Europe - EN
België - NL
Nederland - NL
España - ES
France - FR
Belgian retail federation Comeos, together with several members, is appealing to the Council of State against the new tax on self-checkout machines in Liège: “Retail is not a cash cow,” says CEO Pascal De Greef.
“Self-checkout is not a job killer”
In October, the city of Liège announced that it would levy a tax of €519 per device per year on self-checkout machines in order to protect jobs and support small retailers. This decision led to widespread outrage in the retail sector. Comeos is now taking action. “We have very clear legal objections to this measure and are convinced that the Council of State will overturn the regulation,” says De Greef. “This tax punishes companies that invest in modern, customer-focused shopping experiences.”
The City of Liège justifies the tax by referring to employment, among other things, but according to Comeos, that argument does not hold water. Self-scan checkouts do not replace jobs: staff remain present and see their tasks evolve towards guidance, answering questions, restocking, quality control, and hygiene. “A self-checkout is not a job killer,” emphasizes De Greef. “It changes the nature of the work: fewer repetitive tasks, more service, and more balance in the work. That’s good for both customers and employees.”
Broader trend
What’s more, there are currently more than 24,000 job vacancies in the Belgian retail sector. According to Comeos, it is difficult to understand why a city with an employment rate of barely 55% would impose additional taxes on investments that make the sector more efficient and attractive.
The federation warns of a broader trend in which local authorities are increasingly introducing specific taxes that mainly affect the retail sector. “Retail is not a cash cow. Our sector employs hundreds of thousands of people and contributes substantially to the economy. To continue to play that role, we must be able to continue to invest and innovate – not be penalized.”
Comeos calls on cities and municipalities not to follow this example and to opt for a forward-looking tax policy that supports innovation rather than hinders it.
