Ruling of the justice of the peace of Hamme, 6 June 2019

The social housing company De Zonnige Woonst from Hamme engaged Bureaubuitenland to check whether a number of its tenants owned real estate in Türkiye. The investigations were carried out on site through local lawyers and on the basis of the Turkish land registry records.

Real estate registered in their names was found for all the tenants investigated. In the case of the tenant in this case, it concerned building plots and dwellings, whereas a social tenant is not permitted to own a dwelling or building plot.

Before the justice of the peace, the tenant raised a series of defences:

• breach of the privacy legislation by the investigation abroad;
• breach of the anti-discrimination legislation;
• incompatibility of the sworn declaration with the Kaderbesluit Sociale Huur (Framework Order on Social Renting).

The justice of the peace rejected these defences or declared them unproven. The justice of the peace ruled that the tenant had wilfully and in bad faith withheld information about the real estate in Türkiye and had as a result enjoyed a social advantage for years to which there was no entitlement. This concerns a reduction that quickly amounts to thousands of euros per year.

At the extraordinary public hearing of 6 June 2019, the justice of the peace declared the claim of De Zonnige Woonst admissible and well-founded. The tenant was ordered, among other things:

1. to repay the advantages wrongly received;
2. to reimburse the search costs incurred, that is, the costs of the investigation in Türkiye;
3. to pay, jointly and severally, the legal costs of the housing company.

This was the first ruling in which a Belgian court assessed an investigation by Bureaubuitenland on its merits. Three points are of lasting importance.

The investigation is permitted. A housing company may engage an external agency to check the property ownership condition abroad. In this case, the reliance on privacy and anti-discrimination did not hold.

The sworn declaration is not a carte blanche. Anyone who declares that they own no real estate may be checked; the sworn declaration in social housing also states this expressly.

Here, the costs were borne by the tenant. Not only the social rent reduction but also the investigation costs were awarded. In this case, the investigation therefore ultimately cost the housing company nothing.

Each ruling relates to a specific case file and offers no guarantee for the outcome of another case. For example, the court of first instance of Antwerp did dismiss the claim for the investigation costs in 2020.

The housing company’s own explanation can be read in the statement by De Zonnige Woonst. On appeal, this line was confirmed in 2020 by the court of first instance of Antwerp.

Sources: judgment of the justice of the peace court of Hamme of 6 June 2019 (copy in our file); VRT NWS, 18 June 2019; explanation by De Zonnige Woonst.