Burgerlijk recht Archives

What exactly is the task of the judge in civil cases? To what does the court’s jurisdiction extend and what is left to the parties? This article covers the following issues: party autonomy, rights of defence, factual presumptions and court costs.

Everything starts with party autonomy, also known as the dispositive principle. The parties determine the boundaries of the case they bring before the court. It is the parties who set out their claims, draft arguments for them and present evidence. In turn, the judge rules on what the parties claim, nothing more and nothing less. Thus, the judge may not award more than what was claimed (ultra petita). Nor may the court fail to rule on any point of the claim (infra petita).[1]

Application of the law to the facts

The court must rule on the case in accordance with the applicable rules of law. Regardless of the legal grounds on which the parties base their claims, the judge may supplement, amend or replace those legal grounds.

In doing so, the court must comply with the following conditions:

Do not raise a ground that the parties have excluded in a written claim;
Do not change the subject matter of the claim (i.e. the result that the parties hope to obtain);
Do not disregard the parties’ rights of defence;
Do not solely rely on elements that have been regularly submitted to him.

The question arises as to whether the court does not thereby infringe the parties’ rights of defence (Article 6 ECHR). The Court of Cassation has ruled on several occasions that this does not violate the rights of defence if the parties could expect – in view of the course of the debate – that the judge would include the legal grounds in question in his judgment and could thus argue about them.[2] It is appropriate for the court to always give parties the opportunity to take position on new or additional legal grounds.

Proof

It is up to the plaintiff to prove the facts or legal acts on which it bases its claim (art. 8.4, first paragraph Civil Code). In turn, the defending party that believes that the claim is without foundation, must prove the facts or legal acts that support this (art. 8.4, second paragraph Civil Code).

Unless otherwise provided by law, all means of proof are eligible, notably a signed writing, witnesses, factual presumptions, confessions and the oath (art. 8.8 Civil Code).

The factual presumption is an evidence by which the judge deduces the existence of one or more unknown facts from one or more known facts (art. 8.1, 9° Civil Code).

The judge may adopt factual presumptions only if they are based on one or more serious and precise indications (art. 8.29, second paragraph Civil Code). By extension, the judge may not attach to the established facts any consequence unrelated to them or unjustifiable on the basis of those facts.[3]

Furthermore, the evidence must, of course, be lawfully obtained. However, illegally obtained evidence will only be excluded if it affected the reliability of the evidence or if the right to a fair trial would be violated. In all other cases, illegally obtained evidence is therefore allowed.[4] In doing so, the court does take into account, among other things, the method of acquisition, the seriousness of the unlawfulness, its impact on the other party and the attitude of the other party.[5]

Court costs

In accordance with Article 1017, first paragraph of the Judicial Code, the court shall order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs, including the counterparty’s legal costs.

The counterparty’s legal costs are a lump-sum allowance for the costs and fees of the successful party’s lawyer, in principle set at the amount claimed (art. 1022, first paragraph Judicial Code). Basic, minimum and maximum amounts were set by Royal Decree.[6] On the date of the judgment, the court determines the correct (indexed) basic amount and ex officio corrects the claimed costs.[7] This power of correction does not affect the party autonomy and rights of defence.[8]

Deviation from the basic amount is possible provided there is a ground or request to do so (art. 1022 Judicial Code). The parties can also come to an agreement on their legal costs (art. 1017, first paragraph Judicial Code).

If a party is entitled to a pro bono lawyer, the judge is in principle obliged to pronounce the minimum or, subject to special justification, to reduce the amount below the minimum (art. 1022, fourth paragraph Judicial Code).

An update with recent case law of the Court of Cassation on the counterparty’s legal costs will follow soon.

Conclusion

You just read the basic principles a judge should adhere to in his (very important) task. In a subsequent post, we will deal specifically with the judge’s task in case the other party doesn’t show up in court.

If you have any questions after reading this article, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] or 03/216.70.70.

[1] C. VAN SEVEREN, “Beschikkingsbeginsel vs. taak van de rechter“, (noot onder Antwerpen 1^e k. 20 januari 2014), NJW 2015, nr. 314, 20; S. MOSSELMANS, Gerechtelijk recht. Artikelsgewijze commentaar met overzicht van rechtspraak en rechtsleer, I, deel I, hoofdstuk I, Ger.W. art. 12-13, (5) 9.

[2] Cass. 5 september 2013, C.12.0599.N; Cass. 25 januari 2021, AR C.19.0401.N, RDJP 2021/2, 72; Cass. 25 januari 2021, AR C.20.0147.N, RW 2021-22, nr. 21, 1; Cass. 2 september 2022, RW 2022-23, nr. 9, 334; Cass. 19 oktober 2023, C.23.0094.N, RW 2023-24, nr. 16, 630.

[3] Cass. 16 september 2022, RW 2022-23, nr. 24, 947; Cass. 28 oktober 2022, RW 2022-23, nr. 24, 947.

[4] Cass. 9 november 2018, C.17.0220.N-C.17.0318.N.

[5] Cass. 14 juni 2021, AR C.20.0418.N.

