Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97) - Belgium (Ratification: 1953)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the joint observations sent on 1 September 2022 by the General Confederation of Liberal Trade Unions of Belgium (CGSLB), the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (CSC) and the General Labour Federation of Belgium (FGTB).

Articles 1 of the Convention. Information on national policies, laws and regulations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its reports that since the sixth reform of the State, which came into force on 1 July 2014, regulation with respect to foreign workers comes within the competence of the regions. The Federal State retains regulatory competence with regard to foreigners for whom permission to work derives directly from a particular residence situation, such as nationals of Member States of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the Swiss Confederation, and also those holding a long-term work permit; international protection seekers and recognized refugees; and students and family members. Since 1 January 2019, a single permit exists further to the transposition of Directive 2011/98/EU (European Union), the residence permit indicating whether the person concerned is allowed to work (“A” and “C” work permits have been abolished as a result of the introduction of the single permit). As regards the codification announced in previous Government reports, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a “conceptual note”, covering the general structure and main basic principles for the future migration code, was approved by the Council of Ministers in February 2022 but that this codification has not yet been implemented. The Committee invites the Government to continue providing information on its national immigration policy and legislation, and also on progress made on the codification of migration law.

Article 2. Procedures for civic integration and assistance. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the functioning of the civic integration and assistance procedures in the German-speaking Community, the Walloon Region and the Brussels-Capital Region. It notes the Government’s indication that the remit for integrating new arrivals is divided among the linguistic regions and communities, the situation being made more complex by the institutional structure of Brussels, where three entities have competence in the matter: the Flemish Community, the French Community Commission (Cocof) and the Joint Community Commission (Cocom), the latter being the only one with the power to impose an obligation to follow an assistance procedure. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the functioning of the various assistance and integration procedures in practice (difficulties encountered, results achieved, reports produced including statistics, etc.) and in particular on the number of migrants who follow such a procedure, whether compulsory or voluntary, and on any penalties imposed (indicating the grounds for such penalties).

Article 6. Equality of treatment. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and the examples of court decisions, some of which relate to issues of discrimination on the basis of nationality. It recalls that section 7(2) of the Act of 30 July 1981 concerning the suppression of certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia, as amended in 2007 and 2013, provides that “any direct distinction based on nationality shall constitute direct discrimination, unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate purpose and the means of achieving this objective are appropriate and necessary”. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that section 8(1) of the above-mentioned Act provides that, in the area of employment relationships, any direct distinction on the basis of race, colour, extraction, or national or ethnic origin can only be justified on the basis of an “essential and crucial occupational requirement” which it is for the judge to assess on a case-by-case basis. The Government explains that three conditions must be fulfilled: (1) the required characteristic must be essential and crucial, in other words it must be indispensable for performing the function; (2) it must have a legitimate purpose, with the objective sufficiently relevant to justify a departure from the fundamental right to equal treatment; and (3) the measure must be reasonably proportionate to the objective sought, which has to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. The Government adds that, under section 10(1) of the above-mentioned Act, “a direct or indirect distinction on the basis of one of the protected criteria cannot be construed as some form of discrimination when this direct or indirect distinction constitutes an affirmative action measure”. The Committee notes the data cited by the Government relating to reports made to the Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities (Unia). According to Unia’s 2021 annual report, 21.8 per cent of the 603 discrimination files opened in the area of employment related to “racial” criteria (colour, extraction, nationality, national or ethnic origin, and supposed race). The fifth edition of “Socio-economic monitoring – Labour market and origin”, published in October 2022 by the Federal Public Service (SPF) for Employment, Work and Social Cooperation and Unia, indicates that persons of foreign origin are less likely to be employed and, if they are, it is often in jobs which are less stable, of lower quality and less well paid, even where diploma and study levels are identical. The Committee also notes the concern expressed by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), in its concluding observations of 21 May 2021, at the discrimination and the many obstacles faced by nationals of non-EU countries when trying to enter the labour market (CERD/C/BEL/CO/20-22, paragraphs 26–27). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of reports specifically concerned with discrimination based on nationality in the area of employment which have been received and handled by Unia or any other body, and on the follow-up action taken.

