{"id":595,"date":"2026-10-25T13:44:05","date_gmt":"2026-10-25T12:44:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/case-law\/crvb-2018\/"},"modified":"2026-11-03T09:25:56","modified_gmt":"2026-11-03T08:25:56","slug":"crvb-2018","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/crvb-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Case law of the Central Appeals Tribunal (Netherlands) on asset investigation in T\u00fcrkiye"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-artikelkop bb-artikelkop--beeld\" id=\"artikelkop\" data-bg=\"primary\" style=\"--bb-ak-img:url(https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/bb\/crvb-2018.webp)\"><div class=\"bb-container bb-artikelkop__inhoud\"><p class=\"bb-kicker\">BACKGROUND \u00b7 DUTCH CASE LAW<\/p><h1>Case law of the Central Appeals Tribunal (Netherlands) on asset investigation in T\u00fcrkiye<\/h1><p class=\"bb-artikelkop__meta\">Centrale Raad van Beroep (Central Appeals Tribunal) \u00b7 rulings of 1 October 2018 \u00b7 ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2911 to 2914 inclusive<\/p><div class=\"bb-artikelkop__kort\"><p class=\"bb-kicker\">In brief<\/p><\/p>\n<p>On 1 October 2018, the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Central Appeals Tribunal), the highest Dutch administrative court in social security cases, ruled in four cases that evidence of concealed real estate obtained in T\u00fcrkiye (Turkey) may be used to withdraw and recover social assistance. Two of those cases concerned investigations by Bureaubuitenland. These rulings do not apply in Belgium, but show how a highest court has assessed the same method.<\/p>\n<p><\/div><\/div><\/section><nav class=\"bb-breadcrumb\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumb\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><ol><li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/\">Home<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/\">Case law<\/a><\/li><li><span aria-current=\"page\">Case law of the Central Appeals Tribunal (Netherlands) on asset investigation in T\u00fcrkiye<\/span><\/li><\/ol><\/div><\/nav><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-kolommen\" id=\"inhoud\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><div class=\"bb-kolommen__grid\"><div class=\"bb-kolom bb-kolom--hoofd\"><div class=\"bb-callout bb-callout--info\" id=\"callout\"><span class=\"bb-icoon material-symbols-outlined\" aria-hidden=\"true\">info<\/span><div><h3 class=\"bb-callout__kop\">Dutch case law, for background<\/h3><div class=\"bb-callout__tekst\"><\/p>\n<p>The Central Appeals Tribunal (CRvB) is a Dutch court. Its rulings do not bind the Belgian courts. We include them because the defences dealt with in them, privacy, discrimination, proportionality and unlawfully obtained evidence, are the same as those raised in Belgian cases. For Belgian case law: see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/\">case law<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><\/div><\/div><\/div><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"rechtmatigheid\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>Lawfulness of the investigation<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><\/p>\n<p>After a large number of earlier rulings, on 1 October 2018 the CRvB ruled in four cases on appeals alleging unlawfully obtained evidence. Two of them (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2911 and 2912) concerned investigations that Bureaubuitenland had carried out in T\u00fcrkiye for a Dutch inter-municipal social services department. In both cases, a pre-check had preceded the asset investigation.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling was clear: municipalities and the Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Social Insurance Bank) were permitted to use the evidence of concealed real estate obtained in T\u00fcrkiye to withdraw and recover social assistance. In line with settled case law, the Tribunal added:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Evidence is only unlawful if the means of evidence have been obtained in a manner so contrary to what may be expected of a properly acting government that such use must be considered inadmissible under all circumstances.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>And further:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>No rule of Dutch law, including treaty law, prescribes that evidence gathered by, on behalf of or under the responsibility of Dutch administrative bodies must have been obtained lawfully under Turkish law.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Under Dutch law, however, there must be a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR) and protection of private life (Article 8 ECHR). The law of the commissioning party&#8217;s country is therefore decisive.<\/p>\n<p><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"privacy\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>Privacy (Article 8 ECHR)<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><\/p>\n<p>The CRvB consistently rejects the argument of a breach of private life. On the consultation of data in digital registers, the Tribunal considers that this constitutes a limited and acceptable interference with the right to respect for private life.