[6] Koninklijk Besluit van 26 oktober 2007 tot vaststelling van het tarief van de rechtsplegingsvergoeding bedoeld in artikel 1022 Gerechtelijk Wetboek en tot vaststelling van de datum van inwerkingtreding van de artikelen 1 tot 13 van de wet van 21 april 2007 betreffende de verhaalbaarheid van de erelonen en de kosten verbonden aan de bijstand van de advocaat, BS 9 november 2007, 56.834.

[7] Cass. 13 januari 2023, RW 2022-23, nr. 30, 1180.

[8] Cass. 3 maart 2023, RW 2022-23, nr. 37, 1; Cass. 21 april 2023, RW 2023-24, nr. 3, 109.

THE NEW AGRICULTURAL TENANCIES ACT: A NEW ERA?

The former 1969 Agricultural Tenancies Act[1] was in need of renewal. So in 2022, a proposal for a new Flemish Act was submitted. This proposal looks to the future and creates a fair balance between the rights and obligations of owners and tenants. On 4 October 2023, the proposal was adopted by the Flemish government and on 1 November 2023 the new act entered into force. In this article, you will read about the three main innovations.

What is agricultural tenancy?

Agricultural tenancy is a special type of lease of immovable property (i.e. land or real estate), usually for agricultural purposes.[2] Until now, it was regulated by the Agricultural Tenancies Act of 4 November 1969. After more than half a century, the Act no longer meets current social needs.

With the 6th state reform of 2014, the competence for rent was transferred from the federal to the regional level. Following the example of the Walloon Region[3], there is now also a modernised Flemish act.[4]

Main innovations

Written agreements

The main innovation is undoubtedly that written leases will become the norm. Under the former Act, written contracts were already mandatory, but non-compliance was not sanctioned. Consequently, currently many leases are still oral, creating a lot of uncertainty for both leaseholders and owners.[5]

New leases must be in writing. Current oral lease agreements will remain valid, but must be converted if requested by a party. The Flemish government will provide models of lease agreements.

Unlike the former Act, the new Flemish act does provide for a sanction mechanism. If the tenant refuses the conversion, the owner can turn to the Justice of the Peace to have the lease terminated after a formal notice of default by the tenant. If the owner refuses conversion after a formal notice of default, the tenant may apply to the Justice of the Peace to have the lease renewed in his favour.[6]

If the parties agree to the conversion to a written agreement, but a dispute arises over the content of the agreement, the parties fall back on the general rules of evidence. The orally agreed conditions and modalities can then be proved by all means of law (read: also presumptions and witnesses).

Extension of owner’s termination options

Under the former Act, the owner could terminate the lease in various ways in order to use the leased property in accordance with its final destination, subject to compliance with certain conditions. Among other things, the owner could terminate if the leased land was to be considered construction land at the start of the lease and this was included as such in the lease agreement.[7] The Flemish Act confirms these termination options.

Notice after retirement is also retained but slightly modified. Now, the owner can terminate the lease when the tenant retires and does not appoint a successor. Under the former Agricultural Tenancies Act, notice after retirement was merely a theoretical notice. Indeed, the burden of proof that the tenant has retired rested on the owner. Moreover, the designation of a successor could drag on for some time.[8]

The Flemish Act reverses this burden of proof. From the legal retirement age onwards, the tenant must prove, at the owner’s request, within 60 days that he is not yet retired to keep the lease. If a successor has been appointed, he must in principle continue the operation within 1 year. The reversal of the burden of proof should give younger farmers more opportunities to acquire agricultural land. However, mitigations were built into the new Act. Thus, depending on the case and in special circumstances (e.g. the tenant suffers from health problems or the successor has not yet completed his professional training), a judge can still declare the termination invalid.[9]

In addition, extra termination options are built in for the owner.

Thus, the owner can terminate the lease after 18 years in order to dispose of the property rent-free via either sale or donation. However, this termination option must be expressly included in the lease agreement.[10] The owner is then obliged to effectively dispose of the property within 1 year.

If the owner does not use this termination option after 18 years, he will be given this option again every 9 years.

A termination option will also be introduced for private owners with a view to afforestation or nature realisation. For local authorities, such termination was already possible as part of a termination for purposes of general interest.[11] However, this new termination option is subject to strict conditions. Among other things, the owner is obliged to realise the afforestation or nature within 3 years and maintain it for at least 24 years. If the owner does not comply, the tenant is entitled to compensation and may return to the property.[12]

Restriction of pre-emption right of tenant

The tenant has a right of pre-emption in case the owner wants to sell the leasehold. This pre-emption right was introduced in view of the continuity of use of the leasehold property.[13] Under the former Act, the tenant could either exercise his pre-emption right himself and buy the property or transfer it to a third party without the owner being able to oppose it.

The new Flemish Act provides for more say for the owner in the situation where the tenant wishes to transfer his pre-emption right.

If the owner himself finds a prospective buyer willing to let the current lessee lease for at least another 18 years under the same conditions, this prospective buyer becomes a “safe buyer”.[14] The tenant can then no longer transfer his pre-emption right to a third party.[15]

If the owner’s prospective buyer is not willing to do so, the tenant can still transfer his pre-emption right to a third party.

Moreover, from the idea of creating more opportunities for young farmers, retired leaseholders will no longer enjoy a pre-emption right.[16]

Conclusion

Under the former Act, leaseholders were very well protected, but it was difficult for young farmers to obtain a leasehold and the owner was often powerless.

