Skip to Content

When the Belgian administration fails:

how two fictional positive decisions expose the failure of DVZ


Introduction
The right to family life is one of the most fundamental rights in the Belgian and European legal order. However, a recent case shows how administrative errors, delays, and a lack of diligence can seriously undermine this right. It concerns a Belgian-Brazilian couple who have been living together as a family for more than ten years, eight of which have been in a legal marriage. They built a stable life in Brazil before deciding to move to Belgium, where the husband — a Belgian — wanted to have his wife join him through family reunification.
What followed was not an integration process, but an administrative nightmare that culminated in an absurd situation: the Belgian spouse was re-registered as "single" on February 23, 2026, as if his eight-year marriage and ten years of family life had never existed.

A family with a long history
Before their arrival in Belgium, the Belgian and his Brazilian wife lived together as a close-knit family for ten years. Their marriage, which has now lasted for eight years, is the core of their life together. Their move to Belgium was a logical step: the Belgian wanted to return to his home country, with his wife, as the free movement within the EU and the right to family life allow.
But instead of a smooth administrative transition, they encountered a system that kept them in uncertainty for years — and even incorrectly changed their marital status.

The legal basis: fictitious positive decisions as protection
The Aliens Act provides clear protection against administrative stagnation: when the Immigration Office does not decide on a family reunification application within six months, a fictitious positive decision automatically arises.
In this file, that happened twice:
  • May 4, 2022 — fictitious positive decision on first application
  • February 8, 2026 — fictitious positive decision on second application
Both decisions are automatic, binding, and immediately enforceable. Nevertheless, DVZ and the City of Brussels refused to implement them.

A chain of procedural errors

1. Late and legally impossible notification
The decision of April 29, 2022, was only served on May 23, 2022 — 19 days late.
In the second application, it became even more absurd:
The file stated that the decision of February 13, 2026, "would be served on February 11, 2026."
In other words: DVZ scheduled a notification two days before the decision existed.
This is not only legally impossible, but it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of file control.

2. Illegal deletion from the aliens register
On February 23, 2026, the Brazilian spouse was unlawfully removed from the immigration register, without notification, without justification, and without investigation.
This deletion made notification impossible and violated the rules of the National Register.

3. Incorrect change of the marital status of the Belgian spouse
On the same day — February 23, 2026 — the Belgian spouse was administratively re-registered as "single," despite:
  • an eight-year legal marriage,
  • an internationally recognized marriage,
  • ten years of living together as a family,
  • a pending family reunification application.
A municipality does not have the authority to "erase" a marriage without a court decision. This change is therefore both factually and legally incorrect.

4. Incorrect assessment of the means of existence
Although the Belgian spouse has a stable and sufficiently high income, DVZ refused:
  • payslips
  • TAxreturn documents
  • fiche 281.20
  • rental income
  • accounting documents
DVZ also imposed extra-legal conditions, in violation of established case law.

5. Unjust treatment as a tourist
Despite their marriage and long-term cohabitation, the Brazilian wife was treated as if she were a tourist.
This is contrary to Article 21 TFEU and the case law of the Court of Justice.

The human impact: a family in uncertainty
The administrative errors had serious consequences for this Belgian-Brazilian family:
  • his ten-year family life was abruptly interrupted by administrative arbitrariness;
  • the spouse became administratively "invisible" due to the deletion;
  • The Belgian spouse was incorrectly registered as "single";
  • access to healthcare, work, and social rights was blocked;
  • the couple lived for years in fear and uncertainty;
  • their eight-year marriage was handled by the administration as if it did not exist.
This constitutes a clear violation of Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 7 of the Charter.

What this case reveals about the system
This case is no exception. It shows structural problems:
  • understaffing and backlog at DVZ
  • lack of knowledge of EU law
  • insufficient quality control
  • arbitrary interpretation of rules
  • lack of protection against administrative errors
The fictitious positive decision loses its value when governments refuse to implement it.

Towards a more efficient and humane administration
This case shows that reforms are necessary:
  • automatic execution of fictitious positive decisions
  • better training of administrations
  • digitization of meaning
  • sanctions for repeated procedural errors
  • strengthening of legal protection for families

Conclusion

A Belgian-Brazilian family that has been living together for ten years and married for eight years should not become a victim of administrative errors.
That the Belgian spouse was even re-registered as "single" shows how deep the mistakes go.
The right to family life must never depend on arbitrariness or negligence.

This case shows how important it is for the rule of law to protect citizens — and for administrations to respect their legal obligations.