<\/p>\n<p><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"discriminatie\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 ECHR)<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><\/p>\n<p>Here too the CRvB is clear: no unjustified distinction may be made between persons born abroad and persons born in the Netherlands. An investigation into assets abroad may therefore not be directed exclusively at benefit recipients with a place of birth abroad. This is why we only investigate on the basis of a concrete suspicion in a case file, never on the basis of origin.<\/p>\n<p><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"proportionaliteit\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>Proportionality and subsidiarity<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><\/p>\n<p>The Tribunal considered that it could not be held that a less intrusive means of investigation had been available at any time to examine the lawfulness of the social assistance, because the persons concerned had not themselves declared the ownership of the assets. The requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity had thus been met.<\/p>\n<p><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"volkenrecht\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>International law<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><\/p>\n<p>Insofar as it was argued that the Dutch State acted contrary to international law by having investigations carried out without the permission of the Turkish authorities, this could not assist the persons concerned: those rules of international law protect the interests of the Turkish State, not those of the persons concerned.<\/p>\n<p><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"precheck\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>The pre-check as a screening instrument<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><\/p>\n<p>ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2912 states that the asset investigations were preceded by a number of screenings. On the group that remained after the third screening, Bureaubuitenland carried out a pre-check in T\u00fcrkiye. On that basis, the investigation assignment was issued. In that case, the use of the pre-check as a screening instrument did not stand in the way of the use of the evidence. Each ruling relates to a specific case file and offers no guarantee for the outcome of another case. Nor does a pre-check in itself establish fraud. How the pre-check works today is explained under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/services\/pre-check\/\">pre-check<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><em>Sources: <a href=\"https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/details?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2911\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2911<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/details?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2912\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2912<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/details?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2913\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2913<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/details?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2914\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2914<\/a>, published on rechtspraak.nl on 1 October 2018. Quotations translated from the Dutch by Bureaubuitenland; not an official translation.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><\/div><\/div><\/section><\/div><div class=\"bb-kolom bb-kolom--zij\"><aside class=\"bb-kaart bb-ihk\" id=\"in-het-kort\"><p class=\"bb-kicker\">Overview<\/p><h2 class=\"bb-ihk__kop\">In brief<\/h2><dl class=\"bb-ihk__lijst\"><div><dt>Lead time<\/dt><dd>usually 1\u20132 weeks<\/dd><\/div><\/dl><p class=\"bb-ihk__knop\"><a class=\"bb-knop\" href=\"\/en\/request-a-pre-check\/\">Request a pre-check<\/a><\/p><ul class=\"bb-ihk__trust\"><li><span class=\"bb-icoon material-symbols-outlined\" aria-hidden=\"true\">check_circle<\/span><span>Carried out in accordance with the GDPR<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/aside><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--panel bb-kaarten bb-kaarten--kb\" id=\"gerelateerd\" data-bg=\"panel\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>Belgian case law<\/h2><div class=\"bb-grid-3\"><article class=\"bb-kaart bb-kaart--kb\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"bb-kaart__beeld\" src=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/bb\/jurisprudentie-768x429.webp\" alt=\"Case law\" loading=\"lazy\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\"><h3 class=\"bb-kaart__titel\">Case law<\/h3><p class=\"bb-kaart__tekst\">Case law on foreign real estate owned by social tenants: Hamme 2019, Antwerp 2020, Woonhaven, Constitutional Court 2024 and Cassation 2026.