May intelligence agencies look into the population data of military personnel?

In a judgment of July 17, 2025 the Constitutional Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the General Central Military Staff and several individual servicemen. The case revolved around the law of may 16, 2024, which the intelligence access to the National Register and other databases significantly relaxed in the context of security verifications. This ruling has significant implications for the privacy of military personnel and those around them. As a law firm specializing in administrative law and privacy law, we are following these developments closely.

The bottom line: no more ministerial authorization needed

The controversy arose in response to the law of may 16, 2024. Among other things, this law amends the National Register Act of 1983 and the population registers act of 1991. The purpose of the law change was to improve the work of the Security of the State and the General Intelligence and Security Service of the Armed Forces (ADIV) at facilitate.

Specifically, the law removes the requirement that the appropriate minister (Justice or Defense) establish a prior authorisation must grant intelligence agencies access to certain personal data. This access is crucial to the performance of their duties, including the so-called security verifications of military personnel. Such verification may involve not only the soldier himself, but also those close to him.

The applicants, including the military union and some military personnel, feared a violation of their fundamental rights, particularly the right to respect for private life (Article 22 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

The military's arguments

The military essentially raised three major arguments, or "pleas," in its petition to the Constitutional Court:

1. No consultation with the Data Protection Authority (GBA): According to the applicants, the Data Protection Authority wrongly not consulted during the preparation of the law. Such consultation, they say, is mandatory under the General Data Protection Regulation when legislation has an impact on the processing of personal data.
2. Abolition of ministerial authorization: The second argument was directed against the heart of the law: the elimination of prior control by a minister. This would open the door to overly broad and insufficiently controlled access to sensitive information, not only from the soldier, but also from his or her family and social circle.
3. Significant reduction in the level of protection: As a result of the above, the applicants argued that their level of protection deteriorated significantly. This would violate the so-called "standstill principle" embodied in certain fundamental rights, such as the right to social protection.

Constitutional Court verdict: a procedural rejection

The Constitutional Court considered the military's arguments, but ultimately rejected the appeal. However, the Court's reasoning is highly technical and illustrates the importance of proper and timely legal procedure.

First remedy: GBA did consulted

The Court noted that the first argument was based on a factually incorrect premise. As it turned out, it Standing Intelligence and Security Oversight Committee (Committee I)., which did consult, had forwarded the opinion request to the Data Protection Authority. The GBA had even issued an opinion on April 15, 2024. The plea was therefore rejected as unfounded.

Second and third pleas: too late and insufficiently motivated

The other two arguments, which went to the heart of the matter, were rejected by the Court inadmissible declared. This is a crucial nuance: the Court did not rule on whether or not the abolished authorization violated privacy. The rejection was on purely procedural grounds.

• Appeal overdue: The Court noted that the applicants' criticisms were in fact not so much directed at the 2024 law as at the security verification provisions themselves. However, those were already introduced in 2023 with a law of April 7, 2023. An appeal for annulment must be filed within six months of the publication of a law in the Belgian Official Gazette. That deadline had long passed for the 2023 law, making the appeal too late on this point.
• Insufficiently clear reasoning: To the extent that the pleas did target the 2024 law, the Court held that the arguments were too vague. The applicants had enumerated a long list of violated articles of law, but had not made it sufficiently clear how and why the removal of the ministerial authorization would constitute, precisely, a violation of all those rules. A petition to the Court must, under penalty of inadmissibility, contain a precise and coherent statement of grievances.

Conclusion: what does this mean for you?

While concerns about privacy and the expansion of intelligence powers are legitimate, this case shows that a legal battle is won or lost on the basis of strict procedural rules and rock-solid reasoning.

The deadlines for filing an annulment appeal are inexorable, and a thorough justification of any argument is essential. For military personnel, and by extension anyone who may be subject to security screening, the situation remains unchanged: intelligence agencies retain their direct access to various databases.