Article 6(1)(a)(iii). Equality of treatment with regard to accommodation. The Committee recalls that in its previous comment it asked the Government to continue to survey the impact of the procedure for assigning social housing in Flanders – particularly the need for applicant tenants to prove that they speak Dutch or are committed to learning it – to ensure that it does not result in practice in the application to migrant workers who are legally resident on Belgian territory of treatment that is less favourable than that applied to Belgian nationals in relation to accommodation. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information on this matter. It also notes that, according to the Unia annual report, 51.1 per cent of the 897 files opened in 2021 involving “racial” criteria were concerned with housing, most of them involving refusals to visit or rent accommodation. The Government indicates that the Brussels region has established a new mechanism for combating discrimination in access to housing. The Ordinance of 21 December 2018 (amending the Brussels Housing Code in order to reinforce action against discrimination regarding access to accommodation) provides for the possibility for officials of the Regional Housing Inspection Directorate (DIRL) to carry out discrimination tests which, if positive, enable a presumption of the existence of discrimination liable to incur a penalty. Moreover, a new draft ordinance is being adopted which would strengthen action against discrimination with regard to housing, including vis-à-vis migrant workers (the addition of a new protected criterion of “residence status” in the Brussels Housing Code; a clear definition of multiple discrimination; the possibility for DIRL officials to have recourse to actors or associations to carry out discrimination tests; and the possibility of carrying out “proactive” tests, that is to say where there is no prior indication of discrimination, particularly vis-à-vis estate agents). The Government adds that from 2017 to 2022 a total of 26 complaints claiming discrimination on the basis of nationality were filed, of which eight resulted in a decision imposing an administrative fine. In addition, a public awareness-raising and information campaign was launched in May 2021. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (i) the measures taken at national level to ensure equal treatment with regard to accommodation, particularly with respect to the criterion of nationality; (ii) the impact of the procedure for assigning social housing in Flanders on migrant workers who are legally resident on Belgian territory, and (iii) the administrative and judicial procedures available to deal with complaints from migrant workers with regard to accommodation.

Article 6(1)(d). Legal proceedings. The Committee notes the Government’s indications concerning appeals filed by employers and by workers for refusal or withdrawal of the recruitment permit or work permit and, from 2019, of the single permit, in the German-speaking Community, in the Walloon Region and in Flanders. It also notes the Government’s statement that there is currently no statistical programme which makes it possible to verify which decisions were ultimately taken on the appeals lodged. In this regard, the Committee wishes to recall the importance of gathering judicial statistics disaggregated by subject area to enable evaluation of the effective application of adopted policies. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the appeals lodged by employers and workers in cases involving the refusal or withdrawal of a work permit or of a single permit, and on any judicial assistance mechanism intended to assist migrant workers with such procedures, including linguistic assistance.

Article 8. Maintenance of residence in the event of incapacity for work. The Committee notes the amendment, by the Act of 24 February 2017, of section 21(3)(4) of the Act of 15 December 1980, which now indicates that “the minister or the deputy minister may terminate the residence of a national of a third country admitted or authorized to reside for a limited or unlimited duration and issue an order to leave the national territory for reasons of public order or national security”. The Government adds that only serious reasons of public order or national security give grounds for terminating the residence of EU nationals and their family members who have acquired permanent residence status: temporary or permanent incapacity for work would not justify such termination. As regards “highly qualified workers”, if these no longer have sufficient income because of incapacity for work, they may lose their right of residence. As regards migrant workers who have obtained an unlimited right of residence after a five-year period counting from the issuing of the first residence permit, the Immigration Office can terminate their right of residence, in the event of incapacity for work, “when the foreign citizen no longer has the status of worker (in other words, when the foreign citizen no longer meets the conditions of his/her residence).” In this regard, the Committee emphasizes that security of residence for permanent migrants and members of their families in case of ill health or injury constitutes one of the most important provisions of the Convention (Article 8 of the Convention; see also 2016 General Survey, Promoting fair migration, concerning the migrant workers instruments, paragraph 455). The Committee recalls that Paragraph 18(1) of the Migration for Employment Recommendation (Revised), 1949 (No. 86), provides as follows: “When a migrant for employment has been regularly admitted to the territory of a Member, the said Member should, as far as possible, refrain from removing such person or the members of his family from its territory on account of his lack of means or the state of the employment market, unless an agreement to this effect has been concluded between the competent authorities of the emigration and immigration territories concerned.” The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to comply with the requirements of the Convention, in particular Article 8(1), in order to ensure that the right of residence of permanent workers and their families is maintained in the event of permanent or temporary incapacity for work due to illness or injury, even if the worker is no longer capable of obtaining a stable and sufficient personal income.

