Belgian home entries law and Article 15 of the Constitution

Just after 5 a.m. on Friday 6 November 2026, after a debate of some ten hours, the Chamber of Representatives adopted the bill on home entries (woonstbetredingen / visites domiciliaires). Once in force, it will allow the police, with the authorisation of an investigating judge, to enter a private home in order to arrest a foreign national who is subject to a removal order, refuses to cooperate and is considered a danger to public order or national security. The vote matters constitutionally because Article 15 of the Constitution declares the home inviolable, and a comparable bill was withdrawn some years ago after criticism grounded in that very provision.

What the law provides

The text adopted in plenary is the one adopted in second reading by the Committee on the Interior, Security, Migration and Administrative Matters (DOC 56 1591/011, 27 October 2026). It amends the Aliens Act of 15 December 1980, replacing Article 74/7 and inserting a new Article 74/7/1. It partly transposes the Return Directive 2008/115/EC. The bill was introduced by Asylum and Migration Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt (N-VA) and Justice Minister Annelies Verlinden (CD&V).

Under the new Article 74/7/1, a police officer may enter the place of residence of a foreign national, "even if it is the home or residence of a third party", with an authorisation from an investigating judge and subject to six cumulative conditions: there are reasonable grounds to consider that the person is a danger to public order or national security; an enforceable refoulement, removal or transfer measure exists; the person does not cooperate with it; there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is in a place not accessible to the public; the entry is necessary and no less intrusive measure can be applied effectively; and the authorisation is proportionate to the interests of the person and of third parties living at the address. The law adds that irregular stay as such is not a danger to public order, and that committing an offence is not in itself sufficient either, although it may be taken into account.

The minister or the minister's delegate applies to the investigating judge by unilateral, reasoned request, attaching the full administrative file. The judge decides within seven working days, sets the modalities of the entry and, where minors live at the address, examines proportionality in the light of the best interests of the child. The decision "is not open to appeal". No authorisation may be requested in respect of a minor. Entries may take place only between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m.; officers may call in a locksmith and search for identity documents. It enters into force on 1 March 2027, unless the King sets an earlier date.

Legal framework

Article 15 and the protection of the home

Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the home is inviolable and that no house search may take place except in the cases provided for by law and in the form it prescribes. The guarantee is not absolute but is a rule of legality: the legislature itself must define both the cases and the procedure. Article 22 adds the right to respect for private and family life, again "except in the cases and under the conditions determined by law", and is read together with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires any interference to be lawful, to pursue a legitimate aim and to be necessary in a democratic society.

Two further provisions frame the debate. Article 191 extends the protection granted to persons and property to every foreign national on Belgian territory, "save for the exceptions established by law". Article 22bis requires the interest of the child to be a primary consideration in all decisions concerning children. Procedurally, the law regulates a matter under Article 74 of the Constitution, meaning that federal legislative power is exercised by the King and the Chamber alone, without the Senate.

Earlier attempts and advisory opinions

The idea is not new. As we discussed in our 2018 analysis of the earlier home entries bill, a comparable text under the Michel government met objections based on the inviolability of the home and the limited role of the investigating judge; according to RTBF, it was eventually withdrawn. According to Myria, the federal migration centre, the procedure involving the investigating judge in the new law remains almost identical to that earlier draft; the main change is that the new text targets, in principle, only persons considered a threat to public order or national security, and adds safeguards concerning children.

The Council of State's legislation section gave opinions on 20 August 2025 and on 11 May 2026. Amnesty International quotes it as finding that the scheme results in an interference "significativement plus grave" (significantly more serious) than the powers of social inspectors under Article 24 of the Social Penal Code, which the government had cited as a model. According to the Ligue des droits humains, the second opinion examined only the new provisions and did not revisit the substance.

Analysis

Is "danger to public order" precise enough?

Because Article 15 reserves the definition of the "cases" to the legislature, precision is central. Myria, Amnesty International and the Association syndicale des magistrats all argue that "danger to public order" is too vague and opens the door to arbitrariness. Amnesty points out that the law requires only "reasonable grounds to consider" such a danger, and refers to the Court of Justice's case-law requiring a genuine and present threat assessed case by case. The government's answer is that the clause is not applied by the administration alone: as Minister Van Bossuyt put it after the vote, it is the independent investigating judge who decides whether someone is a danger, not the minister. The statement that irregular stay alone is insufficient also narrows the scope.

An investigating judge without an appeal

Prior judicial authorisation is the law's main safeguard, but critics doubt its effectiveness. The Association of Investigating Judges, representing all 116 investigating judges, advised Parliament not to adopt the law, supported by both bar associations, OVB and Avocats.be. Myria warns that the judge's room for assessment is very limited, so that the judge risks being "instrumentalised". The procedure is, moreover, unilateral and the decision cannot be appealed. Amnesty notes that the foreign national can raise irregularities only afterwards, before the chambers of the council reviewing detention under Article 71 of the Aliens Act, and that third parties have no specific remedy. That point is likely to weigh heavily in light of the right to an effective remedy.

Third parties and children

The power extends to the homes of people who lawfully shelter a person without a residence permit, and to households with children. The law forbids requests against minors, requires a proportionality test in the light of the child's best interests and calls for the least intrusive approach. Myria observes that the separation of family members is to be avoided, but is not prohibited. Whether these guarantees, without a remedy, satisfy Articles 22 and 22bis will likely be a central issue in litigation.

Necessity

The investigating judges and several NGOs argue that criminal procedure already allows house searches where someone is suspected of offences, so the new power adds little for genuinely dangerous persons. Removal is admittedly an administrative aim distinct from prosecution, but necessity must be shown by the legislative record, not presumed.

A vote during a government crisis

The vote took place while Prime Minister De Wever's resignation was being held in consideration by the King, a situation we analysed in last week's post on the King and the government's resignation. Several opposition parties, including PS, PVDA-PTB and Ecolo-Groen, asked to postpone the vote for that reason; RTBF described keeping the item on the agenda as contrary to usual practice. Constitutionally, the objection is political rather than legal: the resignation had not been accepted, and the Chamber's legislative power does not depend on the government's status. On Friday the King declined the resignation and gave the Prime Minister ten days to report back.

What happens next

Under Article 109 of the Constitution, the King sanctions and promulgates the law, after which it is published in the Belgian Official Gazette. An action for annulment before the Constitutional Court must then be brought within six months of publication (Article 3 of the Special Act of 6 January 1989), and suspension is possible only if serious grounds are raised and immediate application risks serious harm that is difficult to repair (Article 20). CIRÉ, Belrefugees and the Ligue des droits humains state that an annulment action is being considered; earlier this year, 25 organisations brought such an action against the reform of family reunification.

Conclusion

Article 15 does not forbid the legislature from authorising entry into a home; it requires the legislature to define the cases and the procedure itself. The new law tries to meet that standard with cumulative conditions, prior judicial authorisation and child-specific safeguards. Its weak points lie in the open-ended notion of a danger to public order and in the absence of any remedy against the authorisation. Watch for publication in the Official Gazette, the first annulment actions before the Constitutional Court and a possible royal decree bringing the law into force before 1 March 2027. For background, see also our earlier review of the 2017 amendments to the Aliens Act.

Home entries law adopted: does it respect Article 15 of the Belgian Constitution?

Key points