individual user, will have to obtain the consent of the press publishers by means of licence agreements. The press publishers do not have to hold the copyright themselves for this. The duration of this new right is limited to two years.

Because the (large) service providers referred to sometimes make it difficult for the press publishers to negotiate licences and therefore licence fees, the Act provides for an arbitration procedure that can be conducted at the BIPT (Belgian Institute for Pot and Telecommunications). The arbitration decision can be appealed to the Market Court at the Brussels Court of Appeal.

Finally, it should be noted that the Act also provides that authors of works included in a press publication are entitled to a remuneration, i.e. a share of the income received by the press publishers for the use of their publications by information society service providers.

Measures to ensure appropriate and fair remuneration for authors and performers (actors, singers, musicians, etc.)

These measures include the following:

– an obligation on producers and publishers to be transparent with authors and performers with regard to exploitation and the resulting income;

– a success fee system for authors and performers where the originally agreed remuneration is too low compared to the unforeseen success of the exploitation;

– a right of withdrawal for authors and performers, i.e. the possibility of recovering their rights if their works and performances are not exploited;

– an extra-judicial settlement of disputes.

New rules on sharing protected content

– The providers of an online service such as Facebook, Youtube, Tiktok, … must obtain permission from the rightholders when they provide the public with access to copyrighted works or other protected materials uploaded by their users (user generated content or UGC). Without the authorisation of the rightholders, the providers are therefore liable for the unauthorised communication to the public, unless they can prove that they have made every effort to obtain the necessary permission. The rightholders will be entitled to compensation.

– The law provides that rightholders can demand the removal of content online and provides for a new summary procedure to combat online infringements. Service providers will have to take concrete measures to remove content.

The draft law that was approved can be found here.

It is now awaiting publication.

For additional information on the new law, please contact Christine De Keersmaeker (cdk@astrealaw.be), Thaissa Nuyens (tnu@astrealaw.be), Levi Van Dijck (lvd@astralaw.be), Yuki Choy (ych@astrealaw.be) and Katrijn Huon (khu@astrealaw.be).

Shortly after the outbreak of the corona virus, in March 2020, employers were offered the possibility to place employees on temporary unemployment because of force majeure (corona) with a simplified procedure.

It was decided that employers no longer needed to send notifications of temporary unemployment to the national employment office (RVA) and that it was sufficient for them to submit a social risk declaration at the end of the month stating the number of hours of temporary unemployment.

In principle, force majeure implies the complete impossibility to perform the employment contract. With this simplified procedure, it was possible for employees to continue working a number of days per week. Thus, the concept of force majeure was also temporarily interpreted in a slightly broader way.

As a result of the war in Ukraine, this possibility was extended if a situation of force majeure was the result of the conflict in Ukraine.

The simplified procedure was extended several times during the corona pandemic and even reintroduced, but it now seems to be coming to an end.

From 1 July 2022 onwards, the classic procedures for introducing temporary unemployment will apply again and the simplified procedure will no longer be available.

This means, among other things, that the normal formalities for introducing temporary unemployment for lack of work due to economic reasons (notification of the temporary unemployment to the national employment office, etc.) must be respected, and that for introducing temporary unemployment due to force majeure, the strict definition of force majeure must again be met (e.g. the complete impossibility to fulfil the employment contract).

On 11 May 2022 the Covid 19 “aftercare phase” came to an end in Belgium. This is also the end of the obligation for companies to apply the specific measures of the vigilance phase of the “Generic Guide to Working Safely in the Event of an Epidemic or Pandemic” and additional sector guides.

The Generic Guide was developed in close cooperation between the social partners of the High Council for Prevention and Protection at Work, experts from the Federal Public Service of Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue and the Minister of Labour. The most recent version dates from 7 March 2022.

The Generic Guide is intended as an instrument to provide companies with tools to enable them to react adequately when the competent authority declares an epidemic emergency because there is a serious threat to society.

The guide distinguishes three phases in dealing with epidemics: (i) the vigilance phase (containing measures to control the spread of an infectious agent in the company, (ii) the intervention phase (containing measures to control an outbreak or threat of an outbreak and/or to limit the spread of an infectious agent, and (iii) the critical phase (containing measures to contain a (widespread) epidemic or a pandemic and/or to avoid a (total or partial) lockdown or closure of the company(ies)).

Even though no longer mandatory today, the Generic Guide will undoubtedly remain an important tool for companies in dealing with epidemics and pandemics.

The Flemish Shipping Decree enters into force today. We give you a short introduction to this new Decree and an overview of the aspects that will be regulated by the Decree.

As of 1 June 2022, the management and use of inland waterways and shipping in the Flemish Region will be governed by the “Scheepvaartdecreet” or Shipping Decree (Official Gazette 6 May 2022). The decree coordinates and codifies existing rules in this respect, updates outdated regulations (e.g. on increasing safety on the Flemish waterways) where necessary, and enshrines a number of possibilities as to enforcement.

European legislation, in particular Directive 2009/18/EC of 23 April 2009 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Council Directive 1999/35/EC, is also (partially) implemented through the establishment of an Investigation Body for Marine Accidents and Incidents on Inland Waterways, analogous to the (federal) Maritime Safety Board.

The focus point of the Decree is an equal navigation regime in the Flemish Region, regardless of where the ship sails. The Shipping Decree will thus function as a uniform legal regime for all Flemish shipping routes, notwithstanding how the management thereof is organised.

The pursuit of uniformity in the Shipping Decree is reflected among other things in its material scope, since the rules of the Decree will apply to all vessels sailing within its territorial scope (i.e. the waterways within the Flemish Region, as well as the ports), regardless of the type of vessel. However, an exception will sometimes be made for seagoing vessels, since the rules of the Decree apply specifically to inland vessels (e.g. for the transport of dangerous goods along the inland waterways and the safety of inland vessels).

In addition, the Shipping Decree also regulates the Flemish ports, crucial bodies for inland navigation and shipping in Flanders. For the ports, too, a large part of the regulation has already been laid down by decree (in the so-called Ports Decree). However, there are a number of matters that will be regulated by the Shipping Decree, and as such the Decree will also be applicable in the four major Flemish ports. It concerns the clearing of stranded, sunken and unattended/unmanaged ships and other obstacles, and the rules on shipping accidents.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that also the privileges that fall under the competence of the Regions are now included in the Shipping Decree, such as the port dues, pilotage dues, and fees for the use of shipping guidance systems. The decree stipulates that these will rank equally with the highest-ranking privileges under federal law (i.e. under the Shipping Code).

Even though the new Decree brings some harmonisation and fills in gaps as far as matters under Flemish competence are concerned, in practice it will often still be necessary to consult both Flemish and federal legislation, given the fragmentation of competence areas between the two levels.

For any questions regarding the Shipping Decree and its impact, Astrea’s transport and logistics team is always available.

Our Corporate & Partner Steven De Schrijver contributed the Belgian chapter to AI, Machine Learning & Big Data 2022 which covers trends, ownership/protection, antitrust/competition laws, criminal issues, civil liability, implementation into business, board of directors/governance, discrimination and bias, regulations/government intervention and national security and military issues in relation to AI, Machine Learning & Big Data laws and regulations in 24 jurisdictions.

Click here to read more.

Dieter Veestraeten contributed the Belgian chapter to the International Comparative Legal Guide to lending & secured finance 2022.
Astrea Banking & Finance Partner Dieter Veestraeten has contributed the Belgian Chapter 27 of the International Comparative Legal Guide (ICLG) to Lending & Secured Finance 2022.

The ICLG to Lending & Secured Finance covers common issues in lending and secured finance laws and regulations – including guarantees, collateral security, financial assistance, syndicated lending/ agency/trustee/transfers. The Country Question and Answer Chapters give a broad overview of common issues in the laws and regulations of this practice area in 40 jurisdictions.

All chapters are written by leading lending and secured finance lawyers and industry specialists.

Click here to read the complete chapter written by Dieter Veestraeten.

On 25 April 2022, the Belgian project of law, transposing Directive 2019/2161 on better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules, was approved in the Belgian Chamber. This law brings several changes to Books I, VI, XV of the Belgian Economic Code. The most important changes are summarized below.

Several strict rules are introduced concerning the announcement of a price reduction to consumers. Here, reference will have to be made by the trader to a “reference price” used prior to the application of the price reduction. This price normally corresponds to the lowest price applied by the trader during a period of 30 days prior to the application of the price reduction. When the price reduction is progressively increased, the “reference price” will however entail the price without the price reduction (the price before the first application of the price reduction).

Furthermore, this law expands the scope of the current framework by giving consumers the ability to exercise traditional consumer rights when buying digital goods, services, and content.

When consumers are offered a product or service “for free”, but in exchange of information relating to their personal data, these consumers will benefit of a similar protection as consumers who purchase a product or service against payment of a price.

Important changes are also made regarding the consumer’s right of withdrawal, especially as regards service contracts and in cases where the trader provides digital content to the consumer which is not supplied on a tangible medium or a digital service.

Stricter provisions on misleading consumers will also be introduced, especially as regards to the information provided or not provided to a consumer in a digital context.

The assessment and sanctioning of infringements by traders are also more broadly outlined in this law. In order to impose a possible fine on a trader due to infringements or to determine the amount of the fine, new non-exhaustive and indicative criteria are introduced in the Belgian Economic Code. As a result of this new law, the fine imposed on a trader can also be higher than before.

Consequently, the legislative proposal entails numerous changes, which may have an impact on your business. The law will enter into force on 28 Mai 2022. Do you have questions about these changes? Astrea is happy to assist you in this matter.

The Belgian federal council of ministers on Friday, 22th of April approved a bill that updates marine and maritime security law in the Belgian ports and marine areas under Belgian jurisdiction.

The new act will, in the first place, focus on port and port facility security, which is a core policy objective of Vice-Premier and Minister for North Sea Vincent Van Quickenborne given the high prevalence of illicit – drug-related – cargo entering the EU annually through Belgian ports.