Statistics. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and also the information available in the 2020 report of the Immigration Office and in the annual reports of the Federal Migration Centre (Myria) for the 2013–22 period. The Committee invites the Government to continue providing statistics on the number and origin of foreign workers employed in Belgium and to indicate the results of the relevant activities of the labour inspection services, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Article 1 of the Convention. Information on national policies, laws and regulations. The Committee notes that the Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, residence, establishment and expulsion of foreign nationals was amended on several occasions between 2007 and 2012, particularly with regard to family reunification, with resource and accommodation requirements being imposed to be able to host the family member concerned, the return of nationals of third countries in an irregular situation (voluntary return, compulsory return, vulnerable groups such as families with children), the procedure for medical regularization and the status of foreign unaccompanied minors. The Committee also notes the adoption of the Act of 26 November 2011 amending and supplementing the Penal Code with a view to incriminating abuse of a situation of weakness and extending penal protection for vulnerable persons against ill-treatment, which reinforces the repression of trafficking in persons. The Committee notes that the Government Agreement of 1 December 2011 provides that “taking into account the disparities between regions, the criteria for labour migration will be entrusted to the regions”, with competence for issuing residence permits remaining at the federal level. This Agreement adds that, in light of the many changes that have occurred recently, the legislation applicable to immigration will be coordinated in a “Code” with a view to ensuring due understanding of the provisions that are in force. The Committee invites the Government to continue providing information on its national immigration policy and legislation, and particularly on any transfer of competence to the regions relating to the criteria for migration for employment and on the codification of immigration law.

Article 2. Procedure for civic integration and assistance. The Committee notes the establishment in Flanders and Brussels of a civic integration procedure which includes a training programme (social guidance, Dutch courses and vocational guidance) during which the person concerned is required to follow regularly at least 80 per cent of the courses, under penalty of an administrative fine, and personalized individual support. This procedure is compulsory, particularly for adults who are not nationals of the European Union, the European Economic Space or Switzerland who have been issued a residence permit for over three months for the first time. The Committee also notes that the Walloon Government approved a draft decree in February 2013 respecting the assistance provided to new arrivals, which targets individuals who have been in Belgium for less than three months and who have a residence permit for over three months. Under the procedure envisaged, after registering with the communal authorities, the migrant has to visit an assistance office within three months, under penalty of a fine. In the context of personalized support, French language courses, citizenship education and socio-vocational assistance will be proposed to the persons concerned, depending on their needs, but without compulsion. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the operation of the integration and assistance procedures in practice, and particularly on the number of migrants who follow them through compulsion or voluntarily, and on any penalties imposed in the event of failure to comply with the requirement to attend the assistance office or to follow the courses (including in relation to residence permits or the social benefits received).

Article 6. Equality of treatment. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain information on this subject. Recalling that section 7(2) of the Act of 20 July 1981, as amended in 2007, provides that “any direct distinction based on nationality shall constitute direct discrimination, unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate purpose and the means of achieving this objective are appropriate and necessary”, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the situations in which discrimination towards migrant workers could be considered justified in relation to the matters set forth in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether courts or other authorities have issued decisions on matters relating to discrimination based on nationality and more generally encompassing questions of principle relating to the application of Article 6 of the Convention and if so, to provide copies of these decisions.