The new Flemish Act aims to achieve more balance between tenant and owner, provide more land mobility and create more opportunities for young farmers.

The new Flemish Act entered into force on 1 November 2023 and applies to agreements concluded before its entry into force.

For more information on lease, please contact the STUDIO LEGALE team at [email protected] or 03/216.70.70.

[1] Pachtwet 4 november 1969, BS 25 november 1969, 11.304.

[2] Voorstel van decreet tot bepaling van de specifieke regels over de pacht, Parl.St. Vl.Parl. 2022-23, nr. 1475/1.

[3] Decreet W.Parl. van 2 mei 2019 tot wijziging van verscheidene wetgevingen inzake pacht, BS 8 november 2019, 104.322.

[4] V. GODART en F. ÖZSARLAK, “Het voorstel van Vlaams Pachtdecreet: eerste verkenning van het nieuwe Vlaamse landbouwschap”, Huur 2023/3, (115) 115.

[5] P. DE ROUCK, “Wat u moet weten over de gemoderniseerde pachtwet”, De Tijd, 19 november 2022, 48.

[6] Voorstel van decreet tot bepaling van de specifieke regels over de pacht, Parl.St. Vl.Parl. 2022-23, nr. 1475/1, 7-8.

[7] Art. 6, § 1, 1° Pachtwet 4 november 1969, BS 25 november 1969, 11.304.

[8] P. DE ROUCK, “Wat u moet weten over de gemoderniseerde pachtwet”, De Tijd, 19 november 2022, 48; V. GODART en F. ÖZSARLAK, “Het voorstel van Vlaams Pachtdecreet: eerste verkenning van het nieuwe Vlaamse landbouwschap”, Huur 2023/3, (115) 134.

[9] Voorstel van decreet tot bepaling van de specifieke regels over de pacht, Parl.St. Vl.Parl. 2022-23, nr. 1475/1, 12.

[10] Voorstel van decreet tot bepaling van de specifieke regels over de pacht, Parl.St. Vl.Parl. 2022-23, nr. 1475/1, 11.

[11] Voorstel van decreet tot bepaling van de specifieke regels over de pacht, Parl.St. Vl.Parl. 2022-23, nr. 1475/1, 11.

[12] Voorstel van decreet tot bepaling van de specifieke regels over de pacht, Parl.St. Vl.Parl. 2022-23, nr. 1475/1, 46.

[13] V. GODART en F. ÖZSARLAK, “Het voorstel van Vlaams Pachtdecreet: eerste verkenning van het nieuwe Vlaamse landbouwschap”, Huur 2023/3, (115) 142.

[14] VILT (Vlaams infocentrum land- en tuinbouw), “Dit staat er in de nieuwe pachtwet”, 16 november 2022, https://vilt.be/nl/nieuws/dit-staat-er-in-de-nieuwe-pachtwet.

[15] Voorstel van decreet tot bepaling van de specifieke regels over de pacht, Parl.St. Vl.Parl. 2022-23, nr. 1475/1, 25-26.

[16] VILT (Vlaams infocentrum land- en tuinbouw), “Dit staat er in de nieuwe pachtwet”, 16 november 2022, https://vilt.be/nl/nieuws/dit-staat-er-in-de-nieuwe-pachtwet.

GROUNDBREAKING: NULLITY ON PARTY DECLARATION

A contract that does not meet certain conditions of validity is void, or as will be shown infra, voidable. Until the entry into force of the new contract law (i.e. 1 January 2023), there were two ways of nullification: extrajudicial and judicial. The new contract law introduced a third possibility: nullity on party declaration.

Validity and nullity of a contract

There are 4 conditions of validity of a contract (article 5.27(1) of the Civil Code):

Each party gives its free and knowing consent;
Each party is competent to contract;
There is a determinable and lawful object;
There is a permissible cause.

A contract that does not meet these conditions of validity is void, or rather voidable (article 5.57(1) of the Civil Code). Indeed, nullity never takes automatic effect, so the contract continues to have effects until the contract is actually declared null and void (article 5.59, first paragraph Civil Code).^[1]

Nullification could take place in two ways until recently. On the one hand, a contract could be annulled in an extrajudicial way, i.e. by mutual agreement of the parties. On the other hand, a contract could be declared void in a judicial way, i.e. after a court recognises the ground for nullity (article 5.59, second paragraph Civil Code).

Innovation: nullity on party declaration

The new contract law (in force since 1 January 2023) adds a third way, namely nullity on party declaration or notification. Here, a contract can become void by the simple declaration or notification of a party.

It seems unreasonable to oblige a party to a contract affected by a ground of nullity to wait for court proceedings before being released from the contract.^[2]

The party declaration requires written notification to all contracting parties (article 5.59, third paragraph Civil Code). This notification has effect only until 5 years after the knowledge of the nullity ground or, at the latest, until 20 years after the conclusion of the contract. Thereafter, nullity by notice is time-barred (article 5.60 Civil Code).

The risk of such invalidity on party declaration always rests on the party issuing such declaration. This is because the court can always be caught a posteriori to check whether there was actually a ground for nullity and whether the notification of nullity to the contracting party was correct.

