Criteria and restrictions to access reception conditions

Author

Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen Visit Website

Right to shelter and assignment to a centre

According to the Reception Act, every asylum seeker has the right to material reception conditions ensuring a dignified standard of living from the moment of making an asylum application.[1]

There is no limit to this right connected to the nationality of the asylum seekers in the Reception Act. Asylum seekers from safe countries of origin will have a reception place assigned to them. EU citizens applying for asylum and their family members are entitled to reception as well, although in practice they are not accommodated by Fedasil (see Differential Treatment of Specific Nationalities in Reception). This means that they need to secure housing with their own means. EU citizens applying for asylum can challenge the formal refusal decision of Fedasil (known as ‘non-designation of a code 207’) before the Labour Court.

In theory, no material reception conditions, with the exception of medical care, are due to a person with sufficient financial resources.[2] Expenses that have been provided in the context of reception can also be recovered in such cases.[3] Nevertheless, no assessment of these financial resources or the actual risk of destitution of the person concerned occurs at the moment of the intake. In practice, the withdrawal of material aid is only rarely applied since Fedasil has limited means to check the financial resources a person has (see Reduction or withdrawal of reception due to a professional income).

The Aliens Act provides that “registration” and “lodging” of the asylum application are two different steps in the asylum procedure.[4] The Reception Act, however, now clearly provides that an asylum seeker has the right to shelter from the moment they make the asylum application, and not only from the moment the asylum application is registered,[5] in line with the recast Reception Conditions Directive.

In December 2018, an ‘arrival centre’ was established at the open reception centre ‘Klein Kasteeltje’/’Petit Château’ located in the city centre of Brussels, where all asylum applications had to be made and registered and where applicants accessed the reception system. Both the Immigration Office and Fedasil were present at the arrival centre: the Immigration Office for registering the asylum applications, and Fedasil for screening the newly arrived asylum seekers to providing them with information on their right to reception conditions and access to the reception system for those in need. The arrival centre was (and remains) also the place where asylum seekers who were already in the reception system but need to be reassigned to another centre – for example, because they were temporarily excluded from the reception system due to sanctions – need to present themselves and where a new reception centre is designated.

Impact of the reception crisis on the arrival centre: For security reasons, the registration centre has been moved from ‘Klein Kasteeltje’ to the offices of the Immigration Office on 29 August 2022.[6] Since then, applicants for international protection have to register at the Pachecolaan 44. Fedasil is not present at this location. This means that applicants for international protection who do not receive access to the reception network are not seen by Fedasil and are informed by the personnel of the Immigration Office of the fact that they need to register on a waiting list of Fedasil. Those who do receive access to the reception network on the day of the application are transferred to ‘Klein Kasteeltje’ or another reception centre in the first phase. Applicants for international protection who are not immediately given access to the reception network can be invited to receive a place on a later date. These applicants are asked to present themselves at the ‘Klein Kasteeltje’.

Applicants who receive shelter are first invited for an intake in the arrival centre, where they undergo a medical screening and can get vaccinated (optional) and have to undergo a tuberculosis test (compulsory). Fedasil assesses any specific reception needs that might arise (e.g. medical needs). Afterwards, applicants are first accommodated in one of the 14 first-phase reception centres (with a total capacity of 3,138 places)[7] for at least 3 days. Once a place in a second phase reception structure becomes available, the person is moved to this new reception place.[8] The document of designation by Fedasil is called “Code 207”. Due to the reception crisis, the average stay in a first phase reception places rose to 44 days in 2023.[9]

Asylum seekers who stay at private addresses and indicate they do not need material assistance will only be entitled to medical care (to be requested to Fedasil via an online ‘requisitorium’; see Health care). Their right to have the assistance of a pro bono lawyer may also be affected if they live with someone who has sufficient means. When the need arises, these applicants can always opt for material aid again if their asylum procedure is pending.

Constraints in accessing accommodation

2020: limitation of reception for persons with an expired Dublin decision and an online registration form for the international protection procedure

In January 2020, the government issued new instructions on the ‘Modalities relating to the right to material assistance of applicants for international protection with an Annex 26quater or a protection status in another Member State’.[10] This instruction limited the material reception to medical assistance for persons restarting their asylum procedure in Belgium after the expiry of the Dublin transfer period (see Right to reception: Dublin procedure) and for applicants who have already been granted international protection in another EU member state (see Right to reception: Applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State).

This new policy was adopted due to the overcrowding of the reception system and the increase of applications for international protection made by these two categories of applicants. After several national, Flemish and French-speaking NGOs had introduced an appeal to the Council of State aiming for the suspension and the annulment of the Fedasil instructions, Fedasil withdrew the instructions of 3 January 2020 in September 2020, right before the hearing before the Council of State was scheduled.[11]

2020: COVID-19 pandemic and online registration system

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, an online registration system for applications for international protection was introduced by the Immigration Office (see Registration of the asylum application), due to which some applicants for international protection had to wait multiple weeks before they were able to make their application. Since applicants for international protection are only entitled to material assistance from the moment they make their application for international protection, applicants had no access to the reception system during this waiting period.[12] On 5 October 2020, the Brussels court of first instance ruled that completing the online registration was equal to ‘the formal lodging of a request for international protection’ and should give the immediate right to reception conditions.[13] The Belgian state was given 30 days to change the registration system to ensure the immediate access of applicants to the reception system. As a result, the Immigration Office suspended the online registration system and resumed the previous system of physical, spontaneous registrations on 3 November 2020.