Further, the new act will foresee additional legal basis, and will provide the competent authorities with increased tools, for denying foreign vessels access to Belgian ports. While this is in the first place relevant in the context of the war on drugs and traceability of cargo and personnel, the mechanisms included in the bill may also prove useful for implementation of international and European sanctions, such as the ones currently being imposed on Russian-owned vessels.

Thirdly, the act is to provide additional security mechanisms for offshore infrastructure, for which security plans will have to be implemented by the infrastructure operators, and approved by a national maritime security body, in a similar fashion to port facility security plans.

The bill is now submitted for advice to the Council of State. It is the Minister for North Sea’s intention that the act will enter into force in 2023.

Astrea has advised and litigated regularly on port and maritime security matters.

On 17 March 2022, the Belgian project of law, transposing Directive 2019/770 on Digital Content and Services and Directive 2019/771 on Consumer Sales has been approved in the Belgian Chamber.

These Directives, adopted on 20 May 2019, relate to consumer protection and are part of a broader effort to create a digital single market. Although both Directives aim at maximum harmonization, the Directives leave a certain margin to the Member States with regard to their implementation (see below).

Both Directives apply to B2C-contracts. Whereas the Consumer Sales Directive applies to the sale of tangible and movable goods in exchange for a price, the Digital Content Directive applies to the sale of digital content (applications) or digital services (streaming services) in exchange for a price or personal data.

Although both Directives regulate the same aspects (conformity requirements, consumer remedies, exercise of remedies), the Directives complement each other, without overlapping.

Digital content and digital services will in principle fall under the scope of the Digital Content Directive. However, in the case of goods containing digital elements, the Consumer Sales Directive will apply. Goods containing digital elements can be defined as follows: Goods for which the digital content or services are “necessary” in order for the goods to fulfil their functions and which are supplied pursuant to the sales contract. For example: smart phones, smartwatches, smart refrigerators, smart TV sets, laptops, navigation devices, kitchen robots, electric bicycles, modern cars, etc. The “necessity”-requirement aims at targeting certain digital content or services that are not already incorporated in the good from the beginning. An example thereof is the necessary update of the operating software of a smartphone, installed after purchase. The requirement that the digital content or services must be included in the sales contract ensures that separately purchased digital content or services do not fall within the scope of the Consumer Sales Directive (but under the Digital Content Directive).

Under both the Consumer Sales Directive and the Digital Content Directive, an obligation to provide updates exists both as a subjective and objective conformity requirement. If the agreement is silent on the updates to be provided, the updates as reasonably expected by the consumer are to be provided by the seller. If the updates are not delivered or are delivered inadequately, this implies is a non-conformity. The duration of the obligation to provide updates depends on whether or not a continuous supply of the digital content or services is provided.

With regard to the rules on warranty periods and reversal of the burden of proof, the Directives introduce the following changes:

Under the Consumer Sales Directive: The Belgian legislator has chosen to maintain the warranty period for goods at 2 years, as is currently the case. In case of a good with digital elements, whereby the sales contract provides for continuous delivery of the digital content or the digital service for more than two years, the seller will be liable for any non-conformity of the digital content or digital service which arises or becomes apparent during the period in which the digital content or digital service has to be provided in accordance with the sales contract.

In addition, the Belgian legislator has chosen to introduce a period of two months within which the consumer must notify the seller of the non-conformity, which commences after the date on which the consumer has discovered the defect. The seller and the consumer may agree to a longer period.

Whereas previously a non-conformity that became apparent within a period of 6 months from delivery was presumed to exist at the time of delivery unless proven otherwise, this presumption period is now extended to 2 years.

Under the Digital Content and Services Directive: Where a contract provides for a single delivery or for a series of separate deliveries, the seller is liable for a non-conformity which becomes apparent within 2 years as from such delivery. This period is suspended during the time required for the digital content or digital service to conform or in the case of negotiations between the seller and the consumer with a view to an amicable settlement. Where the contract provides for continuous delivery during a period of time, the seller is liable for any lack of conformity which arises or becomes apparent during the period of time during which the digital content or digital service is to be provided under the contract. In such a case, the burden of proving conformity of the digital content or the digital service is on the seller to the extent of any non-conformity which becomes apparent during that period.

During a period of 1 year from supply of the digital content or digital service, the non-conformity is presumed to exist at the time of delivery unless proven otherwise by the seller.

Consequently, the legislative proposal entails numerous changes, which may have an impact on your business. The law will enter into force on 1 June 2022. Do you have questions about these changes? Astrea is happy to assist you in this matter.

Following the seizure by the British tax authorities of three NFTs, the Dutch court in Leeuwarden, has also seized an NFT.

The dispute concerns an NFT from Ozzy Osbourne’s “Cryptobatz” collection.

On 20 January 2022, the parties, concluded an agreement whereby the ‘buyer’, instructed the ‘seller’, to buy an NFT from the “Cryptobatz Collection” for the buyer’s benefit from a ‘third party seller’. For this purpose, the ‘buyer’ did put both cash and crypto currency at the ‘seller’s’ disposal.

The ‘seller’ proceeds to purchase the NFT from the ‘third party seller’. However, the characteristics, which determine how rare the Cryptobat, and thus the NFT, is, were not revealed until after the purchase. It turned out, after the purchase, that it was a rare NFT and worth a lot of money.
The ‘seller’ therefore decides to keep the Cryptobat NFT in his own possession and to transfer another, much less rare, and thus less valuable Cryptobat NFT to the ‘buyer’.

The ‘buyer’ becomes aware of this and gives notice to the ‘seller’ to deliver the correct Cryptobat NFT. The ‘buyer’ believes that the ‘seller’ is in breach of its contractual obligations as he did not transfer to the ‘buyer’ the Cryptobat NFT specifically purchased for the ‘buyer’.
The ‘seller’ does not respond to the ‘buyer’s’ formal notice and explicitly refuses to transfer the correct Cryptobat NFT to the ‘buyer’. Subsequently, the ‘seller’ allegedly transfers the correct Cryptobat NFT to a friend’s wallet.

In view of the foregoing events, the ‘buyer’ decides to bring a claim for conservatory seizure before the Dutch court in Leeuwaarden. The ‘buyer’, among others, claims that the private keys, access codes and security codes should be handed over to the court’s bailiff, which would ensure that the NFT would not “disappear” during the proceedings on the merits of the case. The ‘buyer’ is of the opinion that a seizure of an NFT is indeed possible in view of the fact that an NFT should legally be qualified as an “object”, or at least a “property right” which can thus be seized.

The Dutch court followed the ’buyer’s’ opinion and granted the conservatory seizure of the Cryptobat NFT. It required the ‘seller’ to hand over the private keys, access codes and security codes to the court’s bailiff, who will keep them pending a ruling on the merits of this first NFT case in the Netherlands.

The question therefore arises today whether the Belgian courts would also grant a conservatory seizure if sought, and if so, how. After all, like Bitcoins, the legal nature of NFTs is disputed, and like Bitcoins, NFTs represent an economic value / are assessable in money, belong to the holder’s assets and are transferable. Consequently, NFTs should clearly not remain outside the reach of possible creditors. The question remains, however, which general principles of the Belgian legislation regarding seizure can be followed and how the seizure can be carried out. In our opinion, there is a case for streamlining the conservatory seizure of NFTs with that of domain names, so that the rules of seizure of intangible movable assets (other than claims) apply. However, it remains to be seen whether the Belgian courts will take the same view as the Dutch courts when a first seizure of an NFT is requested.

For more information on the intellectual property rights on NFTs, please read our previous article on this topic here

The government has recently taken decisions on a bill containing a number of labour measures, also known as the “labour deal.” The labour deal should increase the employment rate in Belgium from 71% to 80%.

This bill has currently been submitted to the social partners, so the terms of these measures may still change.

In this contribution we will highlight a few measures that may be relevant to the organisation of your company. They will require additional administration by the employer:

Flexibility at the initiative of the employee for a better work-life balance:

– Employees may request that their full-time weekly working hours of 38 hours can be performed in four working days (instead of the usual five). The maximum daily working time is therefore increased to 9.5 hours. To make this possible the work regulations must be amended first.

In case of a weekly working time between 38 hours and 40 hours, the daily working time will have to be increased to 10 hours by a company collective labour agreement.

The employee’s request is valid for a maximum of six months, but can be renewed. This period must allow the employee to leave the system after each period. A written agreement must be drawn up.

The employer may refuse the employee’s request, with adequate justification. The act would provide that such request may not have any negative consequences for the employees.

– On his or her own initiative, an employee may request an alternating weekly regime, more precisely a cycle of two consecutive weeks. The employee can perform fewer working hours in one week and more in the next. However, the average weekly working hours must be respected.

Similar modalities regarding the request and the agreement apply as in the case of the four-day working week. In this case, the employee will have the right to end the alternating weekly working regime early (i.e. during the six-month period) provided that a certain period of time is respected.

The right to disconnect

– Companies employing twenty or more employees will have to conclude a company collective labour agreement in which they will work out the practical arrangements for a “right not to be available outside working hours” with accompanying guidelines and awareness-raising measures.

Part-time variable work schedules:

– If part-time work is performed according to a variable work schedule, the employer will have to communicate the applicable work schedule seven working days in advance (instead of five working days).

The possibility of amending this period by means of a universally binding collective labour agreement is retained, but the minimum publication period is increased from one to three working days.

The previous exceptions by collective labour agreements will remain in force as long as they are not renegotiated.

Training

– Companies that employ 20 workers or more (expressed in full-time equivalent) will have to draw up a training plan for their employees every year. The training plan must be drawn up after consultation with the works council or (in the absence of a works council) the trade union delegation or (in the absence of a trade union delegation) the employees.

– Companies, employing ten or more employees (expressed in full-time equivalent), will have to implement an individual training right, which will gradually be increased from three learning days per year in 2022 to five learning days as from 2024.
Learning days can be attended during or outside working hours (with payment of normal the wages).