If the court finds that the contract was indeed validly formed, it can declare the notice of nullity “ineffective”. This has the effect that the contract was not terminated at the time through the party declaration. If the party that gave the notice of nullity has ceased to perform its contractual obligations, this non-performance could justify termination of the contract to its detriment.^[3]

Nullification on party declaration is excluded for contracts established by an authentic act such as a notarial deed or homologation judgment (article 5.59, third paragraph Civil Code). However, an extrajudicial or judicial annulment remains possible.

Consequence: retroactive and proportional nullity

The annulment retroactively (i.e. from the day of the conclusion of the contract) takes away all the effects of the contract. The services already rendered under the annulled contract then give rise to restitution, subject to compliance with the legal conditions (article 5.62 Civil Code).

However, if the ground for invalidity relates only to a severable part of the contract, the annulment is limited to that part. However, this requires that the remaining part of the contract can remain intact and that it still corresponds to the intention of the parties (article 5.63, first paragraph Civil Code).^[4]

Finally, it should be emphasised that article 5.59(3) of the Civil Code constitutes supplementary law. This means that parties can modulate (e.g. pre-empt certain term) or completely exclude the possibility of nullity on party declaration in the contract.^[5]

Do you have any questions after reading this article or would like more information on this topic? Feel free to contact the Studio Legale team on 03/216.70.70 or at [email protected].

[1] F. PEERAER en S. STIJNS, “De proportionaliteit van de nietigheid: de onwerkzaamheid of een nieuwe adem voor de onbestaanbaarheid?”, TBBR 2017/7, (374) 375.

[2] Memorie van toelichting bij het Wetsvoorstel van 24 februari 2021 houdende Boek 5 “Verbintenissen” van het Burgerlijk Wetboek, Parl.St. Kamer nr. 55, 1806/001, 68; A. DE BOECK, “Het nieuwe verbintenissenrecht”, NjW nr. 467, 5 oktober 2022, (610) 617.

[3] Memorie van toelichting bij het Wetsvoorstel van 24 februari 2021 houdende Boek 5 “Verbintenissen” van het Burgerlijk Wetboek, Parl.St. Kamer nr. 55, 1806/001, 69; S. STIJNS en S. DE REY, “Het nieuwe verbintenissenrecht in Boek 5 BW – Deel I”, RW 2022-23, nr. 24, (923) 939.

[4] A. DE BOECK, “Het nieuwe verbintenissenrecht”, NjW nr. 467, 5 oktober 2022, (610) 616; S. STIJNS en S. DE REY, “Het nieuwe verbintenissenrecht in Boek 5 BW – Deel I”, RW 2022-23, nr. 24, (923) 938.

[5] S. STIJNS en S. DE REY, “Het nieuwe verbintenissenrecht in Boek 5 BW – Deel I”, RW 2022-23, nr. 24, (923) 939.

RENT INDEXATION OF LEAST ENERGY-EFFICIENT HOMES RESTRICTED

In Flanders, the rent indexation was affected by the decree of 3 October 2022 limiting the rent indexation to mitigate the effects of the energy crisis.^[1] The decree applies to lease contracts that came into force before 1 October 2022. By doing so, the Flemish legislator wants to guarantee affordable housing for tenants during the energy crisis on the one hand, and encourage landlords to improve the energy performance of rental properties on the other.^[2]

Rent and indexation

A rent is fixed at the time of signing for the entire duration of the lease. Once the contract is concluded, the landlord cannot in principle unilaterally change the rent, either under strict conditions (e.g. after certain energy-saving measures).

However, the landlord is entitled to annual indexation of the rent, specifically on the anniversary of the starting date of the lease (article 34 Flemish Housing Decree). Rent indexation is neither automatic nor mandatory. However, if the landlord proceeds to indexation, he or she is bound by the following legal formula:

(base rent x new index figure) / starting index figure

Landlords (and tenants) can use the Federal Government’s rent calculator for this calculation.

Differentiated system as from 1 October 2022

The intervention on indexation applies to leases for a main residence that entered into force before 1 October 2022. Both contracts entered into before 1 January 2019 (scope of the Housing Tenancy Act) and contracts entered into from 1 January 2019 (scope of the Flemish Housing Tenancy Decree) are affected. Student leases are excluded from the scope.

The Flemish decree limiting indexation introduces a differentiated system of temporary freezing of the rent indexation. For 1 year, the possibility of indexation is linked to the energy level of the house, represented by the energy performance certificate or EPC for short.^[3]

Energy score	Energy label	Indexation?
0 or less than 0 kWh/m² per year	A+	Yes
Between 100 and 1 kWh/m² per year	A	Yes
Between 200 and 101 kWh/m² per year	B	Yes
Between 300 and 201 kWh/m² per year	C	Yes
Between 400 and 301 kWh/m² per year	D	Yes, for 1 year only 50%
Between 500 and 401 kWh/m² per year	E	No, during 1 year
Higher than 500 kWh/m² per year F	F	No, during 1 year
	Unknown	No, during 1 year

After the Flemish decree limiting indexation, the Brussels and Walloon governments also followed with an initiative to limit rent indexation. Substantively, the measures of the three regions contain minor differences.

Correction from 1 October 2023

The one-year period of limited indexation is now almost over. From 1 October 2023, a correction will replace the restricted indexation. The legislator wanted to avoid the rent indexation being in full play again after 1 year. So for the least energy-efficient houses, a second measure will apply from 1 October 2023.

