Visa from the Order of Architects: Not a formality, but a source of liability

The core message is clear: when the Order grants a visa without verifying whether the architect actually complies with the mandatory insurance requirement, it may be held liable.

In this newsletter, we discuss the background to this ruling, the legal framework, and its practical implications.

Background: a construction project without a safety net

In the case that gave rise to the ruling, property owners entered into an agreement with an architect who submitted a planning application. The Order of Architects granted a visa for that application.

However, problems arose during the execution of the project. The works came to a standstill, the contractor went bankrupt, and it was only afterwards that it emerged that the architect was not insured at the time the visa had been granted.

The architect was ordered to pay damages, but because no insurance coverage was in place, recovering those damages proved difficult. The property owners subsequently brought a claim against the Order of Architects, arguing that they would never have entrusted the project to that architect had the visa not been issued.

Legal framework: insurance as an essential requirement

Belgian law requires that an architect:

• be registered on the roll of the Order of Architects or on the list of trainee architects; and
• hold professional liability insurance.

Although the insurance requirement is not formally a condition for access to the profession, it is a legal prerequisite for practising as an architect.

The visa attached by the Order to a planning application confirms that the architect:

• is registered with the Order; and
• is authorised to practise the profession.

As such, the visa necessarily implies that the insurance requirement has also been met.

Court of Cassation: the visa entails an active duty of verification

The Court of Cassation confirmed that, when issuing a visa, the Order of Architects does not merely perform an administrative function. On the contrary, it must actively verify that the architect satisfies all legal requirements to practise the profession, including the mandatory insurance obligation.

In other words, the visa constitutes a substantive confirmation rather than a mere formality.

If the Order issues a visa while the architect does not meet these requirements, it acts in breach of the legal standards governing its role.

Negligence: relying solely on declarations is insufficient

In the case at hand, the Order was held liable because it had failed to fulfil its duty of verification.

The court found that the Order:

• had relied exclusively on the architect's declaration that insurance was in place;
• had carried out no further verification; and
• had nevertheless had access to annual lists of insured architects provided by insurers.

By failing to carry out these checks, the Order committed a fault under the general rules of civil liability.

Impact on the construction and real estate sector

This ruling has significant implications for all parties involved in the construction industry and highlights a shift in the perception of the visa.

For property owners and developers

The visa issued by the Order can no longer be regarded as a mere administrative formality.

Although the ruling opens the possibility of holding the Order liable where it has acted negligently, it remains advisable for clients to verify themselves that the architect has valid insurance coverage. Reliance on the visa alone is insufficient.

For architects

The ruling once again emphasises the importance of maintaining adequate and continuous insurance coverage. The absence of a valid insurance policy may not only expose architects to personal liability but may also have consequences for third parties.

For the Order of Architects

For the Order, this ruling requires greater vigilance when issuing visas. Internal procedures must ensure that compliance with the insurance requirement is effectively verified.

Simply relying on architects' declarations is no longer sufficient and may result in liability.

Practical considerations

In light of this case law, construction projects should pay particular attention to compliance with the insurance requirement:

• always request proof of insurance (including the policy and its period of validity) when appointing an architect;
• verify the insurance coverage throughout the duration of the project;
• carefully document these checks in the project file; and
• consider including appropriate contractual provisions.

Conclusion

The Court of Cassation's ruling of 13 June 2025 makes it clear that the visa issued by the Order of Architects carries significant legal weight.

The Order has a genuine duty of verification and may be held liable if it fails to fulfil that obligation. In practice, this means that verifying insurance coverage is not a mere formality but an essential component of risk management in every construction project.

If you have any questions about the implications of this ruling or would like us to review your contracts and procedures, please do not hesitate to contact us.