New features in the event of redundancy

– A “transition trajectory” is created. An employee will be allowed to be placed at the disposal of another employer-user during the performance of his notice period through an employment mediation service or a temporary work agency (interim bureau).

The employer will have to pay the wages the employer-user would normally pay (without exceeding the current wages the employee has with the employer). The employer-user must pay a proportion of the wages to the employer.

If the transition trajectory is completed at the employer-user, an employment contract of indefinite duration with the employer-user is created. For the calculation of seniority, the period of the transition trajectory will be taken into account.

– For employees with a notice period of at least 30 weeks, the notice period will be divided into a first part (2/3 with a minimum of 26 weeks) and a second part (1/3). During the second part of the notice period, the employees will have to remain available for employability-enhancing measures. These will be financed by the employer’s contributions on this part of the severance pay. The employees who perform the notice period will be allowed to be absent during this part with retention of salary in order to follow training that is conducive to employment. This arrangement complements the existing outplacement arrangement.

The bill has been sent to the National Labour Council, which has until 6 May 2022 to give its advice.

We will follow the matter closely and keep you informed!

Over the last twenty years, several European courts have judged on the question whether a selective distribution system implies that a supplier is obliged (or not) to appoint a candidate meeting all selection criteria.

On February 16th 2022, the French Supreme Court has rendered a milestone decision in three cases with respect to a selective distribution network in the automotive industry.

In each of the cases, the supplier (Hyundai Motor France and Mercedes-Benz) had refused to re-appoint a former network member as an authorized repairer, upon termination of their notice period. The supplier had rejected the re-appointment request without even verifying compliance with the selection criteria. The former network members claimed that such refusal was non-compliant to European (and national) competition law, notably the Block Exemption Regulation on Vertical Agreements n° 330/2010 (“BER”).

The Court stated that the principle of “freedom of contract” and the prohibition of eternal commitments preclude a “right of approval” of a former member of a distribution network. In addition, the Court acknowledged that the obligation of “good faith” does not oblige the supplier to (i) determine and implement a process for selecting distributors on the basis of defined and objectively determined criteria or (ii) to apply these criteria in a non-discriminatory manner. Only a discriminatory application of the selection criteria, having as purpose or effect the distortion of competition, can be prohibited. Regrettably, the Court has not given any further guidance on that particular point. Moreover, the Court has not taken position on whether the supplier’s refusal constitutes a “unilateral conduct” or “an agreement”.

With regard to the Hyundai-cases, the Court noted that both the market share of the supplier and of the former network member was less than 30% in the relevant market and that the Hyundai distribution agreement didn’t contain any hard-core restrictions. The Court held that -under those conditions- the supplier’s refusal to re-appoint a former network member without verifying compliance with the selection criteria, didn’t result in the distribution agreement losing the benefit of the exemption conferred by the BER.

As regards to national law, the Court stated that, since the supplier had never engaged to examine a request for re-appointment, he had not committed a “fault” by not concluding a new contract. Moreover, in the Mercedes-case, the Court rejected the allegation of an “abuse of rights”, based on the fact that the supplier had referred to an existing litigation with the former network member and the consecutive breach of reciprocal confidence, in order to justify the refusal.

By this decision, the Supreme Court has confirmed the prior decisions of the court of appeal of Paris of 2019 (Mercedes-case) and 2020 (in the Hyundai-cases).

We can conclude that in France, the rejected candidate wishing to force its re-appointment will bear a heavy “burden of proof”, as he will have to demonstrate the anticompetitive object or effect of the supplier’s refusal to re-appoint him as a repairer.

Over the past ten years, personal income tax returns including income from the transfer of copyrights have increased tenfold. More and more employers are optimizing their employees’ salary package converting a reasonable portion of the gross monthly salary into copyright compensation.

Beneficial tax treatment

Compensation for the transfer of copyrights is taxed a lot more favourably than salary.

It is indeed treated as moveable income at a rate of 15%, rather than at the normal progressive personal income tax rates that apply to salary.

Prior to taxation, professional expenses may be deducted. This is expressed as a percentage of the total annual amount of copyright compensation.

For a compensation bracket of 0 to 16.680 EUR, 50% can be deducted for professional expenses.

For a compensation bracket between 16.680 EUR up to 33.360 EUR, 25% can be deducted for professional expenses.

Therefore, after deduction of professional expenses, the movable income from the transfer of copyrights up to EUR 16,680 will thus be subject to a 15% withholding tax on 50% of the compensation amount.

The application of this regime has no consequences for the employer from a social security point of view. The National Social Security Office considers these payments to be income subject to social security contributions.

If this compensation scheme involves a decrease of the monthly basic salary, the express agreement of the employee is needed. In any case, the minimum salary threshold in the applicable industry sector must always be respected.

Such a conversion might therefore also have an impact on the employee’s group insurance as the premiums are usually based on the gross monthly salary.

Can anyone apply this?

A work may be protected by copyrights if all of the following criteria are met:

– the work is the result of creative activity, and

– the work is expressed in a concrete form, and

– the work is original.

That being said, the abovementioned criteria are interpreted quite broadly. There is no formal list of creative activities that qualify for copyrights. Because the creation of something original can be interpreted broadly, this optimisation scheme is currently widely used by photographers, journalists, architects, engineers, consultants, software developers and so on.

The government has announced plans to review the scope of this regime and to tackle abuse.

In order to obtain legal certainty about a specific situation, a preliminary tax ruling from the Office of Advance Decisions in Tax Matters can be applied for.

Dual distribution refers to the situation whereby a supplier sells goods, not only to its independent distributors, but also (at a downstream-level) directly to end customers (by its own store or online), thereby competing with its independent distributors (who are not active on an upstream-level).

A new “Block Exemption Regulation on Vertical Restraints” will enter into force on 1 June 2022 and will replace the existing one (“BER 330/2010”). On 9 July 2021, the European Commission has issued proposed changes to BER 330/2010 and a draft of revised Guidelines on Vertical Restraints.

This was followed by a public consultation round. During such round, it was clear that the proposed revised rules on « dual distribution » were subject to heavy criticism from the stakeholders. In fact, the proposed revised rules would imply a U-turn: While the exemption is maintained in principle (as under BER 330/2010), it is no longer valid for any exchange of information between parties. The concerned wording and additional conditions (including very low market share thresholds) were drawn up so strictly that dual distribution would become de facto impossible.

On February 4, 2022 the European Commission has issued a draft of a new section (dealing with exchange of information in dual distribution) of the draft of the revised Guidelines on Vertical Restraints. Unfortunately, the European Commission has not given any further information on the proposed wording of this subject in the future Block Exemption Regulation.

However, under this recent statement of the European Commission, dual distribution would be exempted except for the exchange of information between parties that is not “necessary” to improve the production or distribution of the contract goods or services by the parties. Moreover, the European Commission has given more guidance, by making a non-exhaustive list of examples of which information is considered as “necessary” (e.g. technical information) or “not necessary” (e.g. future sales prices) and has acknowledged that such interpretation can vary depending on the applicable distribution model.

Although we don’t yet have a view on the total picture, it seems that “dual distribution” will remain possible in the future. It is clear, however, that the exchange of information will have to be handled with great care.

Where the exchange of information is not exempted, such practices will be subject to the presumptions of the case-law (notably, that parties participating in a concerted practice, that remain active on the market, are presumed to have taken account of the exchanged information in order to determine their market behaviour). In such case, an individual assessment will have to be done based on article 101 EU Treaty and the Horizontal Guidelines. In this regard, the European Commission refers to possible precautions in order to minimise the risk, for example by using aggregated date, by ensuring a proper delay before exchanging data, by technical measures (firewalls), by limited access by the receiving party (only persons active on the upstream market), etc.

Our partner Steven De Schrijver wrote an article about adapting the EU liability regime to the digital age and artificial intelligence (AI).

AI is a game changing technology that provides economic and societal benefits, but may also pose certain risks to its users and affected individuals. The European Union has put forward a proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on AI in April 2021. However, an important element is missing herein: how should the member states’ liability regimes deal with AI?

Read more here

NFT, the hype of the moment. However, NFTs are not that new. Already in 2015, the first tradable NFT was developed as part of the so-called Etheria project. The Etheria project proposed an artwork of 33 by 33 tiles, with each tile sold separately.

The world was clearly not ready for NFTs at that moment and the Etheria project remained largely unsold.

In 2017, a new attempt was made to put NFTs on the map. Several new NFT projects were launched, including Cryptopunks, Mooncatrescue and Cryptokitties. The latter became the first successful – yet unknown to the general public – NFT project, a game centered around collectible cat creatures- a bit like Pokémon figures- each of which a one-of–a kind which can be owned by the game players.

The real success of NFTs, however, did not occur until 2021. In the course of 2021 the awareness of NFTs among the general public grew, and with it their value skyrocketed. This sudden success was mainly caused by the creation and sale of NFT projects such as Beepl ‘s artwork “Everyday” (sold for $69 million at Christie’s), Fewocious’ “hello I’m Victor (FEWOCiOUS) and This Is My Life” (a story told through five NFT’s about gender transition sold for $2.16 million, also at Christie’s ) Cryptopunks (a collection of some 10.000 unique digital punk characters sold for prices up to $10 million), Bored Ape Yacht Club (sold for an average price of $327.000), The merge (sold for $91.8), the NFT of the first tweet (sold for over $2.9 million).
Due to the success of these new projects, the older projects also found their way to the general public. This resulted for example in the fact that all the tiles of the Etheria project were finally sold.

Meanwhile, NFTs are widely used in different branches. A sports fan can buy an NFT of the highlights of NBA games, the greatest victories of Wout Van Aert or the best goals of Club Brugge. A music lover can buy a Kings of Leon album, the master recording rights of the new Vérité single or the full length video of the Don Diablo concert as an NFT. Fashion lovers can indulge in the NFTs of virtual fashion shows/exhibitions, digital sneakers or the hidden NFTs in the Louis Vuitton’s ‘Louis : The Game’ released for its 200th anniversary or in the Burburry multiplayer game featuring toys known as Blankos. But also the car industry, food industry, diamond industry, … are taking their first steps into the world of NFT.

