Insights

In recent years, there has been a wave of new legislation impacting contracts and contractual terms. The Belgian legislator is gradually adopting the different Books of our new Belgian Civil Code, such as Book VI. Last February, a new proposal for Book VII on special contracts, including sale and loan agreements was submitted. Additionally, the Belgian Code of Economic Law has been updated several times, impacting the drafting of contracts and of contractual terms, not only between companies but also with consumers.

At the beginning of the year, we brought to your attention that a number of important Belgian and EU legislative changes are likely to have an impact in 2024: there are new laws that have been adopted and proposals that are expected to firm up into law.

A number of important Belgian and EU legislative changes are likely to have an impact in 2024. On the one hand, there are new laws that have been adopted and will start to bite, and, on the other, there are proposals that are expected to firm up into law.

This Crowell & Moring series of alerts provides practical information and professional commentary, rather than specific legal advice, on the legal ramifications for events industry stakeholders in Europe of the COVID-19 pandemic. For further information, please contact the lawyers listed on this alert. To view other alerts in this series, please click here.

The historic Brexit vote on June 23, 2016, calls into question the future of product regulation in the U.K. but should not have an immediate effect on compliance obligations.

On April 25, 2016, the European Commission (EC) released its 2015 report on the European Union’s (EU) Rapid Alert System for non-food (RAPEX). In 2015, the EC reported 2,123 total RAPEX notifications, a slight decrease from the 2,435 notifications in 2014 (an overall record).

On March 16, 2016, the General Court of the European Union (the GC) delivered a judgment (Case T-100/15 – Dextro Energy v Commission, not yet available in English) that, despite approval of a food health claim by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Commission (the Commission) is entitled under Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 to reject the health claim on the basis of generally accepted scientific advice.

On February 15, 2016, the European Commission made its new Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) portal available to EU consumers and traders. The ODR portal enables consumers in the EU to resolve complaints against EU traders for goods or services purchased online. In some Member States (currently, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, and Poland), traders may also be able to file complaints against consumers. The portal is not available to consumers or traders outside of the EU, and it cannot be used for offline sales or for business-to-business disputes.

As of July 1, 2015, all internet sites that sell medicines to the public in the EU Member States (plus Norway, Iceland, and Lichtenstein) have to display a common logo established by the EU Commission.

On 4 June 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union announced its judgment in the Teekanne case (Case C-195/14) that food labeling may be misleading even if the packaging features an accurate and complete food ingredient list. The product at issue was a fruit tea with packaging that featured vanilla and raspberries and indicated it only contained natural ingredients. The judgment is another development in the ongoing food labeling litigation trend in Europe, which is similar in some respects to litigation trends in the U.S.

On March 5, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a ruling in Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v. AOK Achsen-Anhait – Die Gesundheitskasse (joined cases C-503/13 and C-504/13), interpreting the European Union's (EU) Product Liability Directive /374 (PLD). In its judgment, the court articulated a broad reading of the defect and damages e 85lements required by the PLD for certain medical devices, creating uncertainty about the future application of those provisions.

On March 23, 2015, the European Commission (EC) announced its report on the EU's Rapid Alert System for non-food (RAPEX) for 2014. RAPEX, established by the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD), is the EU's system for exchanging information amongst and notifying member states, the EC, and the public about purportedly dangerous products and measures taken to address those dangers. RAPEX covers products posing a "serious risk," according to the EU's risk assessment methodology. Unlike the more diffuse safety and recall regulatory structure in the U.S., the European system captures hazardous consumer and professional products, motor vehicles, and cosmetics but excludes food, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices.

The European Union's revised regulation on food labeling for consumers, Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011, harmonizes and introduces new rules, ensuring that consumers receive clearer, more comprehensive and accurate information about food content. Key labeling requirements of the Regulation went into effect on December 13, 2014, though stock placed on the market or labeled before that date may be marketed until they are exhausted.  Revised nutrition labeling requirements go into effect on December 13, 2016.

Since September 1, 2014, Belgian law contains a collective redress mechanism. The procedure is available to Belgian and foreign consumers seeking redress from companies that have breached a contract or have violated certain consumer protection laws (European and domestic), including the product safety and product liability laws.

On September 24, 2013, the European Commission adopted two measures to improve the safety of medical devices put on the market in the EU.1 The measures are directed principally at the operation and control of so-called notified bodies. Notified bodies are independent public or private third-party organizations or companies designated by EU Member States to carry out control of manufacturers of medium and high risk medical devices put on the EU market. A control made in one Member State is valid throughout the EU.

On May 26, 2009, the Belgian competition Council fined Proximus, the incumbent Belgian wireless communications provider, a record 66,3 million Euro for abuse of dominance.