Can Bruges remove Vlaams Belang councillor Marie Laeremans over her registered address?
Bruges has started proceedings that could remove Vlaams Belang councillor Marie Laeremans after the city struck her from its population register, while Laeremans denies moving away and says she will challenge the decision.
The dispute tests both local representation and procedural fairness. Residence is a statutory condition for serving on a Flemish municipal council, but the city must hear Laeremans and any contested administrative finding can be reviewed. The case will determine who occupies one of Vlaams Belang’s Bruges seats, while demonstrating that a council majority cannot treat the mandate of a directly elected opposition member as an ordinary political appointment.
The city executive has started proceedings that could remove councillor from the municipal council after she was officially struck from the city’s population register, Mayor of CD&V said on Wednesday, 26 August. No final decision on her council mandate has yet been taken: Laeremans disputes the finding that she no longer lives in Bruges and says she will challenge it.
According to De fauw, the city acted after police carried out seven checks at Laeremans’s registered address over an extended period and did not find her there. He told that there had also been reports that she was living in Sint-Martens-Latem, in East . Those are the city administration’s grounds for the deregistration; they do not, by themselves, establish in public reporting where Laeremans actually has her main residence.
Laeremans rejects the city’s account. She told that she had not moved and still lived above the hospitality business she operates in . She said she would contest the decision, but offered no further public detail about the evidence she intends to submit. Her position therefore remains that the administrative conclusion is wrong, not that an exception should be made for her political mandate.
That distinction matters because this is not an ordinary political dismissal. A governing majority cannot simply expel an opposition councillor because relations have deteriorated or because it dislikes her party. The issue is whether Laeremans continues to meet a statutory eligibility condition applying equally to every councillor in : uninterrupted registration in the population register of the municipality where the person serves.
The ’s guidance on local mandates says that councillors must remain Belgian or EU citizens, be at least 18, avoid specified exclusions and remain registered in their municipality throughout their term. Article 9 of the Flemish provides that a council must declare a member’s mandate forfeited if that member ceases to satisfy an eligibility condition, unless the councillor resigns voluntarily. The councillor must first be heard.
The formal responsibility now lies with and its chair, Annick Lambrecht of Vooruit. De fauw said the file should in principle reach the council in September. lists its September meeting for Monday, 28 September, although publication of the agenda will determine whether the case is considered then. The vote on forfeiture must be secret under the Flemish decree, an institutional safeguard intended to separate an individual mandate decision from an ordinary public party-line vote.
The procedure also has an external check. The chair must notify both Laeremans and the of facts that may justify forfeiture. If the municipal council does not act within two months of formally learning those facts, the electoral tribunal can intervene on its own initiative or at the request of another councillor or the public prosecutor. The same tribunal is competent to adjudicate disputes over a forfeiture decision.
This places two named frames in opposition. The CD&V–Vooruit city administration, articulated publicly by Mayor De fauw, treats the population-register decision as a legal eligibility problem that obliges the institutions to act. Laeremans, a councillor for the opposition group, treats the underlying residency assessment as factually mistaken and intends to use the available review procedures. Whether the police checks justify deregistration, and whether any challenge suspends or reverses that measure, cannot be settled from the information currently public.
The political context is nevertheless relevant. Laeremans entered the council during the municipal term that began after the October 2024 elections. reported at the council’s installation in December 2024 that she was one of two new faces. The still lists her among the party’s five councillors. The current administration is led by De fauw under a coalition agreement between CD&V Lijst Burgemeester and Vooruit for the 2024–2030 term; Vlaams Belang sits in opposition.
A loss of mandate would therefore change the personnel of the opposition, though not necessarily its allocation of seats. Flemish rules provide for a councillor whose mandate ends to be replaced by the appropriate successor from the same electoral list, subject to verification of that successor’s credentials and a public oath. Because municipal and public social-welfare council mandates are linked in , forfeiture would normally affect both roles.
The case also illustrates why residence is more than a mailing formality in Belgian local democracy. Municipal councillors exercise regulatory and scrutiny powers over a defined community, so Flemish electoral law connects eligibility to formal residence in that community. Population registration supplies an administratively verifiable rule, but contested cases can turn on the difference between being absent during checks and having genuinely transferred one’s principal residence. That factual question is precisely what the hearing and appeal mechanisms are designed to test.
The next decisive steps are notification, Laeremans’s opportunity to be heard and any challenge she brings against her removal from the register. If the matter reaches the September council, members will have to decide whether the statutory condition has been lost on the evidence before them. Until then, describing Laeremans as already dismissed would go too far: has initiated the process, while both her residence and the future of her mandate remain contested.