The Committee also recalls that the Centre for Equality and the Fight against Racism (CELCR), established in 2003, aims to promote equality of opportunity and to combat any form of distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference on the basis of numerous grounds, including nationality, race, religion and sex, and that it is also responsible for monitoring the observance of the fundamental rights of foreign nationals, observing migration flows and promoting action to combat trafficking in human beings. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the number of cases reported to and dealt with by the CELCR concerning discrimination based on nationality in the field of employment, and the action taken as a result. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that, in practice, women migrant workers, and particularly female foreign domestic workers, are not treated less favourably than Belgian nationals in relation to the matters set forth in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention.

Article 6(1)(a)(iii). Equality of treatment with regard to accommodation. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government in its report on the procedures for assigning social housing in Flanders, and particularly on the need for applicants to prove that they speak Dutch or are committed to learning it. More particularly, the Committee notes that proof of knowledge of Dutch may be provided by presenting a diploma or attestations for that purpose, or through a rapid test made by the landlord with a view to assessing the linguistic knowledge of the applicant. If the landlord considers that the knowledge of Dutch is insufficient, the applicant is sent to the “House of Dutch” to follow courses. According to the Government’s report, registration by the applicant and the commitment to attend at least 80 per cent of the courses, although without any obligation to succeed demonstrates the will to learn Dutch and is sufficient for the assignment of social housing. In the case of failure to comply with the requirement to follow the courses, a fine can be imposed on the tenant. The Government adds that between 2008 and 2012, only one fine was imposed and that, up to now, no rental contract has been terminated on linguistic grounds. The Committee requests the Government to continue to survey the impact of the procedure to ensure that it does not result in practice in the application to migrant workers, who are legally resident on Belgian territory, of treatment that is less favourable than that applied to Belgian nationals in relation to housing.

Article 6(1)(d). Legal proceedings. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that no statistics are available on the number of appeals lodged with the Review Council for Foreign Nationals by migrant workers. The Government however emphasizes that it may be considered that such appeals were not very numerous, as a residence permit is in theory automatically provided once a work permit has been issued. The Committee recalls that under the terms of section 9 of the Act of 30 April 1999 (Chapter V), “a foreign worker who is lawfully resident in Belgium and to whom a work permit has been refused or withdrawn, as well as an employer for whom a recruitment permit has been refused or withdrawn, may lodge appeals with the competent authority”. Furthermore, exemptions from the provisions relating to recruitment permits, with the reasons duly given in individual cases worthy of interest for economic or social reasons may be granted under section 38(2) of the Royal Order of 9 June 1999. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the appeals made by employers in cases of the refusal or withdrawal of recruitment permits and by workers in cases of the refusal or withdrawal of work permits (the number, the reason given for the withdrawal or refusal, and the outcome of the appeal), and on the number and nature of the individual cases in which the competent authorities have granted exemptions and issued or renewed recruitment permits. Please also provide information on any judicial assistance measures intended to assist migrant workers with such procedures, including linguistic assistance.

Article 8. Maintenance of residence in the event of incapacity for work. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the prohibition set out in section 21(3)(4) of the Act of 15 December 1980, as amended by the Act of 26 May 2005, to expel “foreign workers affected by permanent incapacity for work ... in cases where the industrial accident occurred or the occupational disease was contracted in the performance of work by a legally resident foreign national in Belgium”, except in cases of serious violations of public order or national security. With regard to the right of residence in the event of temporary incapacity for work, to which the Government refers in its report, the Committee understands that this right is maintained for as long as the person concerned is able to demonstrate that he or she is continuing to seek employment and has real possibilities of being hired (section 40(4)(1)(1), in conjunction with section 42bis(2)(1) of the Act of 15 December 1980). The Committee recalls that in accordance with Article 8(1), a migrant for employment who has been admitted on a permanent basis and the members of the family who have been authorized to accompany or join the migrant worker shall not be returned to their territory of origin because the migrant is unable to follow his or her occupation by reason of illness contracted or injury sustained subsequent to entry. With regard to migrant workers admitted on a permanent basis, the Committee wishes to emphasize that Article 8(1) does not make a distinction between permanent and temporary incapacity for work and is not limited to incapacity for work due to an industrial action or an occupational disease. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that the right of residence of permanent workers and their families is maintained in the event of permanent or temporary incapacity for work due to illness or accident, even if the worker is no longer capable of obtaining a stable and sufficient personal income.

