The Constitutional Court annuls the Brussels ordinance on the opening of exceptional goods

The Constitutional Court has fully annulled the ordinance of the Brussels-Capital Region of April 25, 2024, “relating to the enhancement and occasional opening to the public of exceptional properties.” Judgment No. 72/2026 of June 18, 2026, rendered under docket No. 8355 and referenced C − 2026/005079, is published in the Belgian Official Gazette No. 212 of September 21, 2026, page 50860. The Court deems the infringement of the property rights and the right to respect for the private life of the owners of these properties to be disproportionate.

The petition for annulment was introduced by the SA “Compagnie Immobilière S.A.S.”, assisted by Me Michel Delnoy, Me Zoé Vrolix, and Me Maxime De Brogniez, lawyers at the Liège-Huy bar. The request, sent by registered letter on November 5, 2024, reached the registry on November 6, 2024. The contested ordinance had been published in the Belgian Official Gazette of May 6, 2024.

A mechanism that forced the opening of listed properties

The ordinance defines an “exceptional property” as a building, monument, or site inscribed on the World Heritage List established in application of Article 11 of the Convention of November 16, 1972, concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Articles 4 to 7 organized a procedure allowing the Brussels Government to impose public access to these properties, supplementing the listing measures already provided for by the Brussels Code of Spatial Planning (CoBAT).

The contested regime notably included the following elements:

• an independent experts’ committee responsible for submitting, within thirty days, a reasoned opinion on the modalities of the opening;
• an agreement negotiated with the owner, in the absence of which the Government could unilaterally pursue the procedure;
• opening periods not exceeding fifteen days per year, including preparation periods;
• an opening decree with a maximum duration of five years, with a minimum of fifty percent of the visit revenues paid back to the owner;
• the assumption by the Region of all costs related to the opening, excluding any compensation for disturbance of enjoyment or potential loss of value.

Two grounds based on property and private life

The Court jointly examines the first two grounds, based on the violation of Articles 16 and 22 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol. It finds that mandatory opening constitutes an interference with the right to property and may significantly infringe upon private life, especially since the ordinance does not exclude private rooms of the property from being open to the public.

The Court further notes that:

• the measure can be imposed unilaterally and on its own initiative by the Government, without the owner having a right of co-decision;
• it may target properties acquired before the adoption of the ordinance or subsequently inscribed as world heritage, without the owner having been able to anticipate such a restriction;
• the compensation scheme explicitly excludes any compensation for disturbance of enjoyment or loss of value, preventing the judge from examining whether an indemnity should be granted.

The Court distinguishes its previous case law, judgment no. 132/2015 of October 1, 2015, regarding the Flemish decree on immovable heritage, which concerned the protection and conservation of heritage and not its accessibility to the public. It also refers to opinion no. 74.738/4 of December 20, 2023, from the legislation section of the Council of State, which had noted that the mechanism could concern a home or a place where private activities are carried out.

A total annulment, without examination of the third ground

Concluding that Article 7 of the ordinance does not maintain a fair balance between the objective of guaranteeing the right to cultural development and the protection of the right to property and private life, the Court finds the first two grounds well-founded. Considering that the various aspects of the ordinance form an inseparable whole, it annuls it in its entirety. The third ground, which would not have allowed for a more extensive annulment, is not examined.

The judgment was rendered in French, Dutch, and German languages on June 18, 2026, by the Court composed of presidents Pierre Nihoul and Joséphine Moerman, judges Thierry Giet, Michel Pâques, Yasmine Kherbache, Sabine de Bethune, Emmanuelle Bribosia, Willem Verrijdt, and Kattrin Jadin, as well as president emeritus Luc Lavrysen, assisted by clerk Frank Meersschaut and presided over by Pierre Nihoul.

What the judgment changes

The annulment deprives the Brussels-Capital Region of any basis to compel a private owner to open their property to the public, including when it is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site. The owners concerned can no longer be forced to provide up to fifteen days of annual opening, and the Region must, if it wishes to relaunch an access policy, design a mechanism that respects a fair balance between the general interest and fundamental rights. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that Article 14 of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, concluded in Faro on October 27, 2005, invites the Parties to develop the use of digital techniques to improve access to cultural heritage.

Source: Moniteur belge no. 212 of September 21, 2026, judgment no. 72/2026 of June 18, 2026, docket no. 8355, ref. C − 2026/005079, p. 50860.