WHAT ARE NFTs? AND WHICH LEGAL ISSUES DO COME WITH THEM?

Many legal questions have risen with regards to new technologies in general, to block chain technology and in particular NFTs among other questions related to Intellectual Property.

In order to understand the legal implications related to NFTs it is important to firstly understand what they are. We will therefore briefly shed light on what exactly NFTs are before addressing the legal implications of NFTs in more detail.

– What are NFTs?

NFT means “Non Fungible Token”.

When something is fungible, it means that it is not unique and can easily be exchanged one on one. Money for example is fungible. All 5 EUR bills have the same value and cannot be distinguished. A 5 EUR bill can therefore perfectly be changed for another 5 EUR bill and have exactly the same value.

When something is non-fungible, it means that it is unique and cannot easily be exchanged one on one. Each asset is distinctly identifiable and has its own value. Collectors’ items, like one of a kind trading cards, are non fungible. Each card is unique and completely different.

NFTs are “digital assets” and, like cryptocurrencies (e.g. Bitcoin), they are linked to the blockchain, where the token on the blockchain represents a unique value. The main difference between NFTs and cryptocurrencies is that, unlike cryptocurrencies, NFTs are not interchangeable. Cryptocurrency is fungible and like all (bit)coins have the same value and are indistinguishable from each other. Each NFT on the other hand is unique and non-fungible.

Any (art)work can be tokenized (by a minter) to create a digital and public certificate, a proof of ownership, i.o.w. an NFT that only exists in the digital space encrypted in a blockchain. The NFT can be bought and sold and its importance lies within the proof of ownership.

– NFTs and intellectual property rights

As already mentioned, with the increasing popularity of the NFTs, comes an increasing number of questions related to intellectual property rights related to these NFTs.

In this article we will only focus on some of the copyright and trademark issues.

* Copyright

It is a common misconception that with buying an NFT, the copyrights in the digital (art)work are acquired. A distinction must be made between the ownership of an NFT, which is a unique token, and the ownership of the content to which that NFT is linked.

NFTs indeed are merely digital authenticity records of ownership whose metadata links to digital content or the “true version of the relevant work” that is available online (elsewhere). In other words, an NFT is just the “proof of ownership”.

To make the purchase of an NFT tangible, it is probably best compared to the purchase of a physical work of art. When a physical work of art is purchased , it is the work of art which is purchased , eventually together with the proof of ownership. However, by buying the aforementioned work of art you do not acquire the right to reproduce, adapt, copy, .. the relevant work. In other words, it is the work which is bought not the copyright to the work. The copyright remains with the original author unless the rights are contractually transferred to the buyer.

This principle also applies to the purchase of an NFT. By purchasing an NFT, one merely acquires a proof of ownership of an underlying digital work, but not (automatically) the copyright to the digital work. The copyrights in the digital work remain with the original author, unless they are attached to the NFT via a smart contract. As in the physical world, it is only the person who holds the copyright who has the right, to reproduce, copy, … the relevant work.

In an ideal world, the person who holds the copyright to a particular work is also the one who created the NFT for that specific work. Unfortunately, this does not always appear to be the case. Anyone is able to mint an NFT of a work, even if he or she does not own any right on the specific work. Such unauthorized minting obviously constitutes an infringement of the copyrights of the copyright owner of the work.

The act of minting of an NFT by someone who is not the holder of the copyrights in the underlying digital work is especially problematic due to the anonymity features of the block chain, which make it difficult to verify who is the rightful creator or owner of copyrights in the underlying work of the NFT.

Moreover NFTs often are proof of ownership of a digital work which is in its turn is a reproduction of a work through digitalization, also maybe without consent. In the event the author and owner of the copyrights in the original work has not authorized digitalization, there is a chain of infringement acts possible.

In theory, three scenarios can be distinguished in connection with the copyrights of the relevant works:

1. The minter of the NFT is also the holder of the copyrights of the respective work or has received the permission from the copyright holder to do so. In this scenario there is no issue from a copyright perspective.

2. An NFT is minted on a work of which the copyright has expired and fallen into the public domain. A copyright is valid up to 70 years after the death of the author. In other words, after that time, a work will be in the “public domain”, where – in theory – everybody is allowed to make a copy of the work. However, if initially the work is a physical work there may still be a copyright on a digital reproduction of the work. This is an important nuance as an NFT will always be minted with respect to a digital work or a digital reproduction. An NFT is only a proof of ownership with regards to a digital object.

3. In the context of copyright, the biggest issue is when the minter of the NFT does not own any copyrights, has not received permission from the copyright holder and the work has not fallen in the public domain. At first instance, one might believe that from the point of view of copyright law, this type of minting is a very clear copyright infringement, but it is not that simple. Indeed, the NFT is neither the (original) work nor a copy of the work, it is merely a tokenized version of the (digital) work and there is thus no unauthorized reproduction, copy, …sale.
However, there will be a clear copyright infringement if:

o the process of minting and selling the NFT involves making a copy of the underlying digital work or if an image is used as an illustration of the NFT without the essential consent of the copyright holder;

o if the minter of the NFT first creates a digital file of an analogue copyrighted work without the necessary permission;

o if the metadata would not contain the correct information about the creator of the work (violation of the moral rights of the author).

Without express copyrights being transferred or licensed to the buyer of an NFT, the latter acquires an implied non-exclusive license to display the work in its electronic wallet solely for personal use, nothing else, and certainly no commercial exploitation of the asset.

An example often referred to in order to illustrate what is allowed / not allowed is that related to the NFT for a video of a slam-dunk by the celebrity US basketball player James LeBron. Acquiring one of the rare NBA NFTs does not provide any permission regarding the use of the video itself or any merchandise relating to the video, without the NBA’s prior consent.

* Trademarks

The question regarding trademarks in the context of the metaverse and NFTs has suddenly been triggered by the lawsuit filed by Hermes against the individual behind the collection of 100 MetaBirkins NFTs.

The questions that come up in this regard are i) are trademarks also protected against the use thereof in the metaverse and ii) can NFTs be protected under trademark law.

– Protection of the trademark

A registered trademark gives the holder of the relevant trademark and/or its assignee the exclusive right to use the trade mark for the specific goods and/or services for which the sign is registered, to license the trademark, to prohibit third parties from using an identical or similar sign for similar or identical goods and/or services within the relevant territory and to react against the unlawful use by a third party of an identical or similar sign for identical and/or similar goods and/or services within the relevant territory. A special case are the well-known trademarks, which also enjoy protection against the use of the trademark for non-identical or similar goods and/or services.

If the holder of the trademark has also registered the trademark for classes linked to the metaverse, to digital art, digital tokens or collectibles or digital platforms for tokens and if the holder’s trademark is misused for an NFT, the holder of the trademark can obviously react against the latter illegal use of its trademark. This is a pure trademark infringement.

However, given the fairly new nature of the metaverse, (relevant) digital art and the NFTs, many businesses have not yet registered their signs for classes associated with the metaverse, digital art and/or NFTs . The question that logically arises is to what extent trademark owners have the possibility to react against the (illegal) use of an identical and/or similar sign in the metaverse if they have not registered it for those specific goods and/or services. It could be argued that a strict interpretation of trademark law is also applicable in such a case. However, it will be interesting to find out how the first case law will rule on this issue.

For well-known trademarks however, there should not be a real problem in this respect. After all, holders of well-known trademarks can take action against similar signs for both similar goods and/or services and for non-similar goods and/or services. If the public could possibly consider that the NFT originates from the well-known trademark holder’s business or, for example, that it originates from a cooperation with the well-known trademark holder’s business, the holder of the well-known trademark can take action against it. On this basis, it could be argued that a well- known trademark is indeed protected in the metaverse as long as the trademark is used in relation with an NFT (in the digital asset, in the name of the NFT,…)

The protection of a trademark is as important in the online as in the offline world. Therefore, in order to protect their trademark, trademark owners should on the one hand file for trademark protection for the signs or words used for their NFTs and on the other hand react to unauthorized use of their trademark in the metaverse. The first trademark litigation procedures have been initiated as from last year.

o Hermes sued the creator of the Metabirkin NFTs, Maso Rotschild, as well as the platform on which the NFT’s were sold, OpenSea. The NFTs refer to images of the famous Hermes Birkin bags in a fur coat. Hermes’s claim against Rotschild refers to the trademark infringement of ripping of the Hermes trademark BIRKIN notwithstanding the ‘Meta’ prefix. The use of a disclaimer, meant to claim no confusion was possible with Hermes’s trademark, made it, according to Hermes, worse as Hermes’s trademark was used over 3 times in the disclaimer and reference was made to Hermes’s website. Finally, Hermes said, also the use of hashtags added to the trademark infringement.

o Nike sued StockX , an online reselling platform, over “unauthorized” shoe NFTs “ and related trademark infringement and dilution and unfair competition, for marketing NFT’s which consumers may believe to be offered with Nike’s permission , creating false associations, and thus depriving Nike of its exclusive rights to commercializing its own trademarks through NFTs. Nike is bringing this claim on the basis of its existing trademarks for physical shoes as well as its trademarks for virtual shoes.

At the moment, it is just a matter of waiting to see how both cases will be judged and what position the courts will take. This will most likely have a big effect on any future court cases relating to this matter(s).

– Protection of an NFT as a trademark

Any sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one company from those of other companies may constitute a trademark. Although the NFT itself cannot be registered as a trademark as it is a blockchain-based token with a unique ID as an URL linked to a specific asset. The logos and signs associated with it on the other hand will be susceptible to registration as trademarks. For instance, the minters of the “Bored Ape Yacht Club” – a collection of 1000 avatar ape NFTs – have had their trademarks registered with the USPTO. And also the beauty brand “ELF cosmetics” decided to register the name Ne l.f.t.s as a trademark with the USPTO. In addition, major companies (such as VISA, Adidas, Pizza Hut, etc.) are also showing interest in having their own trademarks minted in order to gain a foothold in the metaverse.

