The key market developments in IT outsourcing are as follows:
The key market developments in Business Process (BP) outsourcing are as follows:
New technologies such as robotics and artificial intelligence will help outsourcing providers to further automate processes and to achieve cost reduction and quality improvement at the same time.
The adoption of new technologies may lead to a new form of digital outsourcing whereby the services are mainly performed by machines instead of humans.
The 2019 BeLux IT Sourcing Study by Whitelane Research shows that the agile approach (ie, an innovative approach to software development project management) is the preferred working model in the BeLux with more than 50% of organisations using it and 33% planning to do so.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has an impact on outsourcing contracts. Suppliers that qualify as processors must enter into data processing agreements with their customers. Such agreements must include a number of mandatory clauses.
Given the continuous stream of cybersecurity incidents and data breaches worldwide, cybersecurity is one of the main concerns of customers.
For repetitive tasks such as indexing of images, companies are resorting to crowdsourcing platforms.
There are no legal or regulatory restrictions which apply specifically to outsourcing, except in certain sectors (see 2.2 Industry Specific Restrictions).
Outsourcing agreements in the public sector are subject to public procurement law (ie, the Public Procurement Law of 17 June 2016 and its implementing regulations). Note that some private entities (eg, utilities, hospitals, and educational institutions) may also be subject to public procurement rules.
If an outsourcing transaction is structured as a joint venture (JV) between the outsourcing customer and the supplier, with the outsourcing customer contributing personnel and assets to the JV, this may under certain conditions trigger an obligation to make a merger filing to the relevant competition authority (ie, either the Belgian Competition Authority or the European Commission, depending on whether the Belgian or the European notification thresholds are met) and to refrain from implementing the transaction while it is being reviewed by this authority. This may, in particular, be the case if the JV partners, for example, for reasons of economies of scale, intend the JV to have significant non-captive sales and the JV therefore qualifies as a “full-function” JV with independent market access. However, typically the JV is set up to exclusively supply the outsourcing customer and therefore does not qualify as full-function, so no merger filing is required.
In addition to any applicable legal and regulatory restrictions, outsourcing customers may of course contractually stipulate that the supplier must comply with additional requirements, such as industry standards (eg, ISO standards).
There are specific restrictions on outsourcing in the banking and insurance sectors. In both cases, the general principle is that the financial institution or insurance company remains fully responsible for all its activities at all times, including activities outsourced to third parties. Outsourcing must not impair the quality of internal controls or the supervision by the competent authorities. The investigative powers of the supervising authorities also extend to third-party outsourcing providers of the institutions within their purview.
We should also mention that in the area of settlement and clearing services, similar requirements regarding outsourcing also apply to central securities depositories (CSDs) pursuant to Regulation 909/2014 on improving securities settlement in the European Union and on central securities depositories, as well as to central counterparties (CCPs) pursuant to Regulation 648/2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories. These Regulations are directly applicable in Belgium.
The Belgian regulation of the banking sector is largely driven by EU legislation, in particular Directive 2013/35/EU on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms (the Capital Requirements Directive or CRD); Directive 2014/65/EU on markets and financial instruments (MiFID II); Directive 2105/2366/EU on payment services in the internal market (the revised Payment Services Directive or PSD2) and Directive 2009/110/EC on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions (the e-Money Directive). MiFID II contains specific provisions regarding the outsourcing of functions in the field of investment services and activities, whereas the PSD2 sets out requirements for the outsourcing of functions by payment institutions.
Note that Belgium has adopted a so-called “Twin Peaks” model of supervision over the financial sector, with two supervising authorities, the Belgian National Bank and the Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA). The Belgian National Bank is responsible for the micro-prudential, macro-prudential and systemic supervision, whereas the FSMA is responsible for the supervision over the rules of conduct of financial intermediaries in their relationship with clients.
Article 66 of the Law on the Legal Status and the Supervision of Credit Institutions and Listed Companies (the Banking Act) provides that when a credit institution outsources tasks to a third party which are of critical importance for a continuous and satisfactory provision of services – in particular as regards investment services and activities – it shall take appropriate measures to limit the operational risks this entails. Outsourcing must not impair the appropriate nature of the internal supervision procedures of the institution or the ability of the supervising authority, ie, the FSMA, to verify whether the credit institution complies with its legal and regulatory obligations (see also Article 16.5 MiFID II). After obtaining the advice of the FSMA, the bank shall publish a declaration setting out its policy in relation to outsourcing of portfolio management services for non-professional clients. Furthermore, Article 39/1 of the Banking Act provides that every credit institution must guarantee in an audit charter at a minimum that the internal audit function is independent and that its purview extends to all activities and entities of the institution, even in case of outsourcing.
