Two important judgments—handed down in Brussels and Antwerp—strongly reaffirm the purpose of Article 10, §1 of the Belgian Nationality Code (BNC): to prevent a child born in Belgium from remaining without a nationality. Beyond the specific situations discussed in these cases, which involved children of Palestinian parents, these decisions are relevant to all files in which a child born in Belgium risks statelessness (or is confronted, in a purely theoretical way, with the alleged existence of a foreign nationality that is difficult to obtain, uncertain, or unproven).
1) Brussels: no parental residence requirement—the wording prevails
In a judgment of the Brussels Family Court (18th Chamber), sitting in Brussels, dated 11 December 2024, the court clearly recalls the three conditions of Article 10 BNC and dismisses the “peripheral” arguments relied on to refuse the attribution of Belgian nationality to the child—particularly the notion of “forum shopping” or fraud. Above all, the court emphasizes a decisive point: Article 10 BNC does not impose any residence condition on the parents in Belgium before or after the birth, nor any specific “tie” other than the child’s birth in Belgium. (Brussels Family Court (18th Ch.), 11/12/2024, Case No. 24/2222/A, published in J.T., 2025/36, No. 7042, p. 630).
2) Antwerp: presumption is not enough—the child cannot remain “between two statuses”
In a judgment of the Antwerp Family and Youth Court dated 27 February 2026, the court refuses to follow the administrative reasoning that had led to denying Belgian nationality to a child born in Belgium on the ground that the child “would” have a foreign nationality. The decision is guided by a very practical approach: if possession of a foreign nationality is not established with certainty, and if obtaining it is not realistically possible through a clear administrative process, Article 10 BNC must fully play its role in preventing statelessness.
(Court of First Instance Antwerp, Antwerp Division, Family and Youth Court Section, Chamber AF1, 27/02/2026, Case No. 24/1443/A).
The courts’ shared message: return to the wording of Article 10 BNC
These two decisions converge on essential practical lessons that go well beyond these particular cases:
- Article 10 BNC is a protective norm: its primary aim is to prevent a child born in Belgium from remaining stateless.
- The conditions are strictly those set out in the text: birth in Belgium, absence of nationality, and the impossibility of obtaining another nationality through an administrative process that is genuinely accessible and relevant.
- Additional conditions cannot be added to the law (long-term parental residence, “anchoring,” presumed intentions, etc.).
- Refusals based on hypotheses or presumptions (e.g., “the child might have a nationality”) must be handled with extreme caution: the goal is to avoid leaving the child in a grey zone with no effective solution.
Why this matters for families (and municipalities)
In practice, these cases show that disputes over the nationality of a child born in Belgium often crystallize around evidence: what steps have been taken? which authorities would be competent? and above all, is the foreign nationality truly obtainable—or is it merely invoked in theory?
The case law nevertheless confirms that, when the conditions of Article 10 BNC are met, Belgian nationality is not a favour: it is the legal consequence of the child’s situation.
Céline Verbrouck
Attorney at the Brussels Bar
Specialised in immigration law, nationality law and international family law
www.altea.be
+32 2 894 45 70