For houses with energy label A+, A, B or C, nothing will change. The rent of such dwellings may still be indexed in the usual way. So for these dwellings, nothing will change with the decree.

For houses without a known energy label or with energy label D, E or F, rent indexation is allowed again, but subject to the application of a correction factor.

The correction factor is calculated on the basis of two elements:

The health index figure that could last be applied in an indexation before 1 October 2022;
The health index figure that would apply at the next anniversary of the lease.

Of course, both measures – temporary freeze indexation and indexation subject to correction – should be read in conjunction. A request for indexation from 1 October 2023 cannot work backwards by a period of three months, as is in principle the case for rent indexation. Indeed, during the period from 1 October 2022 to 1 October 2023, indexation is prohibited.^[4]

Monitoring

The government monitors compliance, but it is mainly the tenants themselves who exercise control. A tenant faced with an unlawfully implemented indexation will simply be able to refuse to pay the higher rent and may continue to pay the ‘old’ rent.

Should a landlord nevertheless persist and bring proceedings before the Justice of the Peace, the Justice of the Peace will dismiss the landlord’s claim if it turns out that the rent indexation was not properly applied.^[5]

Landlords wishing to index the rent are therefore advised to add the EPC to the indexation letter.

Impact

In Flanders, some 100.000 rental properties would have an EPC label of E or F and some 90.000 rental properties would have an EPC label of D. In addition, more than 100.000 rental properties do not yet have an EPC label, although this has in principle been mandatory since 2009. These figures show that some 300.000 tenants will benefit from this measure.^[6]

Landlords are thus encouraged invest in the rental property. Once landlords improve the energy level of the home to such an extent, they can re-index. Of course, the higher housing quality also benefits tenants.^[7]

However, a positive trend can already be observed in terms of the energy efficiency of rental properties. For instance, the number of rental properties with an EPC label A has almost quadrupled since 2018, from 6.5% to 23%.^[8]

Do you have any questions or would like more information on this topic? Feel free to contact the Studio Legale team on 03 216 70 70 or at [email protected]

Sources

Decreet van 3 oktober 2022 tot beperking van de indexatie van de huurprijzen om de gevolgen van de energiecrisis te lichten, BS 4 oktober 2022.

Voorstel van decreet (S. SMEYERS e.a.) tot beperking van de indexatie van de huurprijzen om de gevolgen van de energiecrisis te verlichten, Parl.St. Vl. Parl. 2022-23, nr. 1427.

T. VANDROMME, Gedeeltelijke bevriezing van de huurindexatie voor niet-energiezuinige woningen, De Juristenkrant, nr. 455, 12 oktober 2022, 1 en 4.

X, EPC voor een residentiële eenheid, https://www.vlaanderen.be/epc-voor-een-residentiele-eenheid.

X, Geen of beperkte indexering huurprijzen voor woningen met EPC-label D, E en F, Agentschap Wonen Vlaanderen, 3 oktober 2022, https://www.vlaanderen.be/agentschap-wonen-vlaanderen/nieuwsberichten/geen-of-beperkte-indexering-huurprijzen-voor-woningen-met-epc-label-d-e-en-f.

X, Huurindexatie in Vlaanderen: decreet tot beperking van de indexatie van de huurprijzen om de gevolgen van de energiecrisis te verlichten, in voege sinds 1 oktober 2022, StatBel – België in cijfers, https://statbel.fgov.be/sites/default/files/files/documents/Consumptieprijzen/3.3%20Huurindexatie/Nota_decreet%201.10.2022%20NL.pdf.

X, Huurprijs en huurwaarborg, https://www.vlaanderen.be/huurprijs-en-huurwaarborg#sb-de-huurprijs-66e0d971-342a-465b-b354-abf33899bf9a.

Medialinks

R. ARNOUDT, Vlaamse regering maakt haast met ingreep op indexering van de huurprijzen, VRT NWS, 1 oktober 2022, https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/10/01/vlaamse-regering-maakt-haast-met-ingreep-op-indexering-van-de-hu/.

N. BOLLEN, Zo mag de verhuurder uw huurprijs indexeren, De Tijd, 1 januari 2020, https://www.tijd.be/netto/vastgoed/woning-huren/zo-mag-de-verhuurder-uw-huurprijs-indexeren/10208895.html.

P. DE ROUCK, Stormloop op Vlaamse huurmarkt, De Tijd, 17 januari 2023, https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/vastgoed/stormloop-op-vlaamse-huurmarkt/10440867.

P. VAN MALDEGEM, 7 vragen over de niet-indexatie van de huurprijs, De Tijd, 3 oktober 2022, https://www.tijd.be/netto/analyse/vastgoed/7-vragen-over-de-niet-indexatie-van-de-huurprijs/10417621.

W. WINCKELMANS, Meer dan 100.000 huurders ontlopen indexering huur, De Standaard, 29 september 2022, https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20220929_93954922.

X, Maatregelen huurindexatie van kracht sinds 1 oktober, CIB Vlaanderen, 3 oktober 2022, https://cib.be/actua/c9ace41e-84e1-48a7-8931-264d1a524601/maatregelen-huurindexatie-van-kracht-sinds-1-oktober.

[1] Decreet van 3 oktober 2022 tot beperking van de indexatie van de huurprijzen om de gevolgen van de energiecrisis te lichten, BS 4 oktober 2022.