Articles 38 and 195 of the Law of 11 March 2018 concerning the legal status of and supervision of payment institutions and electronic money institutions, which transposes the PSD2 and the e-Money Directive, provide that payment institutions and electronic money institutions which outsource functions, activities or operational tasks, remain fully responsible for the compliance with the Law as well as with the implementing measures of PSD2 and the e-Money Directive. Outsourcing of operational tasks, in particular if they are important, must not:
Prior to outsourcing any “important” or “critical” functions, activities or operational tasks, the institutions must inform the National Bank. The Bank can make the contemplated outsourcing subject to conditions or restrictions.
On 25 February 2019, the European Banking Authority (EBA) published revised Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements. The deadline for compliance is 5 September 2019 and the Guidelines enter into force on 30 September 2019. At the same time, the EBA’s 2006 guidelines on outsourcing and its recommendation on outsourcing to cloud service providers will be repealed. The Guidelines cover credit institutions and investment firms subject to the CRD, payment institutions subject to PSD2 and electronic money institutions subject to the e-Money Directive. They set out which arrangements with third parties are to be considered as outsourcing and provide criteria for the identification of critical or important functions that have a strong impact on the financial institution’s risk profile or on its internal control framework. If such critical or important functions are outsourced, stricter requirements apply to these outsourcing arrangements than to other outsourcing arrangements. In order to allow the competent authorities to effectively supervise financial institutions’ outsourcing arrangements, they are required to extensively document such arrangements. Additional safeguards are required for outsourcing to third countries (outside of the EU), to ensure compliance with EU rules and effective supervision over the outsourced activities by the competent authorities.
The FSMA, its predecessor the CBFA (Commission for the Banking, Finance and Insurance Sectors) as well as the Belgian National Bank have issued several Circulars and other guidance documents that are relevant to outsourcing arrangements, including outsourcing of IT services (eg, CBFA Circular PPB 2004/5 on sound management practices in case of outsourcing by credit institutions and investment companies; NBB Circular 2018/20 on outsourcing to providers of cloud services, etc).
Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II Directive) contains specific provisions on outsourcing of functions by insurers. These were transposed into Belgian Law by the Law of 4 April 2014 on Insurance (the Insurance Act), and the Law of 13 March 2016 on the legal status and supervision of insurance or reinsurance undertakings (the Solvency II Law).
The Insurance Act transposes the consumer protection provisions of the Solvency II Directive, whereas the Solvency II Law transposes the provisions regarding the governance of insurance undertakings. In the “Twin Peaks” model of supervision over the financial and insurance sectors, the FSMA is the competent authority for the former, whereas the National Bank is the competent authority for the latter.
Article 16/2 of the Insurance Act provides that, where an insurance company outsources functions, activities or operational tasks, it remains fully responsible for the compliance with all its legal and regulatory obligations. The outsourcing must not impair the continuity and adequacy of the service provision to policyholders, insured persons and beneficiaries of insurance agreements. It must also not impair the ability of the FSMA to verify whether the insurance company complies with its legal or regulatory obligations. If the insurance company outsources functions, tasks or operational activities directly or indirectly related to its obligations under the Insurance Act or its implementing regulations, it must take the necessary measures to ensure that the following requirements are met: the outsourcing provider must co-operate with the FSMA in relation to the outsourced function or activity; the insurers, the auditors of the accounts and the FSMA must have effective access to the data concerning the outsourced functions or activities; and the FSMA must have effective access to the premises of the provider and be able to effectively exercise its inspection rights under the Act.
If the insurance company outsources the management of an investment fund linked to an insurance product, the following additional requirements must be complied with: the insurance company must be able to justify its entire delegation structure with objective arguments; and the mandate may only be entrusted to institutions which are licensed or registered asset managers and subject to supervision or, if these conditions cannot be fulfilled, only with the FSMA’s prior approval. In case of outsourcing to an undertaking established in a third country, the FSMA must have concluded a memorandum of understanding with the supervisory authority of that country. The insurer must be able to demonstrate that the delegate is qualified to accomplish the tasks entrusted to it, that the delegate was selected with the utmost care, that the insurer is able to supervise the delegate’s activities continuously and effectively and to give it further instructions, and that the delegation can be revoked at all times if the interests of the insured persons or the beneficiaries so require. The insurer shall subject the services of each delegate to a continuous evaluation.
