Post Brexit - Which Laws Cover International Employment?
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.03.20
No Immediate Cause for Concern, but Major Questions for 2021
Brexit is a fact and the transition period is now running.
The question of applicable labor law arises in the context of temporary and permanent employment as regards both those employed in Belgium by a U.K. employer and those employed in the U.K. by a Belgian employer. In such situations, there may be a conflict between the labor law applicable in the country where the employer is established and that applicable in the country where the employee performs their services.
On its website, the Belgian Ministry of Employment informs employers and employees about the rules applicable during the transition period (February 1, 2020 – December 31, 2020) and after this period (as of January 1, 2021). Here is a summary of these rules relating to both the posting of workers and to permanent employment:
|
|
Temporary posting of workersEx. U.K. employer posts employee to Belgium; Belgian employer posts employee to the U.K. |
Permanent employmentEx. U.K. employer with employees in Belgium; Belgian employer with employees in the U.K. |
2020 (transition period) |
EU law continues to apply – no changes |
EU law continues to apply – no changes (cf. Rome I Regulation) |
As of 2021 |
1. Posting from Belgium to the U.K. => the Posting of Workers Directive 96/71/EC explicitly provides that companies established in a country which is not an EU Member State may not benefit from more favourable treatment than companies established in an EU Member State. For the time being, the Belgian Posting of Workers Act of 5 March 2002 will continue to apply after the transition period. 2. Posting from the U.K. to Belgium => Uncertainty – Rules will depend on the arrangements to be made between the EU and the U.K. |
1. Permanent employment in Belgium (and EU generally) => Withdrawal Agreement does not provide any rules. However, the Rome I Regulation remains applicable for the territory of the EU, even if the parties to the employment contract have opted for the law of a third country.
2. Permanent employment in the U.K. => Rome I Regulation will continue to apply to employment contracts entered into before the end of the transition period (cf. Withdrawal Agreement). Rome I Regulation will not apply in the U.K. to employment contracts entered into as of 2021. Hence, parties will need to determine which terms and conditions of employment will apply in the U.K. under U.K. law. |
Our Brussels Labor & Employment practice is available to advise and assist companies regarding all aspects of international employment in Belgium and in the EU, including the filing of single permit applications with the competent authorities on behalf of companies.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