<\/p><a class=\"bb-knop bb-knop--tertiair\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/\">Read more <span aria-hidden=\"true\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/article><article class=\"bb-kaart bb-kaart--kb\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"bb-kaart__beeld\" src=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/bb\/vonnis-hamme-768x429.webp\" alt=\"Ruling of the justice of the peace of Hamme, 6 June 2019\" loading=\"lazy\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\"><h3 class=\"bb-kaart__titel\">Ruling of the justice of the peace of Hamme, 6 June 2019<\/h3><p class=\"bb-kaart__tekst\">Justice of the peace of Hamme, 6 June 2019: a social tenant with concealed property in T\u00fcrkiye repays the undue benefit and investigation costs.<\/p><a class=\"bb-knop bb-knop--tertiair\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/judgment-hamme-2019\/\">Read more <span aria-hidden=\"true\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/article><article class=\"bb-kaart bb-kaart--kb\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"bb-kaart__beeld\" src=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/bb\/vonnis-antwerpen-768x429.webp\" alt=\"Judgment on appeal: court of first instance of Antwerp, 5 October 2020\" loading=\"lazy\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\"><h3 class=\"bb-kaart__titel\">Judgment on appeal: court of first instance of Antwerp, 5 October 2020<\/h3><p class=\"bb-kaart__tekst\">Judgment on appeal of the court of first instance of Antwerp (5 October 2020): concealing foreign real estate is a serious breach of social housing rules.<\/p><a class=\"bb-knop bb-knop--tertiair\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/judgment-antwerp-2020\/\">Read more <span aria-hidden=\"true\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/article><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-cta bb-cta--beeld\" id=\"cta\" data-bg=\"primary\" style=\"--bb-cta-img:url(https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/bb\/cta-band.webp)\"><div class=\"bb-container bb-cta__inhoud\"><h2 class=\"bb-cta__kop\">Discuss your case<\/h2><p class=\"bb-cta__tekst\">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.<\/p><p class=\"bb-cta__knop\"><a class=\"bb-knop bb-knop--invers\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/contact\/\">Discuss your case<\/a><\/p><p class=\"bb-cta__contact\"><a href=\"tel:+31851110123\">+31 (0)85 111 01 23<\/a><span aria-hidden=\"true\"> \u00b7 <\/span><a href=\"mailto:info@bureaubuitenland.be\">info@bureaubuitenland.be<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/section><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":156,"parent":585,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-595","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail"],"bb_rendered":"<section class=\"bb-sectie bb-artikelkop bb-artikelkop--beeld\" id=\"artikelkop\" data-bg=\"primary\" style=\"--bb-ak-img:url(https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/bb\/crvb-2018.webp)\"><div class=\"bb-container bb-artikelkop__inhoud\"><p class=\"bb-kicker\">BACKGROUND \u00b7 DUTCH CASE LAW<\/p><h1>Case law of the Central Appeals Tribunal (Netherlands) on asset investigation in T\u00fcrkiye<\/h1><p class=\"bb-artikelkop__meta\">Centrale Raad van Beroep (Central Appeals Tribunal) \u00b7 rulings of 1 October 2018 \u00b7 ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2911 to 2914 inclusive<\/p><div class=\"bb-artikelkop__kort\"><p class=\"bb-kicker\">In brief<\/p><p>On 1 October 2018, the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Central Appeals Tribunal), the highest Dutch administrative court in social security cases, ruled in four cases that evidence of concealed real estate obtained in T\u00fcrkiye (Turkey) may be used to withdraw and recover social assistance. Two of those cases concerned investigations by Bureaubuitenland. These rulings do not apply in Belgium, but show how a highest court has assessed the same method.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/section><nav class=\"bb-breadcrumb\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumb\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><ol><li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/\">Home<\/a><\/li><li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/\">Case law<\/a><\/li><li><span aria-current=\"page\">Case law of the Central Appeals Tribunal (Netherlands) on asset investigation in T\u00fcrkiye<\/span><\/li><\/ol><\/div><\/nav><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-kolommen\" id=\"inhoud\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><div class=\"bb-kolommen__grid\"><div class=\"bb-kolom bb-kolom--hoofd\"><div class=\"bb-callout bb-callout--info\" id=\"callout\"><span class=\"bb-icoon material-symbols-outlined\" aria-hidden=\"true\">info<\/span><div><h3 class=\"bb-callout__kop\">Dutch case law, for background<\/h3><div class=\"bb-callout__tekst\"><p>The Central Appeals Tribunal (CRvB) is a Dutch court. Its rulings do not bind the Belgian courts. We include them because the defences dealt with in them, privacy, discrimination, proportionality and unlawfully obtained evidence, are the same as those raised in Belgian cases. For Belgian case law: see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/\">case law<\/a>.