Article 92 of the Solvency II Law provides that any insurance or reinsurance undertaking which outsources functions, activities or operational tasks, remains fully responsible for the compliance with its obligations under the Law or any measures implementing the Solvency II Directive. The outsourcing of operational tasks must not entail:
Pursuant to Article 274 of Commission Delegated Regulation 2015/35 supplementing the Solvency II Directive, any (re)insurance undertaking which outsources or proposes to outsource functions or (re)insurance activities to a service provider shall establish a written outsourcing policy which takes into account the impact of outsourcing on its business and the reporting and monitoring arrangements to be implemented in cases of outsourcing. In the case of outsourcing of “critical or important operational functions or activities”, the Delegated Regulation sets out additional verifications that the management body of the insurance undertaking must perform when selecting a service provider, the minimum content of the written agreement with the service provider and additional requirements for the outsourcing (re)insurance undertaking itself.
The governance requirements regarding outsourcing by (re)insurers, including outsourcing of “critical and important operational functions or activities”, are further specified in Chapter 7 of the Belgian National Bank’s Overarching Governance System Circular.
An important governance rule regarding outsourcing by insurance undertakings is that the impact of outsourcing may not be of such a scale that the insurance company exhibits the characteristics of an “empty shell” that is no longer capable of complying with its conditions for authorisation and pursuit of business.
The European General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) governs the processing of personal data and includes restrictions on data processing and data security. In addition, the Belgian Act of 30 July 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data applies to the processing of personal data by:
If the outsourcing entails the processing of personal data, the GDPR will need to be complied with. Customers or suppliers established in Belgium will also need to comply with the Belgian Act of 30 July 2018.
The GDPR applies to “controllers” and “processors” processing personal data.
A controller is defined as an entity that, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and the means of the processing of personal data.
A processor is defined as an entity that processes personal data on behalf of a controller.
The obligations vary depending on whether a company qualifies as a controller or a processor. In an outsourcing context, the supplier is typically considered a processor. However, this must always be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Where the processing is carried out by a processor, the controller and processor must enter into a data processing agreement, which must contain a number of specific clauses.
The GDPR also contains restrictions with regard to the transfer of personal data which is particularly important in the context of outsourcing.
Under the GDPR, personal data may be freely transferred to countries within the European Economic Area and to countries for which the European Commission has issued an adequacy finding (Andorra, Argentina, Canada (entities covered by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act), Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay and the US (entities certified under the Privacy Shield program)).
For transfers to other countries, appropriate safeguards must be in place such as standard contractual clauses or codes of conduct.
Furthermore, the GDPR requires both controllers and processors to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to adequately protect the personal data.
The Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive 2016/1148, which has been implemented in Belgian law by the Act of 7 April 2019 on the establishment of a framework for the protection of network and information systems of public interest for public safety, imposes security obligations on operators of essential services as defined in the Act (eg, transport, energy suppliers) regardless of whether they are processing personal data.
Non-compliance with the Belgian Act implementing the NIS Directive can be punished with:
Where the supplier is a data processor, the GDPR requires customer and supplier to enter into a written data processing agreement setting out the details of the data processing (subject-matter, duration, nature, purpose, type of personal data and categories of data subjects). The agreement shall stipulate that the processor:
In other cases, ie, where the GDPR does not apply, there is no general legal obligation to include data and security protections in contracts. However, it is highly recommended, and also standard practice, to include provisions on security, incident reporting, customer audit rights, customer data access rights, data retention and deletion and sub-contracting.
Outsourcing is not a regulated contract under Belgian law. Except where public procurement rules apply (see below), the parties enjoy a high degree of contractual freedom. There is no standard supplier-customer model in Belgium. However, typically, the outsourcing agreement takes the form of a framework agreement or “master services agreement” (MSA), supplemented by specific agreements such as project agreements, service level agreements (SLAs) detailing key performance indicators (KPIs), etc. The most common remuneration model is based on unit prices, sometimes with fixed components or minimum fees to be paid by the customer regardless of its actual service consumption.
In most cases, a single-supplier model is applied, whereby the outsourced activities are entrusted to a single service provider. Less frequently, a multi-supplier model may be applied. In some cases, the outsourcing transaction is structured as a joint venture (JV) (see 3.2 Alternative Contract Models).
