The Brussels Court of Appeal (1st Chamber F, 22 April 2025, No. 2024/KR/96) has delivered an important judgment regarding the renewal of single permits.
It censures the attitude of the Immigration Office, which handled a renewal application as if the worker were residing abroad, even though the application had been filed while the person was lawfully residing in Belgium.
The applicant, a Cameroonian national, initially came to Belgium on a student visa and his stay was subsequently extended. The Brussels-Capital Region authorized his employment (work permit), and the Immigration Office issued a single permit (A card), specifying that renewal had to be filed two months before expiry. The renewal request (submitted by the employer) was introduced before the expiry of the A card but less than two months prior to its deadline. Despite the worker’s effective residence in Belgium, the Immigration Office processed the file as if it were a renewal request made from abroad. The Office granted authorization (Annex 46) but instructed the applicant to apply for a D visa at the consulate in Yaoundé.
In first instance (summary proceedings), the President of the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance declared himself lacking jurisdiction and dismissed the applicant’s claim.
The legal issue raised was whether summary judicial courts have jurisdiction to order, on a provisional basis, the notification in Belgium of a renewal of a single permit when a third-country national is lawfully residing in Belgium at the date of the renewal application.
The applicant argued that he had a subjective right to be put in possession of the title (single permit – residence and work) and to be notified of it in Belgium, reproaching the Immigration Office for wrongly applying the regime applicable to applications made from abroad (D visa, notification via consulate), although he was legally residing in Belgium at the time of the renewal.
The Belgian State challenged the jurisdiction of the judicial court, arguing that the dispute fell within the administrative order and, subsidiarily, contested the merits of the application.
The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision and held that the summary judicial courts are competent (Article 144 of the Constitution). It found urgency and acknowledged the applicant’s subjective right to be notified in Belgium under the renewal regime applicable to single permits. The Court ruled that the Immigration Office violated the applicable rules by treating the application as if filed from abroad.
It ordered the Belgian State to notify in Belgium, via Annex 46, both the work authorization and the residence authorization, at the appellant’s effective place of residence, with instructions to the municipality to proceed with registration and issuance of the residence card. A penalty of €500 per day of delay was imposed. The State was ordered to bear the costs of proceedings.
Céline Verbrouck
Attorney at ALTEA
Specialist in Immigration Law and Private International Family Law
+32 2 894 45 70