CONCLUSION

The high-speed further (r)evolution of the digital environment and of the metaverse including bringing NFTs in our daily life’s illustrates once again that our legislation is not adapted to such rapid (digital) (r)evolutions. Our present legislation doesn’t mention the metaverse nor NFTs. How will intellectual property rights be implemented and used to combat intellectual property misuse and infringement?
It remains today, as during any such kind of (r)evolution, largely a matter of waiting for legal rulings by our courts to give direction.
Given the increasing interest and opportunities related to the metaverse and NFTs, we will not have to wait long before legal claims arise as well in the field of Intellectual property – where the first lawsuits are already pending – as with regards to other legal aspects such as money laundering, taxation, contract law, etc.
As for all owners of intellectual property rights , in whichever sector, is it advisable to take a look at their portfolio and consider taking all necessary steps to adapt their ownership to the metaverse business opportunities or at least to protect their own business from third party misuse.

9 February 2022

Christine De Keersmaeker & Thaissa Nuyens & Yuki Choy

IP@astrealaw.be

A standard work has been published on the new Belgian legislation surrounding “pre-pack” reorganizations and “pre-insolvency”. The book is published in French and contains an important comparative law chapter analyzing the situation in other European countries. Astrea partner Louis Verstraeten, together with two Dutch correspondents Sergei Parijs and Henk Ligtenbarg, provided the section on the Dutch WHOA (Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord). The WHOA was introduced in the Netherlands on January 1, 2021 and since then has been a widely used tool to reorganize and restructure companies without bankruptcy.

Belgium has a big head start with the possibilities introduced with the Law on the Continuity of Undertakings (WCO, Wet Continuïteit Ondernemingen) in 2009 to detect and remedy impending insolvency at an early stage through out-of-court solutions without negative publicity. For this to succeed, a public procedure is sometimes needed as a final step, the duration of which is kept as short as possible. That procedure then ends with a homologation judgement that provides legal certainty to all stakeholders involved in the reorganization.

In an English-language publication published last year, Louis Verstraeten has already provided an explanation of the pre-pack, together with an overview of the legislative amendments scheduled for 2021 and 2022.

Very quietly and relatively rapidly a new set of legislation amending the Belgian anti-money laundering act of 18 September 2017 was introduced and voted in Belgian Parliament in the course of January 2022, expanding the regulation of virtual currencies.

Although the Belgian AML Act already included certain provisions and obligations in this respect (based on European legislation), the inclusion of further (registration) requirements in the same Act is debatable and seems to shed an unnecessary negative light on virtual currencies, including cryptocurrencies.

The new rules require certain providers engaged in exchange services between virtual currencies and fiat currencies as well as custodian wallet providers to be registered in Belgium. But above all they go so far as banning such providers when they are established in a third country without having an establishment in the European Economic Area.

Registration requirements

Exchanges between virtual currencies and fiat money are defined in the Act as: “services that consist of purchase and selling transactions, with own capital, whereby virtual currencies are exchanged for fiat currency or fiat currency for virtual currencies”. Virtual currencies should be understood as: “a digital representation of value that is not issued or guaranteed by a central bank or government, that is not necessarily linked to a legally established currency and that does not have the legal status of currency or money, but that is accepted by natural or legal persons as a medium of exchange and that can be transferred, stored and traded electronically”. This means that the definition is broader than mere cryptocurrencies, but can also apply to currency used and exchanged in games.

Providers of custodian currency wallets (defined as: “an entity that provides services to secure cryptographic private keys on behalf of its clients to hold, store and transfer virtual currency”) also fall under the new legal framework.

Only those exchange and wallet providers that are located in Belgium fall within the scope of application. However, this includes providers that have a branch office in Belgium or which have located electronic infrastructure in Belgium to provide such services. The main example hereof, which is specifically targeted by the legislation, are ATMs to exchange virtual currency, whatever their origin is.

Previously, the AML Act already provided that the effective leaders of these providers had to show professional reliability and adequate suitability to run their business. Businesses could also be refused when shareholders holding at least five percent of the shares of the company (or, what is new, controlling the company from a corporate law perspective) were deemed inadequate. Further rules are still to be determined.

What is new is that the supervisory authority, the FSMA, will maintain a register of all of these service providers. A failure to register when providing such services may lead to criminal sanctions set at a prison sentence between one month and a year and a fine of 400 to 80.000 euros. The same penalty applies to providers that continue to provide services despite the fact that their registration was annulled or after having breached their obligations under the law. The FSMA is also entitled to impose administrative fines up to 2.500.000 euros.

Prohibition on non-EEA services

More important is that providers which have as a professional activity virtual currency/fiat currency exchanges and/or wallets, even if these services are ancillary or complementary, and which are governed by non-EEA law, are prohibited from providing these services in Belgium.

Despite criticism from the Council State, that oversees the quality of legislation and called this ban disproportional, the government maintained this ban as the lack of a link in Belgium, or an entity in the European Union, would be detrimental for the effectiveness of supervision on these entities.

Fintech, crypto and DeFi solutions cooperating with such providers may have to review whether or not they can continue to provide services linked with non-EEA solutions in Belgium.

Outlook

The new Act was approved in Parliament at the end of January 2022 and is set to enter into force soon. The supervisory authority (FSMA) expects that the new rules will initially apply to less than twenty providers.

It should be reminded that the European Commission is contemplating a similar ban in its proposed Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation that is being discussed between the European institutions. Certain countries, such as The Netherlands, have already introduced such a ban. MiCA is also likely to introduce a registration requirement that is similar to the new Belgian solution.

As individual member states are increasingly looking at introducing new rules governing virtual and cryptocurrencies, the need for a uniform European approach that counteracts a fragmented virtual market across the EU and that looks at both the risks and benefits of blockchain, cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance, is growing.

The TCF framework is widely used across Europe for online advertising to manage the preferences of users, including pop-ups asking for consent to use cookies for data tracking in online advertising (Consent Management Platform (CMP)), as well as real-time bidding in programmatic advertising though the OpenRTB protocol. The consent popup system can be found on 80% of the European Internet.

The Belgian DPA’s landmark decision, which it made as lead supervisory authority together with 35 other DPAs, has identified a series of GDPR infringements by IAB Europe, which was found to act as data controller with respect to the registration of data subjects’ consent signals, objections and preferences by means of a unique Transparency and Consent (TC) string, linked to an identifiable user. Summarized, the DPA concluded that:

• IAB Europe did not establish a legal basis for the processing of the TC String, while the legal grounds offered by the TCF for further processing by adtech vendors are inadequate;

• the information provided to data subjects through the CMP is too generic and vague to allow them to understand the nature and scope of the data processing, especially given the complexity of the system. Data subjects can therefore not maintain sufficient control over their personal data;

• there were no organizational and technical measures in accordance with the principle of data protection by design and by default, nor was it possible to effectively exercise data subject rights or to monitor the validity and integrity of choices made; and

• IAB Europe failed to fulfil other standard GDPR obligations on a large-scale, including the keeping of a register of data processing activities, appointing a DPO and to conduct a data protection impact assessment (DPIA).

Due to the serious infringements the Belgian DPA’s Litigation Chamber has imposed an administrative fine of 250.000 EUR. Apart from this, it has ordered the company to undertake a series of corrective measures within six months to bring the current version of the TCF into compliance with the GDPR, including:

• the establishment of a valid legal basis for the personal data processing within the TCF, and the prohibition to use legitimate interest as a basis for further processing by organizations participating in the TCF;

• the strict vetting of participating organizations in order to ensure that they meet the requirements of the GDPR; and

• to meet basic GDPR requirements, including the carrying out of a DPIA, appointing a DPO, taking the necessary technical and organizational measures.

An action plan must be provided by IAB Europe to the DPA within two months, subject to a penalty payment of 5.000 EUR per day in case of failure to comply with this time limit.

The decision has serious consequences for cookie management and many advertisers across the European Union who are coping with further restrictions to consumer data and may have to look for alternative tracking solutions. Moreover, as a consequence of the decision all data that was collected via TCF will have to be deleted as it was unlawfully processed. It also remains to be seen how the TCF will be made GDPR compliant. The decision is still appealable. IAB Europe, which does not agree with the qualification as data controller, is ‘looking at all options’.

Every year on the 28th of January we celebrate Data Protection Day, but for many companies there was not much cause for celebration last week, as several rulings have been published in this first month of 2022 putting transfers of personal data to the US further into question.

Ever since the European Court of Justice ruled the EU-US Privacy Shield invalid in the summer of 2020 (known as the “Schrems II”-ruling), data transfers to the US have become increasingly more difficult. In June 2021, the EU Commission modernised its Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”), taking into account the “Schrems II”-ruling, but only using the new SCCs is not considered sufficient. A Data Transfer Impact Assessment (DTIA) and extra safeguards for transfers outside of the EU are needed, even when using the new SCCs, and this is where things become complicated for most companies using one or more of the many tech products provided by US companies.

This is confirmed by the several rulings (and many more to come) across the EU, analysing the use of tools like WhatsApp, Google Analytics, Stripe and others, coming to the conclusion that the transfer to the US connected to the use of these tools was done in an illegitimate way. This has now become very clear by the recent rulings of the EDPS (the DPA for EU institutions) and the Austrian DPA.

In a first case before the EDPS concerning a Covid-19 testing website of the European Parliament, a complaint was made about a.o. the Google and Stripe cookies used on the website, through which personal data was (or could be) transferred to the US. The European Parliament could not provide a proper answer to the question if additional safeguards were taken besides the use of the SCCs, thus violating art. 46 and 48.2.b of the EUDPR (the data protection regulation for EU institutions similar to GDPR).