Where the outsourcing is subject to public procurement rules, the content of the contract is to some extent regulated (in particular by the Royal Decree of 14 January 2013 on general rules for the execution of public contracts). There are general rules concerning inter alia payment terms, verification terms, sureties, revision of the contract, etc. Certain rules cannot be derogated from (and any derogations shall be considered as null and void), whereas other derogations require a specific justification (in the absence of which they are also deemed null and void). The regulations also supplement public contracts on points that they do not explicitly address.
Multi-supplier agreements are less common but may be a good option for the outsourcing of complex operations that require the specific know-how and competences of several specialised suppliers. In a multi-supplier model, one vendor often acts as the “integrator”. This “integrator” is responsible for the integrated service offering, managing the different suppliers according to their individual contracts/SLAs and ensuring that they remain aligned with the customer’s objectives. Such an arrangement also has the advantage that non-performing suppliers can be replaced without disrupting the whole outsourced operation.
In some cases, the parties choose to structure the outsourcing transaction as a joint venture (JV) agreement. The outsourcing customer then typically contributes the resources (personnel and assets) previously dedicated to the in-house performance of the outsourced operations to the JV, while the outsourcing supplier also contributes personnel and assets. This model allows the customer to keep tight(er) control over service delivery and security.
Alternative remuneration models include remuneration as a percentage share of the customer’s net sales or, in the case of outsourcing structured as a joint venture agreement, remuneration as a share in the profits of the JV.
There are no notable recent developments regarding the use of captives and shared services centres apart from the fact that this has also been affected by the general trend towards increasing digitisation, and the use of cloud-based and SaaS (software as a service) solutions.
The outsourcing contract is sui generis, there are no general customer protection measures provided for by law. As customer and supplier are in a B2B relationship, there is no pre-identified weaker party to the contract. Contractual freedom thus prevails and the customer will in principle have to see to its own protection (generally, by entering into a comprehensive, precise and clearly drafted contract, including a maximum of protective clauses).
However, the recent Act of 4 April 2019 introduces new provisions in Book IV of the Code of Economic Law relating to the abuse of economic dependence. These provisions will enter into force on 1 June 2020. Economic dependence is a position of weakness of one party (eg, because of the absence of equivalent alternatives) allowing the other party to impose performances or conditions that could not be obtained under normal market conditions. A customer finding itself in this situation can invoke the protective provision of Book IV of the Code of Economic Law. The Act of 4 April 2019 does not prohibit economic dependence itself, but only the abuse of such position if and to the extent that this affects competition on the affected Belgian markets or an essential part thereof. The following practices may be considered as an abuse of economic dependence:
The Act also introduces provisions prohibiting certain unlawful contract terms or abusive clauses in B2B contracts, without the need to show economic dependence. These provisions, which will enter into force on 1 December 2020, exempt public procurement and financial services. A contractual clause in a B2B contract will be unfair and consequently prohibited if it creates a “significant imbalance” between the rights and obligations of the parties.
In addition to this general prohibition, the new rules also introduce two lists of specific categories of clauses: a black list and a grey list. Blacklisted clauses are considered abusive and prohibited in all circumstances without the need for any further evaluation, and include:
Greylisted clauses are presumed to be unfair unless proven otherwise, ie, unless it is proven that such clauses do not create a significant imbalance. The grey list contains clauses that:
More generally, aside from this particular regime, the customer may see to its own protection by entering into a comprehensive, precise and clearly drafted contract, including a maximum of protective clauses. Protective measures and clauses include:
The customer should stipulate in the contract the consequences of a contractual breach and the applicable remedies. Usually, the contract will foresee financial penalties or lump sum damages. The customer can also stipulate that the party suffering from non-execution or violation of a clause will withhold its own contractual obligations (eg, retain payment of supplier’s fees), or be entitled to terminate the contract without prior recourse to a judge (see 4.2 Termination).
Parties can freely stipulate termination terms. Whether it is a fixed-term or an indefinite duration contract, in practice numerous outsourcing agreements contain a reciprocal possibility to unilaterally terminate the contract without cause – or for a cause unrelated to the other party’s behaviour – simply by respecting a determined notice period and/or by paying predefined indemnities.
The parties can also included a clause that would entitle the party who is the victim of a breach to terminate the contract without needing prior recourse to a judge. Often, the types of breach justifying termination will be listed non-exhaustively.
