Judgment on appeal: court of first instance of Antwerp, 5 October 2020

A housing company (woonmaatschappij) had had an investigation carried out into whether a number of social tenants owned real estate abroad. The investigation showed that a considerable number of plots of land and apartments were registered wholly or partly in the name of one of the tenants.

At first instance, the justice of the peace (vrederechter) had ruled in favour of the housing company. The tenants appealed against that judgment to the court of first instance of Antwerp.

The tenants disputed the claim, relying on certain documents and on their right to privacy. The court rejected these defences. It ruled that concealing real estate abroad constitutes a serious breach of the rules on social renting, and that the tenants had as a result received social advantages for years to which they were not entitled.

The judgment of 5 October 2020 contains three decisions:

1. confirmation that the tenants had unduly obtained social advantages;
2. the obligation to repay the wrongly received benefit of EUR 13,210.07 to the housing company;
3. the dismissal of the additional claim for the costs of the investigation report and its translation.

This judgment is significant because it was given on appeal. The line taken by the justice of the peace in Hamme was thereby confirmed by a higher court: in this case, the court took the evidence from a foreign property investigation into account and the recovery of the social rent reduction was granted. Each ruling relates to a specific case file and offers no guarantee for the outcome of another case.

Note the third point. Unlike in Hamme, the court here did not award the costs of the report and the translation. Whether the investigation costs can be recovered from the tenant therefore depends on the court and on the way in which the claim has been built up. We advise always claiming the investigation costs separately and with substantiation, and submitting the report with a sworn translation. How we support this is explained under recovery and seizure.

Sources: judgment on appeal of the court of first instance of Antwerp, civil division, of 5 October 2020, served on 9 November 2020 (copy in our file); Business AM, 11 December 2020; VRT NWS, 10 December 2020.