CASE LAW
Case law
Are you permitted to have an investigation carried out into whether a tenant or client owns real estate abroad? Belgian courts have ruled on this at various levels: the justice of the peace (vrederechter), the court of first instance, the Constitutional Court (Grondwettelijk Hof) and the Court of Cassation (Hof van Cassatie).
Each ruling concerns a specific case file
BELGIAN CASE LAW
The rulings that matter to you
Court of first instance of Antwerp, 5 October 2020 (appeal)
The facts
Following an investigation, social tenants turned out to have land and apartments abroad registered in their names, partly in co-ownership. The tenants appealed against the judgment of the justice of the peace and relied, among other things, on the right to privacy.
What the court decided
The court confirmed that concealing foreign real estate is a serious breach of the rules on social renting. The tenants had to repay the wrongly received benefit of EUR 13,210.07. The privacy defences were rejected.
Why this matters to you
In this case, the court also took the findings of the foreign property investigation into account on appeal and granted the recovery of the social rent reduction.
Justice of the peace court of Antwerp, Woonhaven case
The facts
The housing company (woonmaatschappij) Woonhaven took legal action against a tenant who had received a rent reduction for nine years while owning property abroad. The claim amounted to approximately EUR 50,000, including the costs of the investigation.
What the court decided
The justice of the peace ruled in favour of Woonhaven and went a step further: a housing company is not only permitted to investigate whether a tenant owns property abroad, it is obliged to do so, in view of its remit and the waiting lists. It was the third case in a row that the city of Antwerp won on this point.
Why this matters to you
In this case, the justice of the peace regarded checks on foreign property as part of the remit of a housing company. This may be relevant when a tenant disputes the investigation.
Justice of the peace of Hamme, 6 June 2019
The facts
The housing company De Zonnige Woonst had Bureaubuitenland investigate whether a number of tenants owned real estate in Türkiye (Turkey). In the case of one of them, building plots and dwellings registered in his name were found. The tenant argued that the privacy and anti-discrimination legislation had been breached and that the sworn declaration (verklaring op erewoord) was contrary to the Kaderbesluit Sociale Huur (Framework Order on Social Renting).
What the court decided
The justice of the peace declared the claim admissible and well-founded and rejected all defences. The tenant was ordered to repay the wrongly received benefit, to reimburse the search costs and to pay the legal costs.
Why this matters to you
This was the first ruling in which a Belgian court assessed our investigation on its merits. The defences that tenants usually raise were rejected one by one, and the investigation costs were borne by the tenant.
HIGHEST COURTS
Constitutional Court, Court of Cassation and Council of State (Raad van State)
Court of Cassation, 26 March 2026 (Woonhaven Antwerpen)
The facts
Since 2001, a social tenant had owned, together with his brother, a plot of land in Morocco acquired gratuitously, on which a dwelling was later built. The court of first instance of Antwerp found that a share acquired without payment was not a ground for termination.
What the court decided
The Court set aside that judgment. Since 1 March 2017, a social tenant was not permitted to own any share of a dwelling or building plot, in Belgium or abroad, "regardless of whether this plot was acquired gratuitously or for consideration". The case has been referred to the court of first instance of Limburg.
Why this matters to you
This judgment underlines the importance of careful investigation of property abroad. The ownership share, the date of acquisition and the manner of acquisition help your housing company assess the case according to the rules that apply to the period concerned. Since 1 October 2025, amended rules apply to partial ownership.
Constitutional Court, 18 January 2024, ruling 8/2024 (Woonmaatschappij IJzer en Zee)
The facts
Tenants from Adinkerke bought a house in Morocco in 2014 with an inheritance and a loan. An investigation agency brought this to light. The tenants called the property ownership condition discriminatory compared with those who leave the same money in the bank.
What the court decided
The property ownership condition does not violate the Constitution. Anyone who owns real estate can in principle realise their right to housing themselves, by living in it or by using the proceeds from renting it out or selling it.
Why this matters to you
The basis of every property investigation, including abroad, has been found to be constitutional.
Council of State, 17 September 2024, no. 260.645, and the new rule since 1 October 2025
The facts
The Vlaams Huurdersplatform (Flemish Tenants' Platform) challenged the rule that even a share of a dwelling, for example an inherited share, excludes a social tenant.
What the court decided
Treating partial ownership the same as full ownership violates the principle of equality. The Flemish Government adjusted the rule: since 1 October 2025, only full ownership (or full usufruct, long lease (erfpacht) or right of superficies (opstal)) excludes, in Belgium or abroad.
Why this matters to you
An investigation must now draw a sharp distinction between full ownership and co-ownership and record the date of acquisition; the social rent reduction for the years before October 2025 remains recoverable.
Background: Centrale Raad van Beroep (Central Appeals Tribunal, Netherlands), 1 October 2018
Dutch case law, for background. In four cases, two of which concerned investigations by Bureaubuitenland in Türkiye, the highest Dutch administrative court ruled that municipalities and the Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Social Insurance Bank) may use evidence obtained in Türkiye of concealed real estate to withdraw and recover social assistance. Arguments based on privacy, discrimination and unlawfully obtained evidence were rejected. These rulings do not apply in Belgium, but show that similar defences have also been assessed by the Dutch courts. Read the summary.
Context: large-scale social fraud in Limburg
To illustrate the scale of the problem: in 2017, the labour prosecutor’s office (arbeidsauditoraat) in Limburg uncovered a network that helped at least 257 people obtain undue benefits and social advantages with forged documents, for more than EUR 13 million. Read the report, taken from Het Belang van Limburg.
Discuss your case
Do you have a question about real estate abroad? We are happy to discuss which service suits your case. You receive clarity in advance about the assignment, the lead time and the costs.