Court of Cassation, 26 March 2026: a share of a plot in Morocco acquired gratuitously also counts

Since 1 April 2015, the tenant had occupied a social housing unit of Woonhaven Antwerpen. An investigation showed that since 5 March 2001 he had been the owner, together with his brother, of a plot of land in Morocco, on which a dwelling had meanwhile been built. The plot had been acquired gratuitously. Woonhaven terminated the lease by registered letter of 14 December 2021, because the tenant no longer met the conditions regarding real estate ownership.

On 27 June 2024, on appeal against the judgment of the justice of the peace (vrederechter), the court of first instance of Antwerp ruled that the tenant had not committed a breach of contract and that the termination was invalid. The court took the view that the rules did not apply to a share of real estate that had been acquired without payment. Woonhaven appealed to the Court of Cassation (Hof van Cassatie).

The Court set out the applicable rules. Article 6.21 of the Vlaamse Codex Wonen (Flemish Housing Code) provides that the tenant of a social rental dwelling must meet the conditions regarding real estate ownership throughout the entire term of the lease. Since the amendment to the Kaderbesluit Sociale Huur (Framework Order on Social Renting) that entered into force on 1 March 2017, a social tenant was not permitted to own a dwelling or a plot intended for residential construction wholly or partly in full ownership, in Belgium or abroad. Anyone who was already a partial owner on 1 March 2017 had to leave the joint ownership within one year.

According to the Court, that obligation applied “regardless of whether this plot was acquired gratuitously or for consideration”. Anyone who failed to do so committed an infringement of Article 6.21 and therefore a breach of contract. The court of first instance had infringed the law by ruling that a share acquired gratuitously did not constitute a ground for termination. The Court set aside the judgment and referred the case to the court of first instance of Limburg, which must rule again on appeal.

Three points are important.

Foreign property is treated in the same way. The Court makes no distinction between a plot in Flanders and a plot in Morocco. The location of the property does not matter, only the right the tenant holds in it.

The method of acquisition does not matter. Inheritance, gift or purchase: for the property ownership condition, it made no difference. That is precisely the argument tenants often raise (“I only inherited it”) and which is hereby swept aside, at least for the period up to 1 October 2025.

Recovery for the past remains possible. Even now that an inherited share no longer excludes, a housing company can recover the social rent reduction for the years 2017 to September 2025 from a tenant who was a partial owner at the time and concealed this. An investigation that records the ownership and the date of acquisition remains necessary for this; how we do this is explained under full in-depth investigation. Each ruling relates to a specific case file and offers no guarantee for the outcome of another case. The court assesses the evidential value of the documents submitted.

Source: Court of Cassation 26 March 2026, C.24.0424.N, ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260326.1N.4 (Juportal); Rechtskundig Weekblad 2026-27, p. 252. Quotations translated from the Dutch by Bureaubuitenland; not an official translation.