Freedom of association and freedom of assembly

Participants considered that Belgium generally had high levels of protection for human rights, freedom of association and respect for civic space. They highlighted the fundamental role of CSOs in building a democratic society, and how the authorities had historically delegated civic tasks to CSOs, for example in the area of healthcare and education. However, some major concerns relating to restrictions on freedom of association were flagged. Participants reported cases involving the excessive use of force by the police at public demonstrations, violence against people in custody, as well as restrictions on the recording of police actions. In this context, they recalled that Belgium has not yet ratified the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT). The Belgian authorities replied that any restriction occurred in a lawful manner, and the police were only managing demonstrations on basis of negotiations conducted by local authorities. According to the participants, a draft law under discussion would impose preventative bans on the right to demonstrate, giving judges the power to decide and impose penalties on protesters. They pointed out that, in cases relating to social conflict, all sides had the right to be heard, as opposed to unilateral applications to the court from employers. Participants described how certain municipalities had imposed further restrictions on freedom of association that were not in line with international law: from changing local by-laws to require an authorisation for protest organisers instead of a notification, to setting up local "neutral zones" where protests could not be held. From the participants' perspective, there had been a major shift from the role historically attributed to CSOs, due to their instrumentalisation and recent regulations. Participants reported a growing public tendency to question the added value of Advisory Councils and Committees, which could lead to their reorganisation, a reduction in number, and a consequent decrease in their influence and overall participation of civil society in policy-making. Following a 2019 law that allowed non-profit organisations to pursue profit-making activities, participants had some concerns about the possibility that CSOs would be encouraged to become self-funded and pursue profit , drawing them away from their original goals (such as advocacy or support to individuals). It was also feared that the assimilation of non-profit associations with commercial companies would exacerbate competition for funding, which could in turn create a kind of self-censorship environment for CSOs seeking to maximise their chances of succeeding in public calls for tenders. According to their view, well-intentioned measures, for example on data protection and fraud, increased bureaucratic requirements for all CSOs, having a negative impact at grassroots level mainly on newly founded, small, and volunteer-led CSOs, unable to deal with more red tape. In addition, participants considered that such provisions had also been misused by the authorities, to target undesirable CSOs. Participants provided examples of problematic cases related to access to funding for CSOs in Flanders: a new decree could potentially halt public funding for CSOs working with people of foreign origin, especially socio-cultural organisations. Many organisations in this situation were under stress and were considering changing name to continue applying for public funds. Participants mentioned the case of a CSO focused on minority groups that felt pressured to avoid criticism under the threat of budget cuts. Participants were also concerned about the instrumentalisation of funding for CSOs by political forces. It was explained that citizens had been contributing much less to organisations via memberships or donations. As a result, CSOs had become more dependent on public financial support, giving the State more power to control CSOs' existence, according to participants. Certain differences in the tax regime applicable to CSOs were also deemed discriminatory; for instance regarding the criteria for benefitting from tax exemptions on gifts. Participants pointed out that economic support had often been projectbased and short-term, which made it difficult for CSOs to plan for the future.