The case concerned the scope of the disciplinary liability of a real estate agent practicing within a larger real estate group.

The Court expressly confirmed a cornerstone of Belgian professional disciplinary law: any natural person registered as a real estate agent with the Belgian Institute of Real Estate Agents (BIV / Institut Professionnel des Agents Immobiliers) is personally and individually subject to disciplinary jurisdiction and remains fully liable under the applicable deontological rules for his or her professional conduct.

Such disciplinary liability cannot be transferred to, diluted by, or absorbed into the legal personality, internal organization, or hierarchical structure of a organization within which the professional activities are performed.

The case

For several years, a real estate agent had managed client files within his own office.

Following the acquisition of that office by a large real estate group, he continued his activities as a self-employed collaborator within that structure.

Following complaints relating, inter alia, to:

• irregular contracts,
• administrative shortcomings,
• non-compliance with the professional rules,

disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the BIV.

The Chamber of Appeal had acquitted him on the grounds that the director of the real estate group had presented himself as the “deontologically responsible person” and had taken steps to remedy certain shortcomings.

Court of Cassation: responsibility cannot be outsourced

The Court of Cassation annuls that decision.

The Court held in clear terms that the fact that another real estate agent, a director, or a real estate group presents itself as the deontologically responsible party, or remedies certain shortcomings, has no bearing on the personal disciplinary liability of the agent who committed the infringements.

Disciplinary responsibility is:

• personal,
• non-transferable, and
• attached to the agent’s registration with the BIV, rather than to the internal structure of the office or organization within which he operates. 

Why this judgment is so important?

This judgment puts an end to a practice whereby individual real estate agents could shield themselves behind:

• a group structure,
• a corporate vehicle, or
• a formally designated “responsible person”, such as a director of the office within which they operate as self-employed collaborators.

The Court of Cassation makes it clear

The disciplinary court must assess the conduct of the individual who performed the act, rather than the organisational chart of the office.

This applies even where the agent:

• is not a director,
• acts under instructions,
• or forms part of a larger network.

Implications for the sector

For real estate offices and groups, this means that:

• each registered real estate agent bears their own disciplinary risk;
• internal compliance structures do not shield agents from personal sanctions.

For clients, this means that:

• they may hold the specific real estate agent who handled their file directly accountable;
• and not merely an anonymous corporate entity.

Conclusion

The Court of Cassation thereby confirms a fundamental principle of the real estate profession:
Disciplinary liability is personal. Any individual acting as a real estate agent remains personally responsible for their conduct, regardless of the office or organizational structure in which they operate.

For a comprehensive overview of the legislation governing the real estate sector in Flanders and Brussels, you can consult the new “Vastgoedcodex“, published in collaboration with KnopsPublishing.
Buy a copy (print or download – Dutch) here: https://nl.knopspublishing.be/shop/boeken/burgerlijk-recht/vastgoedcodex-vlaanderen-brussel-2025-2026/

---

For more information on this topic, you can always contact the Real Estate team at Andersen in Belgium.
Ulrike Beuselinck (Partner – Mediator) & Koen De Puydt (Managing Partner)