Belgian Judge Blocks Higher Pensions for 32 Former MPs

A Brussels court has ruled against 32 former Belgian federal parliamentarians who sought to maintain pension payments of €9,563.60 per month, reducing their maximum gross pensions to €8,291.60. The decision, delivered on July 1 by the Court of First Instance in Brussels, represents a significant victory for pension reform advocates and a firm rejection of arguments based on acquired rights.

The Ruling

The case centered on a decision by the Pension Fund of the Chamber of Representatives (vzw Pensioenkas van de Kamer) in October 2023 to strictly apply the so-called “Wijninckx ceiling” (‘plafond-Wijninckx’) to parliamentary pensions from January 1, 2024. For years, some former parliamentarians had received pensions exceeding this legal maximum—effectively 120% of the cap—through a practice the court has now deemed unsustainable.

According to VRT NWS, the court rejected arguments that the Wijninckx law did not directly apply to parliamentarians, finding that the 1982 Budget Law had already explicitly stipulated that parliamentary pension schemes must never deviate from the maxima applied in the public sector.

The Numbers in Context

The reduction represents a drop of approximately 13.3%—from €9,563.60 to €8,291.60 gross per month. Yet the court placed these figures in stark perspective, noting that the median pension for all recent retirees in Belgium is €1,798 per month, while the median civil servant pension stands at €3,732. Even after the reduction, the capped parliamentary pension remains more than four times the general median.

The court found the former MPs’ claims of a “social drama” unpersuasive, ruling that the interference with property rights was legitimate, proportionate, and necessary for controlling public expenditure. The annual savings from closing this privilege amount to €2.8 million.

Who Was Involved

Among the 32 claimants were several prominent political figures from across the spectrum, including former CD&V Minister of Justice Tony Van Parys, former minister Johan Sauwens (VU, later CD&V), former senator Hugo Coveliers (VLD, later Vlaams Belang), and former PS minister Guy Coëme. The daughters of Geert Versnick (Open VLD), who died in November 2025, continued the case on his behalf.

Hugo Coveliers’ claim was declared inadmissible after he had already lost a similar case in Antwerp. As P-Magazine reported, the court dismissed the arguments with notable firmness.

Reactions

Kim De Witte, PVDA MP and pension specialist, hailed the ruling as a major victory. “This ruling is an important victory against grab politics,” she said. “It confirms that politicians cannot place themselves above the law.” However, De Witte cautioned that politicians still retain exceptional pension rules unavailable to ordinary workers, such as the ability to draw on pre-2014 pension rights from age 60 after just eight years of service.

Former minister Tony Van Parys defended the claimants’ position, arguing that legal provisions had not been followed correctly. “Our pension is not excessive, as is being suggested,” he said. “The pension ceiling makes it impossible for our pensions to be indexed. In that respect, we are disadvantaged rather than privileged.”

Analysis and Implications

The ruling closes a long-standing loophole that allowed some former parliamentarians to receive pensions above the legal maximum. Legal experts note that the court rejected arguments based on “acquired rights” and property protection, establishing an important precedent for the application of the Wijninckx ceiling to parliamentary pensions.

The case is part of a broader European trend of scrutinizing privileged pension schemes for politicians. In Belgium, the debate over pension reform remains highly contentious. The PVDA has announced plans to challenge the government’s broader pension reform at the Constitutional Court through a collective legal action called the “Pensioenproces” (Pension Trial).

What’s Next

The 32 former MPs have the option to appeal the ruling. If they do, the case could proceed to a higher court, potentially reaching the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Constitutional Court or Court of Cassation. An appeal could prolong legal uncertainty for several more years.

For now, the ruling stands as a clear statement that parliamentary pension privileges are subject to the same fiscal constraints that apply to the broader public sector—a decision that has resonated strongly with a public increasingly concerned about fairness in the pension system.