In the cases leading to the ruling, two family reunification applications were rejected on the grounds that the Belgian sponsor did not have sufficient means of subsistence. Under the previous interpretation of Articles 40ter and 42 of the law of 15 December 1980 on access to territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreigners, only the sponsor’s means of subsistence could be assessed, while the partner’s means were disregarded. The applicants appealed, and the Council for Alien Law Litigation referred the matter to the Constitutional Court to determine whether this interpretation was compatible with the Belgian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court found that excluding the partner’s means of subsistence could constitute an unjustified interference with the right to family life, which must be proportionate and legally justified. While the means of subsistence requirement itself serves legitimate objectives, such as managing migration flows, preventing abuse and fraud, and avoiding undue reliance on public resources, the Court noted that the provisions can be interpreted as allowing the partner’s means of subsistence to be taken into account. Considering the means of subsistence of both persons ensures that the requirement is assessed fairly and in line with equality and non-discrimination principles.

The ruling confirms that Articles 40ter and 42 can be interpreted to include the partner’s means of subsistence, rendering them constitutionally valid. This interpretation may facilitate family reunification for Belgian citizens and their partners from third countries.

For further details, please see the press release from the Court (in French or in Dutch) attached below.