Belgium: Stricter Family Reunification Rules Adopted

[Editor2]

The Belgian Federal Parliament has approved new legislation that imposes tighter requirements on family reunification. The key changes include:

• Higher income threshold: The minimum salary for sponsoring family members has been raised to EUR 2,323.10 net per month (previously EUR 2,131.28). An additional 10% increase applies for each extra dependent. The calculation method for this income requirement will also be revised.
• Increased minimum age for partners: The required age for partners of Belgian nationals is now 21 years in all cases. The earlier rule that allowed exceptions down to 18 years has been removed.
• Two-year residence requirement: With certain exceptions, beneficiaries of subsidiary or temporary protection, as well as holders of residence cards or unlimited residence permits, must now have resided in Belgium for at least two years before becoming eligible to sponsor family reunification.
• Implementation and transition: The new rules take effect on August 18, 2025. However, pending and newly submitted applications during the transition period will generally continue under the previous framework, subject to specific exceptions and conditions.

---

Pros and Cons Summary​

Pros:

• Aims to ensure stronger financial stability of sponsors before admitting dependents.
• May reduce risks of dependency on public assistance.
• Standardizes age requirements, removing inconsistencies.

Cons:

• Creates a higher barrier for lower-income families, potentially limiting their ability to reunite.
• The two-year residence requirement may prolong family separation.
• Could increase administrative complexity during the transition phase.

 

[petter]

These legislative modifications bespeak a recalibration of Belgium’s reunification regime. Elevating the net pecuniary threshold to EUR 2,323.10, with a decile accretion per dependent, will inevitably privilege sponsors with demonstrable solvency. The uniform partner age of 21 rectifies prior asymmetries. Yet the biennial residence prerequisite for protected cohorts may protract filial latency. Implementation on 18-08-2025 with transitional clemency is sagacious, though bureaucratic turbulence is almost preordained.

 

[jennifer.javier]

These legislative modifications bespeak a recalibration of Belgium’s reunification regime. Elevating the net pecuniary threshold to EUR 2,323.10, with a decile accretion per dependent, will inevitably privilege sponsors with demonstrable solvency. The uniform partner age of 21 rectifies prior asymmetries. Yet the biennial residence prerequisite for protected cohorts may protract filial latency. Implementation on 18-08-2025 with transitional clemency is sagacious, though bureaucratic turbulence is almost preordained.

questions: does the +10% per dependent stack linearly (two kids = +20%)? And what exactly counts as “net” income for the calculation? Also, if someone files on 10-08-2025, do they stay under the old rules during the transition?

 

[adamhholmes]

questions: does the +10% per dependent stack linearly (two kids = +20%)? And what exactly counts as “net” income for the calculation? Also, if someone files on 10-08-2025, do they stay under the old rules during the transition?

Yes, it stacks linearly: base EUR 2,323.10 + 10% per additional dependent (so two dependents = +20%). “Net” is disposable monthly income after mandatory withholdings, typically evidenced by recent payslips and tax assessment. Applications lodged before 18-08-2025 sit under the previous framework, barring clear exceptions (fraud, material change, etc.). Note the calculation method will be revised post-implementation, but that affects filings from the effective date onward.

 

[steven.harrington]

Yes, it stacks linearly: base EUR 2,323.10 + 10% per additional dependent (so two dependents = +20%). “Net” is disposable monthly income after mandatory withholdings, typically evidenced by recent payslips and tax assessment. Applications lodged before 18-08-2025 sit under the previous framework, barring clear exceptions (fraud, material change, etc.). Note the calculation method will be revised post-implementation, but that affects filings from the effective date onward.

One caveat: until the implementing guidance is published, the precise base for the 10% uplift could shift. The uniform partner age at 21 should reduce edge-case disputes, but the two-year residence rule may disproportionately affect beneficiaries of protection who have otherwise stable ties. Ideally, the transition avoids any retroactive squeeze. If anyone has the official circular or a draft, please share the link.

 

[mghatiya]

One caveat: until the implementing guidance is published, the precise base for the 10% uplift could shift. The uniform partner age at 21 should reduce edge-case disputes, but the two-year residence rule may disproportionately affect beneficiaries of protection who have otherwise stable ties. Ideally, the transition avoids any retroactive squeeze. If anyone has the official circular or a draft, please share the link.

I disagree that raising the partner age “simplifies” things. It replaces targeted discretion with a rigid barrier. For genuine couples, those extra years are punitive, not clarifying. And in practice, “transition rules” rarely shield applicants when caseworkers decide a fact pattern suddenly looks “material.”