Household unity for social housing surcharge despite weekday lodging

ATA/700/1996Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberNov 26, 1996Other

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The decision concerns social-housing surcharge eligibility under the LGL. The court held that an employed housemaid holding a B permit and working 70% remained in a common household with her husband, even though she slept during the week at her employer’s home. Temporary lodging required by employment did not sever the marital household within the meaning of Art. 31(c)(a) LGL.

Omnilex headnote

Art. 31 let. c LGL; common household and social-housing surcharge: the existence of a ménage commun with the spouse is not excluded by the fact that the tenant, employed as a housemaid and working 70%, sleeps during the week at the employer’s home. What is decisive is whether the marital household subsists in substance; employment-related weekday lodging is only temporary and does not of itself establish a separate household.

Full text

Descripteurs

LOGEMENT; MODIFICATION(EN GENERAL); SURTAXE; LOGEMENT SOCIAL; MENAGE COMMUN; IEA

Normes

LGL.30; LGL.31 c

Résumé

Fait ménage commun avec son époux, au sens de l'article 31 C lettre a LGL, l'employée de maison, titulaire d'un permis B, qui travaille à 70 % et dort en semaine au domicile de son employeur. Fait ménage commun avec son époux, au sens de l'article 31 C lettre a LGL, l'employée de maison, titulaire d'un permis B, qui travaille à 70 % et dort en semaine au domicile de son employeur.

Keywords

social housingsurchargecommon householdmarital householdweekday lodgingtenancy modification

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the employee of household service still forms a common household with her husband under Art. 31(c)(a) LGL despite weekday lodging at the employer's home.

Extracted holding

Yes. Weekday lodging at the employer's home did not exclude a common household with her husband for purposes of Art. 31(c)(a) LGL.

Extracted reasoning

The court treated the decisive factor as the continuation of the marital household relationship; temporary sleep accommodation linked to employment was not enough to break the common household.

Household unity for social housing surcharge despite weekday lodgingAI generated