[2] Voorstel van decreet (S. SMEYERS e.a.) tot beperking van de indexatie van de huurprijzen om de gevolgen van de energiecrisis te verlichten, Parl.St. Vl. Parl. 2022-23, nr. 1427; X, Geen of beperkte indexering huurprijzen voor woningen met EPC-label D, E en F, Agentschap Wonen Vlaanderen, 3 oktober 2022, https://www.vlaanderen.be/agentschap-wonen-vlaanderen/nieuwsberichten/geen-of-beperkte-indexering-huurprijzen-voor-woningen-met-epc-label-d-e-en-f.

[3] X, EPC voor een residentiële eenheid, https://www.vlaanderen.be/epc-voor-een-residentiele-eenheid; X, Huurindexatie in Vlaanderen: decreet tot beperking van de indexatie van de huurprijzen om de gevolgen van de energiecrisis te verlichten, in voege sinds 1 oktober 2022, StatBel – België in cijfers, https://statbel.fgov.be/sites/default/files/files/documents/Consumptieprijzen/3.3%20Huurindexatie/Nota_decreet%201.10.2022%20NL.pdf.

[4] Voorstel van decreet (S. SMEYERS e.a.) tot beperking van de indexatie van de huurprijzen om de gevolgen van de energiecrisis te verlichten, Parl.St. Vl. Parl. 2022-23, nr. 1427.

[5] P. VAN MALDEGEM, 7 vragen over de niet-indexatie van de huurprijs, De Tijd, 3 oktober 2022, https://www.tijd.be/netto/analyse/vastgoed/7-vragen-over-de-niet-indexatie-van-de-huurprijs/10417621; X, Maatregelen huurindexatie van kracht sinds 1 oktober, CIB Vlaanderen, 3 oktober 2022, https://cib.be/actua/c9ace41e-84e1-48a7-8931-264d1a524601/maatregelen-huurindexatie-van-kracht-sinds-1-oktober.

[6] W. WINCKELMANS, Meer dan 100.000 huurders ontlopen indexering huur, De Standaard, 29 september 2022, https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20220929_93954922.

[7] T. VANDROMME, Gedeeltelijke bevriezing van de huurindexatie voor niet-energiezuinige woningen, De Juristenkrant, nr. 455, 12 oktober 2022, 1 en 4.

[8] P. DE ROUCK, Stormloop op Vlaamse huurmarkt, De Tijd, 17 januari 2023, https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/vastgoed/stormloop-op-vlaamse-huurmarkt/10440867; W. WINCKELMANS, Meer dan 100.000 huurders ontlopen indexering huur, De Standaard, 29 september 2022, https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20220929_93954922.

BILL: INSURANCE CANCELLATION WOULD BECOME EASIER

Currently, it is quite a task for a consumer to cancel insurance. Complaints to the insurance ombudsman are on the rise.^[1]In 2021, as many as 13% of the complaints related to insurance contract cancellation.^[2]A recent bill seeks a simpler and more consumer-friendly cancellation procedure. This would allow the insured party to cancel an insurance contract at any time, once the first contract year has expired.

Current cancellation procedure

Under the current Insurance Act^[3], an insurance contract has a maximum duration of 1 year. After one year, the contract is tacitly renewed for successive 1-year periods unless the insured or insurer cancels the contract in a timely and proper manner.^[4] Notice of termination must be given to the other party by registered letter, bailiff’s writ or by issuing the termination letter against a receipt 3 months before the expiry date.^[5]

Therefore, the current formalistic termination procedure seems disadvantageous to consumers. Nevertheless, it was introduced for the purpose of continuity. Thus, the tacit renewal ensures that policyholders would not suddenly find themselves without cover. However, under the current formalistic regulations, consumers perceive this as a hindrance rather than a protection.^[6]

Termination of an insurance contract is also possible after a claim, when the risk disappears (e.g. selling of the car) or within 3 months after a rate change.^[7]

However, in addition to the notice period, the current regulations also include a reflection period. This is a short period just after the conclusion of the insurance contract, during which the insured and insurer can still cancel the contract free of charge. The reflection period is useful when, shortly after signing, it turns out that the entry fees are lower elsewhere.^[8]

For life insurance and capitalisation operations, that period is 30 days. For other insurance contracts, it is 14 days, provided the contract was concluded via a pre-signed policy or insurance application. No reflection period is provided for insurance contracts of shorter duration than 30 days and life insurance linked to an investment fund.^[9]

Consumers who want to cancel their insurance contact – because they discover, for example, that their employer offers group hospitalisation cover – face a major challenge today. The majority of consumers therefore tend to stay with their current insurance company. This does not benefit the level of competition, resulting in higher prices.

Future cancellation procedure

It is the above issues that the bill seeks to address. Thus, in principle, an insured would be able to cancel an insurance contract at any time, digitally (e.g. via itsme) and free of charge and thus change insurers more easily.

However, the continuity of insurance coverage mentioned above would still be guaranteed. In the case of compulsory insurance (e.g. civil liability insurance for motorised vehicles), policyholders will have to make the necessary arrangements through their new insurer to ensure such continuity.^[10]

Insurances still in their first current year are the exception to the rule. These will continue to be subject to a notice period, notably a period of 2 months for the insured and 3 months for the insurer.^[11]

The bill makes no adjustments to the reflection period.