In a second case questions were raised in August 2020 about a website in Austria using Google Analytics. Again, it was established that personal data was transferred to the US when using this service (as also the user IDs attributed by Google, together with other info collected, allow identification of the user), and that also in this case the transfer to the US was incorrectly safeguarded. Here the DPA went more into detail regarding the measures Google (and the website owner) implemented and considered these as standard measures ineffective to properly safeguard the transfer to the US. None of the measures prevented Google, and mostly the US authorities, from identifying and accessing the personal data of the website user, leading to the conclusion that the transfer to the US was illegitimate and had to be stopped.

Important to note in this last case was that Google LLC (based in the US) provided Google Analytics at the time of the complaint, but this changed afterwards (when Google Ireland became the provider). This makes that the data importer (Google Ireland) is no longer located in a third country, considered as a condition to classify as a data transfer outside of the EU according to the provisional guidelines of the EDPB on this matter. Possibly Google will also change the measures it foresees, so all these elements together make that a future decision could be different and it will be a case-by-case evaluation that needs to be done.

That personal data get transferred when you least expect it, is also shown by an even more recent decision on Google Fonts by a Court in Munich (20 January 2022), where it was established that through the use of Google Fonts on a website, the IP address of the user is sent to Google, whereas the user had no choice in sharing the IP address or not, leading to a violation of GDPR (the data transfer question was not a point of discussion in this case).

So what to take away from all this?

– Be careful with the use of tools or features provided to you by non-EU-companies: check where the data transfers to and opt for a EU-alternative if possible (there are a lot these days, you would be surprised) to avoid data transfers outside of the EU.

– If you start or continue using a non-EU-product you will need to perform a DTIA and take sufficient and above all effective measures to safeguard the transfer of personal data, next to the use of SCCs.

Our data protection team is happy to assist you with any questions you may have regarding data transfers.

The new (fifth) edition of the Dutch book “Vastgoed & de complexe papierwinkel: wat u zeker niet mag vergeten!” is available. The book is written by Ciska Servais, Merel Huybrechts, Yannick Ballon, Matthias Helsen, Benoit Forêt & Jonas Deckers and gives an overview of the certificates that are needed for the sale and rental of real estate in the three Belgian regions.

For more information about this new edition, click here.

Lexology GTDT: Market Intelligence provides a unique perspective on evolving legal and regulatory landscapes in major jurisdictions around the world. Through engaging, easily comparable interviews, the series provides the legal profession’s thought leaders with a platform for sharing their views on current market conditions and developments in the law.

Market Intelligence offers readers a highly accessible take on the crucial issues of the day and an opportunity to discover more about the people behind the most interesting cases and deals.

Read the full Belgian chapter here ? 2021_Digital_transformation_Belgium

The contribution sets out the most important Belgian laws relating to privacy and data protection. It looks into the Belgian implementation of the GDPR and its results, including some of the most important fines delivered by the DPA as of May 2019 (when it became fully operational) until August 2021.

Read the entire chapter here: https://bit.ly/3cMoF78

”What To Expect From An Investigation By The Belgian DPA?”, article of our partner Steven De Schrijver and associate Jan van Loon. The article explains the purpose of the charter with respect to the Inspection Service, published by The Belgian Data Protection Authority in August 2021.

Click here to read the full article.

On October 7, the Constitutional Court ruled partially in favor of the Flemish Region’s May 3, 2019 decree on Municipal Roads. The Court dismissed almost all appeals against the decree, with the exception of the appeal against the provision dealing with the relocation of municipal roads.

The Municipal Roads decree introduces a uniform legal status for all roads of which the municipality is the manager. The decree-maker’s intention is to harmonize and modernize the fragmented existing regulations governing municipal roads. The overall objective of the decree is to give municipalities the opportunity to further refine these regulations and, based on this, to draw up action plans taking into account the general objectives of the decree.

The publication of the Municipalities Decree immediately caused quite a stir and several appeals were lodged, among others by the non-profit organization Landelijk Vlaanderen, which argued that the legislator had mainly focused on the advantages of opening up the municipal roads to the public and had therefore lost sight of the owners and their additional burden.

The decree passed the test of the Constitutional Court, except for the criticised article 26 § 3 of the decree, which implements an unjustifiable difference in treatment between the owner of the land on which a new municipal road or new section of road will be built and the owner of the land on which an existing municipal road will be (re)built, modified or moved.

The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the obligation of the municipality to acquire/appropriate the immovable property required for the construction of a new municipal road must also apply to the relocation of a municipal road on private property, since, according to the Court of Appeal in judgement no. 130/2021, this always involves the construction of a new municipal road or a new section of road.

With this judgment of the Court, the Flemish municipalities can now get to work on their local road policy.

Our partners and leading experts Steven De Schrijver and Rudi Desmet contributed the Belgian Chapter to Lexology GTDT : Technology M&A, published by Law Business Research in September 2021. The article is divided into Question and Answer Chapters and covers different topics including structuring and legal considerations, due diligince and purchase agreement in a technology M&A transaction.

Read the full chapter here : 2022_technology_m_and_a_belgium

In een principearrest van 14 september 2021 heeft het Hof van beroep van Luik zich uitgesproken over de verhouding tussen het insolventierecht en het staatssteunrecht.

Het Waals Gewest, dat steun voor onderzoek had verleend aan ASIT BIOTECH in de vorm van terugbetaalbare voorschotten, verzette zich tegen de homologatie van een reorganisatieplan dat voor haar in een schuld reductie voorzag. Volgens het Waals Gewest vormde haar schuldvordering een aparte, van andere private en publieke schuldvorderingen te onderscheiden categorie, die niet gereduceerd kon worden. Ze meende dat een reductie van haar schuldvordering een bijkomende staatsteun zou vormen.

Het Hof volgde de argumenten die door ASTREA werden ontwikkeld (Pieter Paepe en Louis Verstraeten) en verwierp deze argumenten. Het Hof merkt op dat de schuldreductie niet aan de staat toerekenbaar is, omdat deze het resultaat is van een stemming door de schuldeiser: de vermindering van de schuldvordering “is niet het gevolg van een beslissing van de staat, maar van een schuldeisersvergadering”. Het Hof voegt er aan toe dat de rechtbank, die de schuldeisersstemming homologeert, niet over enige marge beschikt: ofwel homologeert ze het plan, ofwel weigert ze de homologatie. Het Hof meent voorts dat ten opzichte van de schuldenaar de individuele schuldeisers zich in dezelfde positie bevinden als het Waals Gewest, zodat ze op gelijke voet staan.

Het resultaat van deze rechtspraak is vernieuwend: de reductie van een schuldvordering die op een terugbetaling van staatssteun is gebaseerd, vormt geen nieuwe staatssteun.

De Tijd 16 September 2021

Astrea’s banking & finance associate Nicolas Michiels heeft een bijdrage geleverd aan het boek “Kredieten voor consumenten” (Intersentia), dat op 30 oktober 2021 zal worden gepubliceerd.

Dit boek zet alle juridische regels rond kredieten op een verstaanbare en eenvoudige manier uiteen zodat het ook toegankelijk is voor niet- professionelen.

Het omvat een praktijkgerichte benadering op het verloop van een krediet, gaande van de informatieverplichtingen voorafgaand aan de opening van een krediet tot de beëindiging ervan.

Voor meer informatie kan u terecht op de website van Intersentia.

Astrea’s banking & finance associate Nicolas Michiels has made a contribution to the book “Kredieten voor consumenten” (Intersentia), which will be published on 30 October 2021.

This book sets out all the legal rules concerning credit in an easy-to-understand and straightforward manner making it also accessible to non-professionals.

It includes a practice-oriented approach to the process of credit, covering everything from the information obligations prior to the opening of a credit to its termination.

For more information, please visit the Intersentia website here.

Ciska Servais en Benoit Forêt van het omgevingsrecht-team van Astrea vertegenwoordigden de eigenaar van het beschermde kasteel Ringenhof in Lier in een procedure bij de Raad van State tegen het gewestelijk ruimtelijk uitvoeringsplan ‘Openruimtegebieden Beneden-Nete’, dat opgemaakt werd in uitvoering van het geactualiseerde Sigmaplan en als doel heeft om het nabijgelegen, bestaande overstromingsgebied om te vormen tot een ruimer natuur- en overstromingsgebied.

Het Vlaamse Gewest stelde dit ruimtelijk uitvoeringsplan vast op basis van een plan-milieueffectenrapport dat slechts betrekking had op een gedeelte van het plangebied. Voor het overige gedeelte van het plangebied, dat grenst aan het kasteeldomein, beperkte het Vlaamse Gewest zich tot een plan-m.e.r.-screening en werd besloten dat het voorgenomen plan geen relevante milieueffecten zou veroorzaken.

Astrea bekritiseerde deze handelswijze reeds in het bezwaarschrift dat in 2018 ingediend werd in het kader van het openbaar onderzoek van dit ruimtelijk uitvoeringsplan, doch er werd geen gevolg gegeven aan dit bezwaar. Nadat het plan vastgesteld werd op deze basis, diende Astrea een beroep tot nietigverklaring in bij de Raad van State.

Parallel bekwam De Vlaamse Waterweg een omgevingsvergunning voor de effectieve realisatie van het natuur- en overstromingsgebied. Aangezien deze vergunning op het aangevochten ruimtelijk uitvoeringsplan gebaseerd was, diende Astrea eveneens een verzoek tot vernietiging bij de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen.

De Raad van State volgde finaal de argumentatie die het omgevingsrecht-team van Astrea ontwikkelde omtrent het gebrekkige plan-milieueffectenonderzoek, en vernietigde het gewestelijk ruimtelijk uitvoeringsplan bij arrest van 18 mei 2021 (nr. 250.618). In navolging van dit arrest ging ook de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen op 16 september 2021 over tot vernietiging van de omgevingsvergunning van De Vlaamse Waterweg.

Deze rechtspraak onderstreept nog maar eens het belang van een zorgvuldig en volledig milieueffectenonderzoek in het kader van ruimtelijke planningsprocessen, en geeft nadere invulling aan de uitzonderingsgronden voor het opstellen van een plan-milieueffectenrapport.

