Single Permit in Belgium: Plan Your Non-EEA Hiring and Postings Well in Advance
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.07.19
Finally - more than 4 years after the deadline for implementation of the EU Single Permit Directive - Belgium has introduced the single work and residency permit. As of 2019, employers wishing to hire or post a national from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) in or to Belgium need to file a so-called single permit application.
Under the previous system, an employer had to obtain a work permit for the employee concerned. Based on this work permit, the employee could obtain a visa D at the Belgian Embassy in his or her country of residence. Once this visa D had been issued, the employee could enter Belgian territory and start working in Belgium (from the date of the work permit). Now, as in other EU countries, there is one unified application procedure to obtain a single permit combining the old work permit and residency permit.
In Belgium, this new unified procedure has some important consequences for companies, not only from a legal point of view (there is a new procedure, new deadlines, etc.), but also from a practical point of view, particularly concerning HR planning. We would like to share the following tips and points of attention:
- The employer – and not the employee – is in charge of filing the single permit application with the competent Belgian authorities (at a regional level).
- Plan your non-EEA hiring in Belgium and postings to Belgium well in advance!
While the previous procedure to obtain a work permit and a visa D took around 6 to 10 weeks (depending on the embassy concerned), it may now take 4.5 months as of the filing of a complete single permit application to actually obtain the authorization to work and reside in Belgium. Also, bear in mind that in the coming months, as the process is entirely new, delays and some additional administrative burdens are very likely.
- Ask the employee to collect the documents required well in advance. The processing time of some documents, such as criminal records, can be long. Moreover, for some documents, such as the criminal record, the employment contract, and the degree certificates, a translation by a certified translator is required (depending on the language of the document and the region concerned).
- Before applying for a single permit, verify the list of (new) exemptions. Indeed, some categories of employees no longer need to obtain a work permit to work in Belgium. This is especially relevant to non-EEA spouses of employees having obtained a work/single permit (family reunion procedures).
- Have a look at the existing work permits and the remaining duration thereof. The new single permit legislation does also affect ongoing work and residency permits. Renewal applications need to be filed 2 months before the expiry date of the existing work permit (previously, renewals needed to be filed only 1 month before expiry).
Our Brussels Labor & Employment practice is available to advise and assist companies regarding all aspects of international employment and residence in Belgium, 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