Consequences?

The bill should lead to lower insurance fees and more competition. This will lower the barriers for policyholders to switch from one insurance company to another.^[12] There is already quite a lot of competition in the insurance market in Belgium today, but it will increase with the future regulation. France already implemented a similar legislative change, resulting in cheaper insurance.^[13]

The simplified cancellation procedure is currently not yet in force. In April 2023, the bill was approved in the Chamber Committee on Economy. Next, it still needs to be passed by the federal parliament. Once the law is approved and published in the Belgian Official Journal, insurers will have 1 year to align themselves.^[14]

[1] Voorstel van wet tot wijziging van de wet van 4 april 2014 betreffende de verzekeringen, teneinde het voor de consumenten mogelijk te maken een verzekeringsovereenkomst na een looptijd van één jaar zonder kosten en zonder boete op te zeggen, Parl.St. Kamer BZ 2019, nr. 55-0194/1, 1.

[2] S. VERSCHUEREN, “Verzekering opzeggen kan weldra vlotter”, De Tijd, 19 april 2023, https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/financiele-diensten-verzekeringen/verzekering-opzeggen-kan-weldra-vlotter/10461671?fbclid=IwAR1DIwiYEYKUVKUaNbUl0ye7FpsGPW9kxtdgsaCnq_4eDM5BOrr7NRFLfYU.

[3] Wet 4 april 2014 betreffende de verzekeringen, BS 30 april 2014, 35.487.

[4] Art. 85, § 1, eerste lid wet 4 april 2014 betreffende de verzekeringen, BS 30 april 2014 (hierna: wet verzekeringen).

[5] Art. 84, § 1 en 85, § 1, vierde lid wet verzekeringen.

[6] Voorstel van wet tot wijziging van de wet van 4 april 2014 betreffende de verzekeringen, teneinde het voor de consumenten mogelijk te maken een verzekeringsovereenkomst na een looptijd van één jaar zonder kosten en zonder boete op te zeggen, Parl.St. Kamer BZ 2019, nr. 55-0194/1, 4; X, “Assuralia: klachten over verzekeringen verdienen meer nuance!”, Assuralia, 26 april 2018, https://press.assuralia.be/assuralia-klachten-over-verzekeringen-verdienen-meer-nuance.

[7] Art. 86 wet verzekeringen; X, “Opzegging”, FOD Economie, 23 augustus 2022, https://economie.fgov.be/nl/themas/financiele-diensten/verzekeringen/verzekeringsovereenkomst/opzegging.

[8] F. DECEUNYNCK, “Tijdig een verzekering opzeggen“, De Standaard, 13 mei 2023, https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20230511_95944957.

[9] Art. 57, § 3 en § 5 wet verzekeringen.

[10] Voorstel van wet tot wijziging van de wet van 4 april 2014 betreffende de verzekeringen, teneinde het voor de consumenten mogelijk te maken een verzekeringsovereenkomst na een looptijd van één jaar zonder kosten en zonder boete op te zeggen, Parl.St. Kamer BZ 2019, nr. 55-0194/1, 5.

[11] Voorstel van wet tot wijziging van de wet van 4 april 2014 betreffende de verzekeringen, teneinde de opzeggingsregels voor verzekeringsovereenkomsten te vereenvoudigen, Parl.St. Kamer BZ 2019, nr. 55-0194/6, 4.

[12] S. VERSCHUEREN, “Verzekering opzeggen kan weldra vlotter”, De Tijd, 19 april 2023, https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/financiele-diensten-verzekeringen/verzekering-opzeggen-kan-weldra-vlotter/10461671?fbclid=IwAR1DIwiYEYKUVKUaNbUl0ye7FpsGPW9kxtdgsaCnq_4eDM5BOrr7NRFLfYU.

[13] C. MICHIELS, “Contract opzeggen wanneer je wil: van verzekeraar wisselen wordt veel eenvoudiger”, VRT NWS, 19 april 2023, https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/04/18/parlement-stemt-nieuwe-wet-van-verzekeraar-wisselen-wordt-veel/.

[14] S. VERSCHUEREN, “Verzekering opzeggen kan weldra vlotter”, De Tijd, 19 april 2023, https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/financiele-diensten-verzekeringen/verzekering-opzeggen-kan-weldra-vlotter/10461671?fbclid=IwAR1DIwiYEYKUVKUaNbUl0ye7FpsGPW9kxtdgsaCnq_4eDM5BOrr7NRFLfYU.

UNFORESEEABILITY THEORY

When one makes a promise, one has to keep it. But what can a contracting party do if circumstances change and his obligations suddenly become excessively onerous? With the introduction of article 5.74 of the Civil Code (hereinafter: CC), the legislator grants the concept of ‘change of circumstances’ or the so-called unforeseeability theory a general legal basis for the first time.

Traditional view: rejection of the unforeseeability theory in Belgium

In several European countries (including the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Germany and Switzerland), the unforeseeability theory has been accepted for some time, and this on the basis of the obligation to execute contracts in good faith.

Belgium was therefore somewhat isolated – along with France – in rejecting the unforeseeability theory.

In Belgium, the unforeseeability theory was initially not accepted in the old Civil Code (hereinafter: old CC), case law and legal doctrine. This under the argument that the binding force of the contract creates the legitimate expectation for the party that once a contract has been concluded, its contracting party will fulfil the agreed obligations (art. 1134, paragraph 1 old CC).

