Belgian Politicians Fight to Keep Double Pensions Under Cap

Dozens of Belgium’s most prominent political figures — including former European Commissioners Louis Michel and Karel De Gucht — are at risk of losing substantial portions of their combined national and European pensions as the government of Prime Minister Bart De Wever moves to enforce the country’s maximum pension ceiling on income from EU institutions. Some have vowed to fight the measure, arguing it violates European law.

The Wijninckx Ceiling

At the heart of the dispute is Belgium’s so-called Wijninckx ceiling, a legal cap on maximum pension payouts set at €8,291.60 gross per month. While this cap has long applied to purely national pensions, pensions earned from European Union institutions and other international bodies had historically fallen outside its scope.

According to Het Laatste Nieuws, the Federal Pensions Service sent letters to 629 individuals — including 99 former EU commissioners and MEPs — requesting them to declare their foreign-earned pensions. Only 188 responded. In just 11 of those cases (6%), the Belgian pension had to be reduced because the Wijninckx ceiling was exceeded. For the 441 individuals who did not respond, their Belgian pension has been temporarily suspended as a means to compel compliance, with the promise that any withheld amounts will be refunded if they are found to be within legal limits.

Pension Amounts at Stake

Calculations published by the left-wing PVDA party reveal the scale of the pensions involved. Former EU Commissioner Louis Michel (MR) receives an estimated €16,575.55 gross per month in combined pensions — nearly double the legal ceiling. Philippe Busquin (PS) receives approximately €14,605.88, and Didier Reynders (MR) around €12,636.21. Other figures believed to exceed the ceiling include former Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, former European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, and former MEP Geert Bourgeois.

“Some political pensions amount to up to €16,500 per month, while the average employee pension is €1,667,” said Sofie Merckx, parliamentary group leader for the PVDA. “That’s a difference of a factor of ten.”

Legal Challenge and Political Reactions

The reform, part of the broader Arizona coalition’s pension overhaul, has sparked a fierce legal and political debate. Louis Michel and Philippe Busquin have challenged the decision at the Belgian Constitutional Court, which is expected to refer a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

“That money is not a privilege, I paid contributions to have a right to it,” Michel told L’Echo. “Changing the rules of the game during the match is not acceptable.” Speaking to HLN, he added that “the capping of my Belgian pension goes against European legislation.”

Karel De Gucht, who served as EU Commissioner from 2009 to 2014, shares that view. “I think this is completely illegal,” he said. “The European Union is not an international institution, but a completely separate legal system. There is case law from the European Court of Justice stating that one may not impose indirect taxes on European income.” Despite his conviction, De Gucht said he would not take any legal action himself.

Other politicians have taken a more conciliatory stance. Former Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, who served as an MEP from 2009 to 2024, declined to comment further than to say “the rules are the rules.” Bart Staes (Groen), a former MEP, said: “If a democratic majority has decided this, then I accept it. I have no problem with that.” Frieda Brepoels (N-VA) echoed that sentiment: “That’s how it is now. So why would I oppose it?”

European Dimension

The legal controversy centers on whether Belgium can cap total pension income when part of it derives from EU sources. EU law prohibits national governments from taxing EU income. The cabinet of Pension Minister Jan Jambon (N-VA) has received criticism from the European Commission, which argues that national governments may not tax European income. The Belgian government counters that it is not taxing EU income, but rather limiting its own Belgian pension payout.

As RTBF reported in February 2025, the broader Arizona pension reform also includes moving the management of parliamentary pensions from the self-governing Pension Fund to the Federal Pensions Service, capping the indexation of the Wijninckx ceiling for five years, and including foreign and supranational pensions in the calculation of the ceiling.

Analysis and Outlook

The dispute highlights a stark contrast between the pension reforms being demanded of ordinary Belgian workers — including a higher effective retirement age and penalties for early retirement — and the generous arrangements enjoyed by the political class. The fact that 441 out of 629 individuals initially failed to respond to the Pension Service’s request suggests either a lack of awareness, deliberate non-compliance, or distrust of the process.

The Constitutional Court’s referral to the ECJ will be a pivotal moment. If the ECJ rules that Belgium cannot cap these pensions, it would affirm the primacy of EU pension rights over national pension caps. If it upholds Belgium’s right to enforce the ceiling, it could set a precedent for other member states with similar dual-career politicians.

For now, the 441 suspended pensions hang in the balance, and the political battle over double pensions — and who has a right to them — is far from over.