BELGIUM Law and Practice Contributed by: Chris Engels and Julie Devos, Claeys & Engels
chain – they may be held personally liable for the resulting harm. In civil proceedings, directors and officers may be liable for tortious acts if their actions or omis - sions contributed to the harm. This includes the obligation to compensate victims for damages caused by the company’s conduct. In addition to civil liability, Belgian law allows for criminal prosecution of individuals within a company, including directors and officers, for serious offences such as forced labour, human trafficking and other violations of labour and human rights laws. If convicted, directors and officers may face fines, imprisonment (in serious cases) and disqualification from holding directo - rial positions. Judicial proceedings can enforce both civil and criminal liability. Victims, regulatory authorities, or the Public Prosecutor’s Office may bring cas - es. The Labour Inspectorate also plays a key role in investigating and referring cases involving cor - porate leadership. 3.3 Parent Company Liability In Belgium, courts may disregard the separate legal personality of corporate entities and hold a parent company liable for the acts or omis - sions of its subsidiary, particularly in the context of human rights claims. This principle is rooted in both national and international legal frameworks designed to address the responsibility of multi - national corporations for human rights abuses that occur in their supply chains or operations, even if subsidiaries carry out those activities. The legal doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil” is the concept that, in certain situations, the court may disregard a corporation’s separate legal personality and hold its shareholders or
parent company liable for the actions of a sub - sidiary. While Belgian law generally adheres to the principle that corporate entities have distinct legal personalities (meaning a parent company is not automatically responsible for the actions of its subsidiary), exceptions exist, particularly in cases where human rights abuses are involved. Courts may consider piercing the corporate veil if: • the parent company exercises direct control over the subsidiary’s operations, particularly in areas related to human rights, such as labour conditions, environmental practices, or supply chain oversight; • the parent company’s policies, decisions, or omissions are shown to have contributed to or caused the human rights violations; and • there is a lack of operational independence between the parent and subsidiary, or the subsidiary is effectively acting as an instru - ment of the parent company. In such cases, Belgian courts may hold the par - ent company jointly or solely liable for the harm caused by the subsidiary. This approach aligns with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guide - lines, which emphasise the responsibility of par - ent companies to ensure that their subsidiaries and business partners respect human rights. 4. Enforcement and Litigation 4.1 Enforcement Activities In Belgium, state-based enforcement activities relating to BHR are gradually expanding, particu - larly as Belgium strengthens its legal framework for holding companies accountable for human rights violations. These enforcement activities
22
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook