The deadline of 7 June 2026 for the transposition of Directive 2023/970 on pay transparency has passed. Belgium has not met it. Below we discuss the reasons and consequences of Belgium not respecting the transposition deadline.
Why did Belgium not meet the deadline?
Belgium's transposition model requires the National Labour Council (NAR/CNT) to issue an advice before the federal government and parliament can adopt implementing legislation. That process never got off the ground, because the employer side refused to move.
The Belgian employers’ federation VBO-FEB has been opposed to the Directive from the start. VBO-FEB President Pieter Timmermans called it "an administrative monster" and called for revision at EU level. VBO-FBO fears that companies would face years of detailed pay recordkeeping to defend against litigation, and privacy issues arise where comparison groups are small. Also Unizo (Flemish organisation of independent entrepreneurs) called it "an avalanche of reporting obligations" and pushed for SME exemptions. Both organisations felt emboldened by the broader political push against EU administrative burdens at the Antwerp industry summit and the Alden Biesen summit in February 2026.
With the VBO unwilling to move, the NAR/CNT could not finalise their advice. Furthermore a transposition of the Directive would require changes to national collective bargaining agreement no. 25 regarding equal pay for women and men and collective bargaining agreement no. 38 regarding the recruitment rules.
In absence of social partner support and in light of employer’s fierce opposition, the Minister of Employment David Clarinval (MR) asked the European Commission for a 6-month postponement of the proceedings to sanction EU member states that do not meet the transposition deadline. He also requested about 30 clarifications on what the Directive actually requires.
Consequences: Direct effect of the Directive?
The absence of national transposition does not necessarily mean the Directive has no legal force in Belgium. EU Directives can have direct effect for workers in the public sector where a provision is sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional. Once the transposition deadline has passed, individuals can rely on such provisions before national courts. The following are likely directly applicable now .
However, there is no such direct effect for workers in the private sector. There the courts could try to follow a jurisprudence in conformity with the Directive, but this is only possible if there are existent rules that allow such an interpretation (which seems less the case for most provisions).
To be complete: Flanders and the French speaking Community have already transposed the Directive for their own staff. But this has no effect on the resto of the public sector, nor on the private sector.
What are the expectations?
Belgian transposition in late 2026 or beginning 2027 is the most realistic scenario, in line with the Netherlands, France and many other Member States. We expect that Belgium will finally opt for a minimal transposition, without gold plating.
What do we advise employers?
The lack of transposition buys most employers some additional time, but the fact that there is not published draft for the transposition also means that there is little guidance on how Belgium is intending to fill in the national details when it actually will implement the rules of the Directive.
We recommend to already prepare for the implementation of the rules that leave little room for interpretation, It could also be a good idea to look at the transposition in the other member states to get a good idea of the possible outcomes.
Employers can already check all vacancy texts and job titles for gender neutrality. Stop asking candidates about their current or previous salary. Remove any clause in employment contracts or HR policies that prohibits employees from discussing their pay with colleagues. These steps carry no legal risk and reduce future exposure.
The more important and more time-consuming task is mapping the pay structure. Most Belgian pay structures have accumulated over years through mergers, successive CBA’s and individual deals that seemed reasonable at the time. Many contain unexplained differences between comparable roles that have nothing to do with gender but will be difficult to justify under the Directive framework. Identifying and correcting those differences now, before the legal pressure arrives, is substantially less disruptive than doing it under a compliance deadline.
Finally, managers need preparation. Workers and their representatives will start asking questions about pay, and the answers need to be accurate, measured and consistent. A poorly worded or inconsistent response creates litigation risk. HR and line managers should understand what the current Belgian legal position is and how to handle a pay inquiry without making admissions that go beyond what the current legal demands.