In some rarer cases, the outsourcing contract will contain an anticipatory breach clause allowing termination of the contract, where a breach has not yet occurred but is highly likely to.
A clause specific to outsourcing agreements is the "reversibility mechanism". Because the customer inevitably abandons certain powers relating to the outsourced services to the supplier, it will want the contract to end progressively (not abruptly), in order to be able to find another supplier or reinvest in the outsourced activities and regain control over them. Such a clause will contain contractual and post-contractual obligations ensuring continuity of the outsourced activities and mitigating damages to a maximum extent.
Other clauses can stipulate that a specific event will put an end to the contract: bankruptcy, force majeure, intuitu personae clauses, etc.
If the parties have not foreseen particular termination terms, Belgian contract law will apply by default, allowing the parties to terminate the contract through:
If the outsourcing contract is concluded for a definite duration, the contract will end upon expiry of its term.
Violation by the parties of their respective contractual (or extra-contractual) obligations is subject to liability. Under Belgian law, parties can freely determine which damages are subject to recovery, be it for direct (directly deriving or resulting from the breach) or indirect losses.
Parties can also agree to limit their liability. Only exoneration for fraud or exoneration from the performance of essential obligations of the contract (which would deprive the contract of its purpose/essence) are prohibited. In practice, outsourcing contracts often contain quite sophisticated liability exoneration/limitation clauses, eg:
Supplier’s contractual and extra-contractual liability will also frequently be capped to a maximum amount, often with reference to the total value of the contract, or with reference to the amount of the supplier’s insurance coverage.
Clauses can of course also limit both the type of damage/loss and the amounts due.
The customer will want to allow for the broadest possible supplier liability. It is not uncommon to see unlimited liability clauses, covering any loss or type of damage (included indirect or immaterial loss) burdening the supplier.
Finally, outsourcing contracts frequently contain so-called “hold harmless agreements”. These are indemnity clauses through which one party commits itself to being liable for any damage the other would have to pay to third parties, as a result of an incident in relation with the contract (eg, violation of labour regulations).
Belgian contract law and general principles impose implied terms or obligations applicable by default if the parties do not agree otherwise.
First, as the outsourcing contract is sui generis, doctrine and case-law will by default apply the rules pertaining to service provision contracts (Article 1710 et seq. Civil Code). For instance, Article 1794 of the Civil Code, allows each party to unilaterally terminate the contract without cause, provided the other party receives indemnities for any lost profits or damages (see 4.2 Termination).
Also, the following general rules apply to all bilateral contracts:
When a company outsources an activity to another company, the outsourcing operation may qualify as a "transfer of an undertaking (or part of an undertaking)" as defined by the EU Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 (hereafter, Directive 2001/23) containing rules for the safeguard of employees’ rights. Belgium transposed the Directive through the Collective Bargaining Agreement n°32bis (hereafter, CBA 32bis). Typically, the transfer of (part of) an undertaking creates a triangular relationship between:
For the outsourcing operation to qualify as a "transfer of (or part of) an undertaking" under Directive 2001/23 and CBA 32bis and for the employee protection rules to be triggered, a number of conditions must be met, primarily:
There is, however, no condition as to the number of employees being transferred (the protection could thus apply to only one employee). The condition according to which the (part of the) undertaking must keep its identity after the outsourcing operation is difficult to define and the source of abundant, evolving and sometimes obscure or contradictory case-law from the European Court of Justice. The core question to be considered is whether the activities/operations of the (part of the) undertaking being transferred is continued as such (or in similar conditions) by the new employer (transferee), based on the following factors (the importance of each factor depending of the type of undertaking):
When there is a "transfer of (or part of) an undertaking" as defined by Directive 2001/23 and CBA 32bis, the protective rules entail that all the employees confronted with the transfer will continue to benefit from all their individual and collective rights. Hence, all employment contracts, including the employment and remuneration conditions (except employees’ rights to old-age, invalidity or survivor’s benefits under supplementary company pension schemes) are automatically transferred from the initial employer (transferor) to the new employer (transferee). It is thus not necessary to enter into a new employment contract.
In theory, the transferee must take over all the employees occupied at the moment of the transfer, without the possibility to "select" only some of them. The transferor and the transferee can agree that some of the transferred employees will remain with the transferor, provided the employees concerned expressly agree to not being transferred.
The employees are protected against termination of their employment contract, either before or after the transfer, if the termination can be considered as being related to the transfer. The prohibition on terminating the employment agreement is lifted if either transferor or transferee can demonstrate that the dismissal is based on unrelated economic, technical or organisational reasons.