Voor verdere vragen kan u steeds contact opnemen met Ciska Servais en Benoit Forêt.

Op 21 mei 2021 keurde het Vlaams Parlement een decreet tot wijziging van het DBRC-decreet van 4 april 2014 goed dat verandering brengt in beroepsprocedures voor bestuursrechtscolleges in Vlaanderen, zoals de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen. Deze decreetswijziging heeft als doel de beroepsprocedure te vereenvoudigen, te versnellen en finaal efficiënter te maken, maar dreigt de toegang tot de rechter te bemoeilijken.

De belangrijkste wijziging betreft de concretisering van het belang bij het middel, waarbij het DBRC-decreet voortaan drie situaties omschrijft waarin een middel niet kan leiden tot een vernietiging:

1) Ten eerste kan de schending van een norm of algemeen rechtsbeginsel niet ingeroepen worden wanneer de verzoekende partij in kwestie er niet door benadeeld wordt. Dit principe van belangenschade bestond al in de rechtspraak voor de decreetswijziging.

2) Ten tweede moet de wetgeving die wordt ingeroepen kennelijk strekken tot de bescherming van de belangen van de verzoekende partij.

3) Ten derde wordt een attentieplicht van kracht. Dit houdt in dat een verzoekende partij de ingeroepen onwettigheid moet aangevoerd hebben op het nuttige ogenblik waarop deze kon worden aangevoerd tijdens de bestuurlijke procedure (bv. tijdens een eerdere inspraakmogelijkheid). Een verzoekende partij moet dus zo vroeg mogelijk in de procedure zijn argumenten brengen. Vooral deze laatste nieuwigheid vergroot het belang van een grondig uitgewerkt bezwaar in te dienen in het kader van een openbaar onderzoek.

Daarnaast zorgt de decreetswijziging er onder meer voor dat de vergunninghouder automatisch een volwaardige procespartij wordt en dat de rolrechten betaald moeten worden bij de indiening van een verzoekschrift i.p.v. na de indiening ervan.

Voor verdere vragen kan u steeds contact opnemen met het team omgevingsrecht van Astrea. Dit team is samengesteld uit Ciska Servais, Philippe Van Wesemael, Ilse Cuypers, Yannick Ballon, Nino Vermeire en Benoit Forêt.

De LIBOR en soortgelijke rentes zullen vanaf 1 januari 2022 uit beeld verdwijnen en door risicovrije rentetarieven (RFR’s) worden vervangen.

De LIBOR is verweven met de interbancaire geldmarkt, dit is de markt waarop banken aan elkaar lenen, maar ook met financiële transacties die een onderliggende waarde van meer dan 300 biljoen dollar hebben.

Deze rentevoet is het gemiddeld rentetarief waartegen een groot aantal internationale banken in Londen leningen aan elkaar wil verstrekken. Hoewel LIBOR meerdere malen per dag wordt berekend, publiceert de ICE Benchmark Administration (IBA) dagelijks om 11u45 (Britse tijd) de officiële LIBOR tarieven. Voorheen werd dit gedaan door de British Bankers’ Association (BBA).

De LIBOR tarieven onderscheiden zich van elkaar in looptijd en valuta. In het verleden waren er 10 verschillende valuta en bestonden per valuta in totaal 15 looptijden. In 2013 heeft de BBA echter zowel het aantal valuta als het aantal looptijden teruggebracht tot respectievelijk 5 valuta en 8 looptijden. De resterende valuta zijn de Euro (EUR), de Amerikaanse dollar (USD), het Britse pond sterling (GBP), de Japanse yen (JPY), en de Zwitserse frank (CHF). De looptijden variëren van 1 dag (overnight) tot 12 maanden.

Het einde van de LIBOR zal gevolgen hebben voor zowel de Belgische als de internationale kredietpraktijk. Dit blijkt onder meer uit de omstandige informatie die de Loan Market Association (LMA) hierover ter beschikking stelt. Opneembare kredieten in Amerikaanse dollar en/of pond sterling zullen bijvoorbeeld moeten worden vergoed op basis van de relevante RFR in plaats van LIBOR. Meer concreet gaat het om de Sterling Overnight Index Average (SONIA) voor pond sterling en de Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) voor Amerikaanse dollar.

Voor de euro heeft de Working Group on Euro Risk-free Rates de €STR ontwikkeld. De €STR geeft het tarief weer voor ongedekte overnight euroleningen tussen banken in de eurozone.

De huidige Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR) zal in de komende jaren echter behouden blijven, waardoor kredieten in euro in mindere mate beïnvloed zullen worden door de afschaffing van de LIBOR.

De Working Group moedigt partijen wel aan om een “fallback”-bepaling in hun in euro uitgedrukte kredietovereenkomst op te nemen. Zodoende kan de EURIBOR door de €STR worden vervangen indien de EURIBOR in de toekomst toch zou worden afgeschaft.

Aarzel niet ons te contacteren op het e-mailadres dve@astrealaw.be indien u over dit onderwerp nog verdere vragen hebt.

Dieter Veestraeten & Nicolas Michiels

Inleiding

“Vanaf 1 september 2021 mag je voor bepaalde zaken de tuin van je buur betreden” was enkele dagen geleden een geruchtmakende krantenkop in onze media. Deze nieuwe regel (die zeker moet genuanceerd worden) maakt deel uit van het hervormde goederenrecht, dat in werking is getreden op 1 september 2021. De hervorming beoogt, onder meer, een integratie, modernisering, instrumentalisering en flexibilisering van het bestaande goederenrecht (dat teruggaat tot de Code Napoleon van 1804) in een nieuw Boek 3 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek, met een gepast evenwicht tussen rechtszekerheid en contractvrijheid.

Meer concreet bevat de nieuwe wet de volgende (niet-exhaustieve) vernieuwingen die van belang kunnen zijn in het kader van vastgoedprojecten, vastgoedfinanciering of projectontwikkeling:

1. Limitatieve lijst van zakelijke rechten vs. contractsvrijheid

Het numerus clausus principe blijft gehandhaafd. Hieruit volgt dat men enkel die zakelijke rechten kan vestigen die in de limitatieve lijst van zakelijke rechten zijn opgenomen, maar daartegenover staat dat in principe de contractsvrijheid geldt voor alle bepalingen van Boek 3, behalve voor de definities en voor artikels die uitdrukkelijk anders bepalen.

2. Recht van opstal

Bij vastgoedprojecten gaven partijen in het verleden vaak de voorkeur aan erfpacht, omdat de maximale duur ervan (99 jaar) een stuk langer was dan die van een opstalrecht (50 jaar). Onder de nieuwe wet wordt de maximumduur van het opstalrecht opgetrokken tot 99 jaar. Bijgevolg zal de keuze tussen opstal en erfpacht moeten worden gebaseerd op meer inhoudelijke gronden (bijvoorbeeld de wil om bouwwerken of beplantingen op te richten) dan louter de duur van het recht.

Een opstalrecht kan zelfs eeuwigdurend zijn indien de eigenaar van de grond het recht verleent voor:

• 1) doeleinden van openbaar domein; of
• 2) het creëren van volumes in geval van een complex en heterogeen onroerend goed, op voorwaarde dat deze volumes

  • (i) elk een eigen bestemming hebben;
  • (ii) onafhankelijk kunnen worden beheerd; en
  • (iii) geen gemeenschappelijke delen omvatten.

Een klassiek voorbeeld hiervan is een bovengronds gebouw, bijv. een winkelcentrum of een residentie, met een ondergronds parkeercomplex. Indien de partijen een permanente eigendomsverdeling wensen, kunnen zij onder de nieuwe wet opteren voor het creëren van volumes in plaats van de als belastend ervaren mede-eigendom.

Echter kan de rechter, na een periode van ten minste 99 jaar, de opheffing van het opstalrecht gelasten, indien het recht elk (zelfs potentieel of toekomstig) nut heeft verloren.

3. Recht van erfpacht

De nieuwe kenmerken van het erfpachtrecht kunnen als volgt worden samengevat:

• – De minimumduur werd verkort van 27 naar 15 jaar. Dit vergemakkelijkt aanzienlijk het aangaan van (onroerende) erfpachtconstructies.
• – De jaarlijkse betaling van een canon is niet langer verplicht.
• – Bij het einde van het erfpachtrecht moet de eigenaar de pachter vergoeden voor de constructies die deze op de betrokken grond heeft gebouwd. De nieuwe wet schrijft voor hoe deze vergoeding moet worden berekend indien de partijen niets hebben bedongen.
• – Ook een erfpachtrecht kan eeuwigdurend zijn, wanneer en zolang het voor doeleinden van openbaar domein gevestigd is.

4. Recht van vruchtgebruik

Het recht van vruchtgebruik heeft de volgende nieuwe kenmerken:

• – De mogelijkheid om het vruchtgebruik te verlengen werd wettelijk vastgelegd.
• – Voor daden van behoud hebben de vruchtgebruiker en de blote eigenaar voortaan een wettelijk verankerde samenwerkingsplicht.
• – De blote eigenaar hoeft structurele herstellingen niet langer alleen te bekostigen. Op verzoek zal de vruchtgebruiker een evenredig deel van de kosten moeten dragen, berekend op basis van de waarde van het vruchtgebruik tegenover de waarde van de volle eigendom.
• – Vruchtgebruik toegekend aan een rechtspersoon kan voortaan tot 99 jaar duren (in plaats van 30 jaar). Evenwel blijft de regel gelden dat, in geval van faillissement of ontbinding, het vruchtgebruik ook een einde neemt.