Impact
Regional — The immediate impact is confined to Bruges, but the legal framework applies to all 285 Flemish municipalities. The Flemish Council for Electoral Disputes provides regional oversight if the mandate decision is challenged or the council fails to act.
Local — The immediate consequence concerns one opposition seat on Bruges municipal council and the representation of Bruges voters during the 2024–2030 term. Laeremans says her actual home remains above the hospitality business she operates in the city centre, while Bruges relies on seven unsuccessful police checks and her removal from the population register. The council must hear her before deciding whether she loses the mandate. The next scheduled September council meeting is on 28 September 2026, making that the principal local date for residents and council observers to watch.
What it means for you
Bruges residents do not need to take any immediate administrative action. The practical issue is whether Marie Laeremans continues to occupy her Vlaams Belang council seat after the required hearing and council procedure. Watch the agenda and outcome of the Bruges municipal council meeting scheduled for 28 September 2026, as well as any subsequent challenge before the Council for Electoral Disputes. Residents contacting or following their councillors should check the city’s official councillor list for any change. Municipal councillors elsewhere in Flanders should ensure that their population-register entry continues to reflect residence in the municipality they represent.
Opposing perspectives
- Bruges city administration
Mayor Dirk De fauw presents the matter as an eligibility issue triggered by an administrative finding. In this frame, repeated unsuccessful residence checks led to Laeremans’s removal from the population register, after which the city institutions had a legal duty to begin the forfeiture procedure rather than a political choice about whether to tolerate her continued mandate.
- Marie Laeremans and the Vlaams Belang opposition
Laeremans contests the factual premise of the procedure. She says she has not moved from Bruges and still occupies accommodation above her central-city business. Her announced challenge frames the case as a disputed residence determination that must be tested before elected representation can lawfully be taken away.
- Flemish institutional safeguards
The regional legal framework does not presume either side correct. It requires continuous local registration, but also requires the councillor to be heard and gives the Council for Electoral Disputes authority over contested forfeiture decisions. This frame emphasises evidence and review over a simple confrontation between governing and opposition parties.
Who, where and what
Key people, places and terms in this story
Belgian region whose local-government rules govern the councillor’s residency and mandate.
Vlaams Belang opposition councillor whose Bruges mandate is at risk following her removal from the population register.
Mayor of Bruges who said the deregistration followed seven unsuccessful police residence checks.
Flemish city conducting the population-register and municipal-mandate procedures.
Area where Laeremans says she lives above the hospitality business she operates.
Show the full library (15)
Vlaams Belang opposition councillor whose Bruges mandate is at risk following her removal from the population register.
Mayor of Bruges who said the deregistration followed seven unsuccessful police residence checks.
Flemish city conducting the population-register and municipal-mandate procedures.
Area where Laeremans says she lives above the hospitality business she operates.
Belgian region whose local-government rules govern the councillor’s residency and mandate.
Council term during which Laeremans was installed and the residency dispute arose.
Scheduled September council meeting that readers should watch for procedural developments.
Flemish legal framework requiring councillors to remain registered in the municipality they represent and setting the mandate procedure.
Political party represented by Laeremans in opposition on Bruges municipal council.
Local elected body that must hear Laeremans before deciding whether her mandate is forfeited.
Municipal authority that removed Laeremans from its population register and publishes council information.
Regional body that can provide oversight if the mandate decision is challenged or the council fails to act.
Regional authority publishing official guidance on the mandate of municipal councillors.
Belgian public-service news outlet reporting on the residency dispute and the installation of Bruges councillors.
Belgian newspaper reporting on the proposed removal and Laeremans’s planned challenge.
Sources & evidence
- View sourceVRT NWSPrimarycorroborating· vrtnws.be· 26 August 2026Retrieved 26 August 2026· 37 days ago· Dated
- View sourceHet Nieuwsbladprimary· nieuwsblad.be· 26 August 2026Retrieved 26 August 2026· 37 days ago· Dated
- View sourceFlemish government — Mandate of a municipal councillorofficial· vlaanderen.beRetrieved 26 August 2026
- View sourceFlemish Codex — Decree on Local Governmentofficial· codex.vlaanderen.beRetrieved 26 August 2026
Related topics
Related to this story
Pulse Insight — This topic connects to 10 associations and 2 funding programmes through the Flanders ecosystem.
Live connections from the Belgium Impulse ecosystem — not recommendations.
This briefing was prepared with AI assistance and reviewed by a Belgium Impulse editor before publication. methodology.