New contract law: general basis in article 5.74 CC

With the introduction of article 5.74 CC, the legislator grants a general legal basis for the unforeseeability theory for the first time.

The aforementioned article first and foremost emphasizes that agreements create binding obligations between parties and that the unforeseeability theory only applies in exceptional situations. Thus, in principle, the parties must honor their obligations even when performance has become more onerous because of an increased cost of performance or a reduced value of the consideration.

Exceptionally, however, a party may ask its contracting party to renegotiate the contract, with a view to modification or termination. To this end, five conditions listed in article 5.74, second paragraph CC must be met. However, in the course of the renegotiation and during any subsequent judicial phase, the parties must continue to fulfil their obligations.

Condition 1: Change of circumstances makes performance of contract excessively onerous

Firstly, circumstances must change after the contract is concluded to such an extent that the performance of the contract becomes excessively onerous. The change must create such an distortion of the contractual balance between the contracting parties that performance of the contract can no longer be reasonably demanded.

A war, financial crisis or pandemic that disrupts the normal economic relations can certainly qualify as excessively aggravating circumstances in this respect.

This condition also shows the difference with force majeure. For a debtor to free himself from his contractual obligations on the basis of force majeure, he must prove that the performance of the contract has actually become absolutely impossible. If the debtor can perform his obligations in an alternative (tougher) way, he cannot invoke force majeure. After all, then the performance has not become impossible. However, the debtor may be able to invoke the unforeseeability theory.

Condition 2: Change was unforeseeable when the contract was concluded

Secondly, the change of circumstances must have been unforeseeable at the time the contract was concluded. In B2C (Business to Consumer) relationships, case law is likely to be slightly more lenient towards consumers, as the terms of a contract are regularly imposed on consumers. For companies, the bar of this second condition will probably be higher, as they are deemed to know or at least be able to assess the risks associated with their activity better than their (weaker) contracting party.

Condition 3: Change is not imputable to contracting party

Thirdly, the change of circumstances must not be imputable to the contracting party invoking the unforeseeability theory.

Condition 4: Contracting party has not accepted the risk

Fourth, the contracting party may not have accepted the risk of the change at hand. They could accept the risk either explicitly (e.g. waiver) or implicitly (e.g. arising from the nature of the contract).

Condition 5: Recourse to the unforeseeability theory is not excluded by law or contract

Article 5.74 CC is of non-peremptory law, both in terms of principle and modalities of application (art. 5.74, second paragraph, 5° CC).

Thus, on the one hand, special statutory provisions may deviate from it, for example the equitable rectification from article 1474/1 CC. On the other hand, parties can also contractually adjust or even exclude an appeal to the unforeseeability theory. Parties can decide among themselves whether they wish to use it more easily or not at all.

The parties can also apply to the judge in summary proceedings. The judge can then reform the contract or terminate it in whole or in part. If the court reforms the contract, the judge will bring the contract in line with what the parties would reasonably have agreed at the time of contract conclusion if they had taken the change of circumstances into account (art. 5.74, fourth paragraph CC).

Thus, unlike force majeure, the unforeseeability theory focuses primarily on the continuation of the contract.

Entry into force new contract law

Article 5.74 CC entered into force on 1 January 2023, six months after its publication. The regime applies to contracts concluded after this entry into force.

Sources

Parl.St. Kamer, 2021-22, nr. 55-1806/001.

Cass. (1^e k.) 19 juni 2009, RW 2009-10, nr. 18, 744-745.

Cass. (1^e k.) 12 april 2013, RW 2013-14, nr. 41, 1.

K. COX, “Gewijzigde omstandigheden in internationale koopcontracten: het Hof van Cassatie als pionier”, RW 2009-10, nr. 18, 730-737.

M. DE POTTER DE TEN BROECK, “De imprevisieleer: de rechter met de pen in de hand”, RW 2017-18, nr. 40, 1563-1575.

A. HOET, “Overmacht door corona in contractuele relaties”, RW 2020-21, nr. 6, 203-214.

D. PHILIPPE, “Coronavirus: Force majeure? Hardship? Deferral of obligations? Some practical elements advice for the analysis and redaction of clauses”, DAOR 2020, nr. 2, 12-20.

D. ROOSES, “Enkele praktische bedenkingen bij artikel 5.74 BW aangaande “wijziging van omstandigheden” in het nieuwe verbintenissenrecht”, RW 2022-23, nr. 5, 163-174.

R. TIMMERMANS, “De impact van de uitbraak van Covid-19 op private huurrelaties en mogelijk passende remedies”, Huur 2020, nr. 2, 75-87.

A. VAN OEVELEN, “Overmacht en imprevisie in het Belgische contractenrecht”, TPR 2008, nr. 2, 603-641.

Media links

E. DIRIX, “Contracten in tijden van corona”, Jubel, 31 maart 2020, https://www.jubel.be/contracten-in-tijden-van-corona/.

L. VANACKER, “Aannemer en bouwpromotoren armworstelen over hogere prijzen”, De Tijd, 7 mei 2022, https://www.tijd.be/ondernemen/bouw/aannemers-en-bouwpromotoren-armworstelen-over-hogere-prijzen/10386591.html.