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"rechtmatigheid\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>Lawfulness of the investigation<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><p>After a large number of earlier rulings, on 1 October 2018 the CRvB ruled in four cases on appeals alleging unlawfully obtained evidence. Two of them (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2911 and 2912) concerned investigations that Bureaubuitenland had carried out in T\u00fcrkiye for a Dutch inter-municipal social services department. In both cases, a pre-check had preceded the asset investigation.<\/p>\n<p>The ruling was clear: municipalities and the Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Social Insurance Bank) were permitted to use the evidence of concealed real estate obtained in T\u00fcrkiye to withdraw and recover social assistance. In line with settled case law, the Tribunal added:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Evidence is only unlawful if the means of evidence have been obtained in a manner so contrary to what may be expected of a properly acting government that such use must be considered inadmissible under all circumstances.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>And further:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>No rule of Dutch law, including treaty law, prescribes that evidence gathered by, on behalf of or under the responsibility of Dutch administrative bodies must have been obtained lawfully under Turkish law.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Under Dutch law, however, there must be a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR) and protection of private life (Article 8 ECHR). The law of the commissioning party's country is therefore decisive.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"privacy\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>Privacy (Article 8 ECHR)<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><p>The CRvB consistently rejects the argument of a breach of private life. On the consultation of data in digital registers, the Tribunal considers that this constitutes a limited and acceptable interference with the right to respect for private life.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"discriminatie\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 ECHR)<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><p>Here too the CRvB is clear: no unjustified distinction may be made between persons born abroad and persons born in the Netherlands. An investigation into assets abroad may therefore not be directed exclusively at benefit recipients with a place of birth abroad. This is why we only investigate on the basis of a concrete suspicion in a case file, never on the basis of origin.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"proportionaliteit\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>Proportionality and subsidiarity<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><p>The Tribunal considered that it could not be held that a less intrusive means of investigation had been available at any time to examine the lawfulness of the social assistance, because the persons concerned had not themselves declared the ownership of the assets. The requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity had thus been met.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"volkenrecht\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>International law<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><p>Insofar as it was argued that the Dutch State acted contrary to international law by having investigations carried out without the permission of the Turkish authorities, this could not assist the persons concerned: those rules of international law protect the interests of the Turkish State, not those of the persons concerned.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--tekst\" id=\"precheck\" data-bg=\"paper\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>The pre-check as a screening instrument<\/h2><div class=\"bb-tekst\"><p>ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2912 states that the asset investigations were preceded by a number of screenings. On the group that remained after the third screening, Bureaubuitenland carried out a pre-check in T\u00fcrkiye. On that basis, the investigation assignment was issued. In that case, the use of the pre-check as a screening instrument did not stand in the way of the use of the evidence. Each ruling relates to a specific case file and offers no guarantee for the outcome of another case. Nor does a pre-check in itself establish fraud. How the pre-check works today is explained under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/services\/pre-check\/\">pre-check<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><em>Sources: <a href=\"https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/details?