The transferor and the transferee are jointly and severally liable for the payment of debts existing at the date of the transfer and resulting from the existing employment contracts.
The transferor and transferee are required to inform and, in certain situations (see 5.2 Trade Union or Workers Council Consultation), consult with the employees affected by the transfer or their representatives in relation to at least the following:
Besides the national CBA on transfer of undertakings, some employers also need to comply with sector-specific rules (for instance, in the cleaning sector (Joint Industrial Committee nr. 121)).
Under Belgian law, the transferor and the transferee could be required to inform and consult their respective Works Council (or Trade Union Delegation) about an (contemplated) outsourcing operation.
Section 11 of CBA n°9 of 9 March 1972 pertaining to Works Councils states: “In case of a merger, concentration, takeover or closure or other significant structural changes negotiated by the company, the Works Council shall be informed in good time and before disclosure. It shall be consulted effectively and in advance, notably as regards the impact on employment prospects, work organization and employment policy in general”. The terms “significant structural changes” are not defined by CBA n°9. Doctrine is of the opinion that a broad interpretation is appropriate and that the question as to whether or not the envisaged structural changes are significant should be analysed case by case, taking into account all the factual circumstances.
In principle, an outsourcing operation with an impact on employment (eg, with the effect of transferring employees from the transferor to the transferee) will qualify as a “significant structural change”, hence the transferor and transferee respective Works Council should be informed and consulted. If the outsourcing operation has no significant impact on the structure and employment of either company, there is in principle no need to consult the Works Council, but this is nonetheless to be recommended.
In addition to this, since 2008, a transfer of a part of undertaking is also subject to a new paragraph of Article 4 of CBA n°9. The Works Council is also to be informed and consulted in advance by the employer on decisions which may cause important changes in the work organisation or the employment agreement. ‘Consultation’ (as opposed to ‘information’) means a right for the Works Council to negotiate, to open an effective dialogue between the employer and the workers’ representatives. The general principle is that there should be an exchange of views and that the employees’ representatives may ask for additional information, ask questions, formulate criticisms or suggestions, give their opinions, etc. The employer must follow-up on these questions, suggestions, etc, to ensure continuity of the dialogue.
The Works Council does not have a veto right and cannot unilaterally block the planned outsourcing operation.
If there is no Works Council within the company, the consultation shall occur at the level of the Trade Union Delegation (Article 24 CBA n°5 of 24 May 1971 pertaining to Trade Unions).
The transferor and the transferee will very often (and are encouraged to) include provisions in their outsourcing contract addressing employee transfer and providing inter alia for mechanisms and guarantees to determine potential liabilities arising from the (non)transfer of employees under an outsourcing project. This is of utmost importance since arrangements between transferor and transferee in the outsourcing contract (inter alia a potential selection of employees to be transferred) are not enforceable against the employees concerned. The question, for example, of which company will ultimately bear the potential costs resulting from termination or otherwise in relation with the (non)transfer, the rights and possible return of employees in the event of the termination of the outsourcing, etc, should be addressed.
The provisions regarding employee transfer will also usually foresee that the transferee will maintain sufficient staffing levels to ensure all the outsourced services are performed in accordance with the agreed work specifications and within the agreed timeframes.
It is common practice for an annex to be added to the outsourcing contract so as to clarify the terms and conditions of the transfer of employees, eg, are they respecting their employment contracts, are they respecting the remuneration and other work conditions, how and when were the employees informed about their rights and obligations, etc. Usually, the parties to the outsourcing contract will also agree on the criteria to be used to determine which employees fall within the scope of the transaction. This is in particular the case in relation to shared services and other support departments which carry out certain duties for the benefit of the part of undertaking transferred. The annex sometimes contains a list of the transferred employees (but again this list as such is not enforceable against the employees concerned).
When assets are transferred in the context of an outsourcing or otherwise, the terms applicable to such transfer depend on the type of asset.
The transfer of immovable assets must be in writing and must be performed through a public notary. No specific formalities apply for the transfer of movable assets.
The transfer of IP rights must be in writing. For registered IP rights such as patents and trademarks the transfer will need to be registered with the patent and trademark register respectively.
The transferability of commercial contracts will depend on the contract terms. If the contract does not allow for transfer, then the party wishing to transfer the agreement must seek the consent of the other contract party. The same goes for the transfer of IP licenses.