5. Andere nieuwigheden

• – De nieuwe wet bevat een wettelijke regeling om persoonlijke en zakelijke rechten te vestigen op het openbaar domein, voor zover dit niet strijdig is met het publieke doel ervan (dit in navolging van een lange evolutie in bijzondere wetgeving en rechtspraak). Dit betekent concreet dat de terbeschikkingstelling van het openbaar domein vlotter kan verlopen, bijvoorbeeld wat de oprichting van investeringsgoederen door private investeerders betreft (men denke bijv. aan windturbines of onroerende technische installaties in het havengebied). Dit zal de financierbaarheid van dergelijke projecten enkel ten goede komen.
• – Aanvullende akten die bijv. een koopoptie, een recht van levenslange huur, een voorkooprecht, … bevatten, kunnen voortaan ook in het hypotheekregister worden overgeschreven.
• – De vrijwillige mede-eigendom en de beëindiging ervan zijn nu bij wet geregeld.

6. Inwerkingtreding

De nieuwe wet is enkel van toepassing op rechtshandelingen en -feiten die zich voordoen na 1 september 2021. Zij zal echter niet van toepassing zijn op:

• – toekomstige gevolgen van rechtshandelingen en -feiten die zich vóór 1 september 2021 hebben voorgedaan; of
• – rechtshandelingen en -feiten die zich na 1 september 2021 voordoen, wanneer het betrokken zakelijk recht vóór die datum is gevestigd.

Bovendien zullen de bepalingen betreffende de registratie van aanvullende akten pas in werking treden op 1 juli 2022. Ten slotte is er een overgangsregeling voorzien voor de opstalrechten in volume-eigendom die vóór 1 september 2021 zijn verleend.

Mocht u hierbij vragen hebben, aarzel dan niet het Astrea real estate team te contacteren.

Astrea Real Estate Team

Ciska Servais – vastgoedrecht, omgevings- en administratief recht

Philippe Van Wesemael – administratief en publiek recht

Micha Van den Abeele – corporate real estate

Ilse Cuypers – omgevingsrecht

Dieter Veestraeten – vastgoed- & projectfinancieringen

In een arrest van 14 juni 2021 heeft het Hof van Cassatie zich opnieuw uitgesproken over de kwalificatie van een overeenkomst als kredietopening dan wel een lening op interest.

De kwalificatie is onder meer van belang voor de bepaling van de omvang van de wederbeleggingsvergoeding.

Een wederbeleggingsvergoeding is de vergoeding die verschuldigd is bij vervroegde terugbetaling van een krediet of lening. Overeenkomstig artikel 1907bis oud BW kan de wederbeleggingsvergoeding nooit hoger zijn dan 6 maanden interest wanneer het gaat om leningen op interest. Aangenomen wordt dat deze bepaling niet geldt voor kredietopeningen.

In de zaak waarover het Hof van Cassatie moest oordelen sloot de bank een overeenkomst met een onderneming voor de financiering van de aankoop van een vruchtgebruik van een woning. De overeenkomst werd door de bank gekwalificeerd als een kredietopening die werd aangegaan voor een periode van 19 jaar. De kredietovereenkomst voorzag een mogelijkheid tot vervroegde beëindiging tegen betaling van een wederbeleggingsvergoeding.

Het kredietbedrag werd door de onderneming in één keer opgenomen. De ondernemingsrechtbank te Antwerpen oordeelde in 2018 dat het om die reden ging om een lening op interest waardoor de wederbeleggingsvergoeding tot een bedrag gelijk aan 6 maanden interest moest worden beperkt. Het Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen bevestigde dit vonnis.

De kwestie werd vervolgens aan het Hof van Cassatie voorgelegd waarbij de bank argumenteerde dat de raadsheren van het Hof van Beroep het zakelijk karakter van de lening op interest miskenden aangezien de lening ontstaat door de afgifte van het geldbedrag hetgeen in deze zaak pas 2 maanden na het afsluiten van de overeenkomst plaatsvond.

Het Hof van Cassatie stelt hierover in haar arrest het volgende: “de zakelijke aard van de lening komt niet in het gedrang wanneer de partijen vooraf een consensuele overeenkomst tot lening sluiten die uitmondt in een lening zodra het geldbedrag aan de lener wordt ter beschikking gesteld”.

Dit betekent dat een zekere periode tussen de ondertekening van de kredietovereenkomst en de overmaking van het kredietbedrag niet verhindert dat het om een lening op interest gaat.

Aarzel niet ons te contacteren op het e-mailadres dve@astrealaw.be indien u hieromtrent vragen hebt.

Dieter Veestraeten & Nicolas Michiels

Een recent Brussels vonnis over het hoofddoekenverbod heeft heel wat weerklank gekregen in de pers en heeft geleid tot aan aantal politieke discussies. Voor heel wat ondernemingen zal nu opnieuw de vraag rijzen of een neutraliteitsbeleid voortaan nog toegelaten is?

In het vonnis van 3 mei 2021 van de Franstalige arbeidsrechtbank te Brussel werd de Brusselse vervoersmaatschappij MIVB veroordeeld wegens een (directe) discriminatie op basis van geloofsovertuigingen en van een (indirecte) discriminatie op grond van gender. De MIVB had geweigerd om een vrouw met een hoofddoek in dienst te nemen. Die weigering werd gemotiveerd op basis van neutraliteitsbeleid van de MIVB.

Nochtans is dat vonnis niet de enige rechterlijke uitspraak in deze materie.

Voor een goed begrip moeten we teruggaan naar de originele Europese rechtsbron, met name richtlijn 2000/78/EG, dewelke een algemeen kader voor gelijke behandeling heeft ingevoerd. Deze richtlijn werd omgezet in Belgisch recht o.a. door de antidiscriminatiewet van 10 mei 2007.

Nog niet zo lang geleden deed het Europees Hof van Justitie uitspraak in de zaken Achbita en Bougnaoui (HvJ, 14 maart 2017) over de vraag of een werkgever een vrouwelijke werknemer discrimineert door haar te ontslaan wegens het dragen van een hoofddoek.

Welnu, in tegenstelling tot het Brussels vonnis, oordeelde het Hof van Justitie dat een onderneming wel degelijk in een intern reglement kan bepalen dat werknemers, die met het publiek in contact komen, zich neutraal dienen te kleden en dus geen religieuze, filosofische of politieke symbolen mogen dragen.

De zaak Achbita werd na de uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie verdergezet voor het arbeidshof te Gent. Uit het arrest van 12 oktober 2020 blijkt dat Mevrouw Achbita weigerde zich neer te leggen bij het (ongeschreven) neutraliteitsbeleid dat gold voor alle werknemers van de onderneming. Na een wijziging van het arbeidsreglement werd een formeel neutraliteitsbeleid ingevoerd. Alle werknemers dienden een uniform te dragen en religieuze symbolen waren niet meer toegelaten. Omdat zij weigerde haar hoofddoek niet meer te dragen, werd zij ontslagen met betaling van een opzeggingsvergoeding.

Volgens het arbeidshof te Gent gebeurde er door het hoofddoekenverbod dus geen (indirecte) discriminatie op grond van geloofsovertuiging.

Besluit: De rechtbank weegt en wikt, en beschikt finaal op basis van de concrete elementen van het voorliggende dossier. Maar de voorzichtige werkgever zal – indien gewenst – best tijdig een neutraliteitsbeleid invoeren via het arbeidsreglement.

To be continued…

Aarzel niet ons te contacteren op het e-mailadres rds@astrealaw.be indien u hieromtrent vragen hebt.

Astrea staat u en uw onderneming graag bij met raad en daad.

Bij Wet* wordt een tweede moratorium op het uitspreken van faillissementen van kracht vanaf 24 December 2020 tot en met 31 Januari 2021, zij het met beperkingen en voorwaarden.

In het voorjaar werd een eerste moratorium afgekondigd om een faillissementsgolf te vermijden, wat vooral door de flankerende maatregelen met betrekking tot de schuldvorderingen van de overheden gelukt is.

Het moratorium geldt voor alle “ondernemingen” op voorwaarde dat hun activiteit vallen onder de sluitingsmaatregelen waartoe bij Ministerieel Besluit van 28 oktober 2020 is beslist. Ondernemingen die geopend zijn, vallen bijgevolg niet onder het moratorium.

Het moratorium houdt concreet in:

• Dat alle ondernemingen automatisch een “opschorting” wordt toegekend;
• Dat geen bewarende of uitvoerende beslagen kunnen worden gelegd en dat alle gedwongen tenuitvoerlegging wordt gestaakt;
• Dat geen overeenkomsten wegens wanbetaling kunnen worden ontbonden, noch eenzijdig, noch gerechtelijk;
• Dat niet in faillissement of gerechtelijke ontbinding kan worden gedagvaard, behalve door het Openbaar Ministerie naar aanleiding van een handelsonderzoek;
• Dat een ondernemer die in staking van betaling verkeert geen plicht heeft om aangifte van faillissement te doen, maar het recht daartoe wel behoudt (moet niet, mag wel);
• Dat de termijnen, vastgelegd in een reorganisatieplan, met 36 dagen worden opgeschort;

Het moratorium behelst geen algehele opschorting van betalingen en de wet bepaalt uitdrukkelijk dat opeisbare schuldvorderingen betaald dienen te worden.  Werkgevers kunnen zich ten aanzien van hun werknemers niet op de Wet beroepen. Ook contractuele sancties zoals onder meer de exceptie van niet-uitvoering, de schuldvergelijking en het retentierecht en financiële zekerheden kunnen nog worden uitgeoefend.

De Wet ontheft kredietverstrekkers van aansprakelijkheid indien hun (nieuw) krediet de continuïteit van de onderneming toch niet heeft kunnen verwezenlijken.

De wet heeft tot slot een beschermingsmechanisme tegen misbruik ingebouwd: al wie meent dat een onderneming ten onrechte gebruik maakt van de opschorting kan via een bijzondere kortgedingprocedure dit aan de Voorzitter van de Ondernemingsrechtbank voorleggen.

Contacteer Astrea als het moratorium een impact heeft op uw onderneming:  louis.verstraeten@astrealaw.be

*Wet van 20 December 2020, houdende diverse en tijdelijke bepalingen inzake justitie in het kader van de strijd tegen de verspreiding van het coronavirus COVID-19, Belgisch Staatsblad dd. 24 December 2020.