Statistics. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistics on the number and origin of foreign workers employed in Belgium and to indicate the results of the relevant activities of the labour inspection services, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Immigration policy and legislation. The Committee notes that legislation on immigration has been the subject of a thorough reform of Belgian law, involving the adoption of several acts and royal orders which entered into force on 1 June 2007. It notes, in particular, the Act of 15 September 2006 amending the Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, residence, establishment and expulsion of foreigners and the Act of 15 September 2006 reforming the Council of State and establishing the Review Council for Foreigners (“Conseil du contentieux des étrangers”). It also notes the adoption of the Act of 10 August 2005 amending various provisions in order to intensify action against the trafficking of human beings and certain practices concerning exploitative rental practices (“marchands de sommeil”) with hostels for the homeless; the Act of 26 May 2005 amending the Act of 23 May 1990 on the inter-state transfer of convicted persons and the Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, residence, establishment and expulsion of foreigners; the Programme Act of 27 December 2004 and the Royal Order, further to the enlargement of the European Union, amending the Royal Order of 9 June 1999 implementing the Act of 30 April 1999 concerning the occupation of foreign workers. Moreover, the Committee notes that the asylum procedure has also undergone a major reform and the legislation concerning the occupation of foreign workers has been amended so that persons holding subsidiary protection status may enter the employment market without delay during their period of limited residence (Royal Order of 31 January 2007 amending section 17 of the Royal Order of 9 June 1999 implementing the Act of 30 April 1999 concerning the occupation of foreign workers). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on its national policy and legislation relating to immigration.

Article 6 of the Convention. Equal treatment and non-discrimination. Protection by law. The Committee notes with interest the adoption on 10 May 2007 of three new laws creating a general framework for combating any form of discrimination, including in employment and occupation. In this context, the Committee notes that section 7(2) of the Act of 20 July 1981, as amended in 2007, states that “any direct distinction based on nationality constitutes direct discrimination, unless it is objectively justified by a legitimate purpose and the means of achieving this objective are appropriate and necessary”. On no account, however, may a direct distinction based on nationality be justified where it is prohibited by European Union law. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of the new laws of 10 May 2007 concerning discrimination in relation to the matters set forth in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention. Please also specify the situations in which discrimination towards migrant workers would be considered justified under section 7(2) of the Act of 20 July 1981, as amended in 2007, in relation to the matters set forth in Article 6 of the Convention.

The Committee notes that the Centre for Equality and the Fight Against Racism (CELCR), established in 2003, aims to promote equality of opportunity and combat any form of distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference on the basis of numerous grounds, including nationality, race, religion and sex. The CELCR also has the task of monitoring the observance of the fundamental rights of foreigners, informing the public authorities on the nature and extent of migration flows and developing cooperation and dialogue with all public and private stakeholders concerned with policies for the reception and integration of immigrants. It also notes that the CELCR has adopted a “Three-year strategic plan 2008–10” which fixes clear objectives and provides for specific action in the areas of discrimination and migration. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the activities undertaken by the CELCR under the “Three-year strategic plan 2008–10” which aim to promote the application of the Convention. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide information on the measures taken to ensure that women migrant workers, particularly foreign domestic employees, are not treated less favourably than Belgian nationals in relation to the matters set forth in Article 6(1)(a)–(d) of the Convention.