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2911\">ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2911<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/details?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2912\">2912<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/details?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2913\">2913<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl\/details?id=ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2914\">2914<\/a>, published on rechtspraak.nl on 1 October 2018. Quotations translated from the Dutch by Bureaubuitenland; not an official translation.<\/em><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/section><\/div><div class=\"bb-kolom bb-kolom--zij\"><aside class=\"bb-kaart bb-ihk\" id=\"in-het-kort\"><p class=\"bb-kicker\">Overview<\/p><h2 class=\"bb-ihk__kop\">In brief<\/h2><dl class=\"bb-ihk__lijst\"><div><dt>Lead time<\/dt><dd>usually 1\u20132 weeks<\/dd><\/div><\/dl><p class=\"bb-ihk__knop\"><a class=\"bb-knop\" href=\"\/en\/request-a-pre-check\/\">Request a pre-check<\/a><\/p><ul class=\"bb-ihk__trust\"><li><span class=\"bb-icoon material-symbols-outlined\" aria-hidden=\"true\">check_circle<\/span><span>Carried out in accordance with the GDPR<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/aside><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-sectie--panel bb-kaarten bb-kaarten--kb\" id=\"gerelateerd\" data-bg=\"panel\"><div class=\"bb-container\"><h2>Belgian case law<\/h2><div class=\"bb-grid-3\"><article class=\"bb-kaart bb-kaart--kb\"><img class=\"bb-kaart__beeld\" src=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/bb\/jurisprudentie-768x429.webp\" alt=\"Case law\" loading=\"lazy\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\"><h3 class=\"bb-kaart__titel\">Case law<\/h3><p class=\"bb-kaart__tekst\">Case law on foreign real estate owned by social tenants: Hamme 2019, Antwerp 2020, Woonhaven, Constitutional Court 2024 and Cassation 2026.<\/p><a class=\"bb-knop bb-knop--tertiair\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/\">Read more <span aria-hidden=\"true\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/article><article class=\"bb-kaart bb-kaart--kb\"><img class=\"bb-kaart__beeld\" src=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/bb\/vonnis-hamme-768x429.webp\" alt=\"Ruling of the justice of the peace of Hamme, 6 June 2019\" loading=\"lazy\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\"><h3 class=\"bb-kaart__titel\">Ruling of the justice of the peace of Hamme, 6 June 2019<\/h3><p class=\"bb-kaart__tekst\">Justice of the peace of Hamme, 6 June 2019: a social tenant with concealed property in T\u00fcrkiye repays the undue benefit and investigation costs.<\/p><a class=\"bb-knop bb-knop--tertiair\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/judgment-hamme-2019\/\">Read more <span aria-hidden=\"true\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/article><article class=\"bb-kaart bb-kaart--kb\"><img class=\"bb-kaart__beeld\" src=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/bb\/vonnis-antwerpen-768x429.webp\" alt=\"Judgment on appeal: court of first instance of Antwerp, 5 October 2020\" loading=\"lazy\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\"><h3 class=\"bb-kaart__titel\">Judgment on appeal: court of first instance of Antwerp, 5 October 2020<\/h3><p class=\"bb-kaart__tekst\">Judgment on appeal of the court of first instance of Antwerp (5 October 2020): concealing foreign real estate is a serious breach of social housing rules.<\/p><a class=\"bb-knop bb-knop--tertiair\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/case-law\/judgment-antwerp-2020\/\">Read more <span aria-hidden=\"true\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/article><\/div><\/div><\/section><section class=\"bb-sectie bb-cta bb-cta--beeld\" id=\"cta\" data-bg=\"primary\" style=\"--bb-cta-img:url(https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/bb\/cta-band.webp)\"><div class=\"bb-container bb-cta__inhoud\"><h2 class=\"bb-cta__kop\">Discuss your case<\/h2><p class=\"bb-cta__tekst\">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.<\/p><p class=\"bb-cta__knop\"><a class=\"bb-knop bb-knop--invers\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/contact\/\">Discuss your case<\/a><\/p><p class=\"bb-cta__contact\"><a href=\"tel:+31851110123\">+31 (0)85 111 01 23<\/a><span aria-hidden=\"true\"> \u00b7 <\/span><a href=\"mailto:info@bureaubuitenland.be\">info@bureaubuitenland.be<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/section>\n","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/595","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=595"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/595\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2259,"href":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/595\/revisions\/2259"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/585"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/156"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bureaubuitenland.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}