associations to the National Labour Council; whether legislation existed to protect such right of access and what action had been taken to implement ILO recommendations in that regard; and whether the provision of the Belgian Constitution restricting outdoor meetings was compatible with article 21 of the Covenant. 416. In his reply, the representative said that, as a general principle, preventive action to restrict freedom of expression was not permissible under Belgian law. However, a posteriori judicial proceedings could be taken under the civil or criminal codes to redress damage to a person's reputation. While censorship of the press and other media was prohibited by the Constitution, there had been petitions to prevent the publication or broadcasting of damaging materials. In such cases magistrates had sought to strike a balance between all interested parties without impeding the freedom of expression, and granted petitions only where the rights of a third party had been manifestly violated. Public television channels in both Flemish and French were Stateowned and operated but several French and Flemish private channels were also in operation, 417. Concerning the dismissal of trade-union representatives, the representative said that "serious reasons" were defined by law as any serious transgression that immediately and definitely rendered future collaboration between the employer and employee impossible. Trade-union representatives were protected against dismissal for reasons related to their official status and the "serious reasons" could not be linked to the existence or discharge of official duties as trade-union representatives. Protection of the family and child, right to participate in the conduct of public affairs 418. In relation to those issues, members asked for information on legislation regarding divorce and custody of children and concerning the law and practice relating to the employment of minors. Members also wished to know what the differences were between the status of legitimate and natural children and whether the existence of the taortarchy impeded the application of the principle of equal access to public office by providing privileged treatment for the aristocracy. 419. In his reply, the representative said that the custody of children in the event of a divorce or separation was determined either by agreement or by court order, which was subject to review. In determining custody, the best interests of the child were the paramount factor. Where custody was awarded to one parent, the other retained the right to maintain personal relations with the child. All such rights were subject to judicial control if the child's physical or mental health was considered to be in jeopardy. Children who had not completed their compulsory schooling were prohibited from taking up employment except in areas related to their education and training. Work in the mining industry and activities that might jeopardize or threaten the health or morals of minors under 19 were also prohibited. The fact that a few public functions were reserved for the royal family did not interfere with full access by all citizens to public employment. -100-