Article 6(1)(a)(iii). Equal treatment with regard to accommodation. The Committee notes the Decree of 15 December 2006 amending the Decree of 15 July 1997 containing the Flemish Code on Housing. The Committee notes that under section 4(2) of the Decree of 15 July 1997 as amended, one of the aims of the policy on accommodation is to promote the integration of inhabitants into the community and equality of opportunity for everyone. However, the Committee notes that under section 92(3)(6) and section 95(1)(2), in order to have access to local authority housing, would-be tenants are obliged to demonstrate their willingness to learn Dutch. The Committee notes that it is for the Flemish Government to establish the rules for determining “willingness to learn Dutch” and persons who may be excluded from this obligation. In addition, section 102bis(3) imposes an administrative fine ranging from 25 to 5,000 euros for violations of section 92(3). The Committee notes from the explanatory notes to the law that the objective of this obligation is to promote integration and communication with a view to a better application of the local authority housing policy. The Committee recalls that Article 6(1)(a)(iii) of the Convention provides for equal treatment for migrant workers lawfully within the territory of the country and the Members’ own nationals as regards accommodation. Equality with regard to accommodation is aimed at ensuring that migrant workers have access to accommodation on the same terms as Belgian nationals. While noting that the Decree of 15 July 1997, as amended in 2006, applies to both nationals and non-nationals, the Committee wishes to be sure that the application of the aforementioned Decree in practice does not place migrant workers at a disadvantage in relation to nationals on the basis of their nationality or their ethnic or racial origin. In order to be able to examine whether the Decree of 15 July 1997 containing the Flemish Accommodation Code, as amended on 15 December 2006, is in full conformity, in law and in practice, with Article 6(1)(a)(iii) of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the rules established by the Flemish Government for determining “willingness to learn Dutch” and the number of migrant workers and nationals whose applications for local authority housing have been refused as a result of their unwillingness to learn Dutch.

Article 6(1)(d). Legal proceedings. With regard to the application of Chapter V of the Act of 30 April 1999 concerning the possibilities of appeal in the event of refusal or non-renewal of a work permit, the Committee notes that the majority of these cases are submitted by employers. The Committee also notes that the competent (regional) authority may, if need be, apply section 38(2) of the Royal Order of 9 June 1999, which provides for duly substantiated exemptions for individual cases meeting certain social or economic criteria. The Committee also notes that the new Review Council for Foreigners has sole competence for allowing appeals against individual decisions taken pursuant to the regulations relating to the entry, establishment and expulsion of foreigners. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue providing information on the following: (a) the application of Chapter V of the Act of 30 April 1999, particularly regarding appeals lodged by foreign workers; (b) the number and type of individual cases in which the competent authorities have issued exemptions and supplied or renewed a work permit for a foreign worker; and (c) the number of appeals lodged by foreign workers which have been processed by the Review Council for Foreigners.

Article 8. Non-return in the event of permanent incapacity for work. The Committee notes that section 21(3)(4) of the Act of 15 December 1980, as amended by the Act of 26 May 2005, now expressly prohibits the expulsion of “any foreign worker suffering from permanent incapacity for work within the meaning of section 24 of the Act of 10 April 1970 or section 35 of the Acts concerning compensation for occupational diseases, consolidated on 3 June 1970, where the occupational accident has taken place or the occupational disease has been contracted during the performance of work by a foreigner who is ordinarily resident in Belgium”, except in cases involving a serious breach of public order or of national security.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

1. The Committee notes the information sent by the Government in its report. It notes the adoption of the Act of 30 April 1999 on the employment of foreign workers which codifies all the existing texts on the subject. It asks the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the above Act and its regulations, distinguishing between the attributions of the "federal" administrative authorities and the "federated" administrative authorities.

2. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the implementation of its policy on equal treatment for foreign and national workers. It would be grateful if, in particular, the Government would give an account of the impact of the provisions in Chapter V of the Act of 30 April 1999 to improve the means of resisting a refusal or a non renewal of a work permit.

3. In view of the growing feminization of the international migration process, the Committee also would be grateful if the Government would send all available information (reports, studies, statistics, etc.) on endeavours to eliminate discrimination against women migrant workers.

4. In view of the growing role of private recruitment and placement agencies in the development of international migration, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would send information on the manner in which their activities are regulated in practice, recalling the need to protect migrant workers against abuses.

5. Please indicate whether any courts of law or other tribunals have handed down decisions concerning the application of the Convention, particularly on discrimination against foreigners in access to employment. If so, please provide copies of the decisions.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee takes due note of the detailed information supplied by the Government in its report. It asks the Government to continue to supply statistics on foreign workers in Belgium. The Committee also asks the Government to provide, in conformity with point V of the report form, information on the number of Belgian nationals working abroad and state any practical difficulties encountered in implementing the Convention together with the relevant results, if any, of the labour inspectorate's activities.