2021 – 2024: reception crisis: systematic denial of reception for male applicants for international protection and incidental denial of reception for families and minors

Since September 2021, the reception network is under enormous pressure and Fedasil is unable to provide all applicants with a reception place. Consequentially, priority is given to those applicants considered ‘vulnerable’ (families, children, single women, etc.). Unless they present an exceptional (medical) vulnerability[14], single male applicants are almost systematically not considered as vulnerable and are thus denied access to a reception place. During the whole year of 2023, single male applicants for international protection were systematically deprived of their right to reception. After registering their application for international protection, single men with a need for accommodation are not given an individually motivated decision that refuses them a reception place.[15] They are merely informed about the shortage of places and instructed to register themselves on a waiting list of Fedasil.[16] The average waiting time for those on the waiting list increased up until 6 months at the time of writing. On 7 February 2024, 3,122 persons were registered on the waiting list.[17]  During the waiting period, the applicants are left to fend for themselves, many living in extremely precarious conditions (see Consequences on the applicants’ livelihoods). The past two years, multiple legal procedures have been initiated in order to force the Belgian government to respect the international and national obligation to provide reception to people asking for international protection (see Legal proceedings).

Although the reception crisis mostly impacts single men applying for asylum in Belgium, families and unaccompanied minors have also suffered important consequences because of the severe shortage of places. In October and November 2022, there were some days on which Fedasil could not provide shelter to families with children and unaccompanied minors.[18] As for unaccompanied minors, self-proclaimed male minors above 16 did not receive accommodation on the day of their application. The screening of their age (over or under 16) was done by personnel of the registration centre based on physical characteristics.[19] Initially, those excluded could choose to undergo an age assessment. If their minority was proven, they were given a reception place. However, as of 26 October 2022, the Guardianship Service no longer conducted age assessments for this group. According to the Service, the situation was “untenable for the hospitals and the Guardianship Service” since the age assessment test had to be conducted in “demeaning circumstances”.[20] As a result, the self-proclaimed minor without reception could not contest the doubt on their minority. This in turn prolonged the time during which they were denied access to reception. Without access to a reception place, they were forced to sleep in the streets.[21] Humanitarian organisations did their best to support them by providing humanitarian aid such as food and carton tents. On 17 December 2022, the police of Brussels destroyed the carton tents in which the minors were sheltered.[22] In December the occupancy rate of the reception network for minors and the number of minor applicants for international protection decreased again, allowing Fedasil to again provide reception to all unaccompanied minors on the day of their application. In total, 294 unaccompanied minors were not given reception on the day of their application during the winter of 2022. 70 self-proclaimed minors were found to be above 18 years of age after an age assessment and were not given reception. 202 unaccompanied minors were given reception after undergoing an age assessment or after a certain period.[23] Caritas International announced that 24 unaccompanied minors were officially reported missing.[24] This situation was denounced on multiple occasions by the Flemish Child Rights Commissioner.[25]

In the summer of 2023, the reception crisis reached a point where there were not enough places for families in the reception network. To avoid families ending up on the street, some families were housed in 7 youth centres (310 places) as of 12 September 2023.[26] The agreement with these youth centres ended in February 2024 because the youth organisations need the locations at the end of the winter period.

On 29 August 2023, the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration officially announced a temporary suspension of reception for all single male applicants.[27] The reason for this suspension was the limited number of available places in the reception network for families and children and the need to prevent this group of vulnerable applicants from ending up on the streets. Only in exceptional cases can single men receive a reception place.[28] Upon appeal by several NGO’s, this measure was considered as unlawful by the Council of State, the highest administrative court in Belgium (see Legal proceedings).[29] However, after the judgement, the Secretary of State announced being unable to respect the ruling and that the suspension of access to reception for single men would continue.[30]  This means that the waiting list is in theory frozen and single men are no longer offered a reception place. In practice, Fedasil continues to invite single men, but at a very slow pace, which entails that the number of persons registered on the waiting list does not diminish, the number of applicants with reception needs arriving each day being far higher than the amount of people provided access to a reception place. Consequently, the number of people waiting for a place and the average waiting time continues to increase. On 7 February 2024, 3,122 persons were registered on the waiting list and this number continues to rise. In March 2024, invitations for a reception place were being sent to persons having applied for asylum in June 2023 (waiting time of 9 months).

In September 2022, 51 civil society organisations published a ‘roadmap’ proposing several measures to solve the reception crisis.[31] The secretary of state stated that certain of the proposed measures, such as providing emergency shelter in hotels, activating the federal phase of the national disaster plan or the mandatory distribution plan will not be considered.[32] In September 2023 she repeated that this distribution plan or other possible solutions like a temporary residence permit for Afghans are not taken into consideration.[33]

The reception crisis also impacted access to the asylum procedure in 2022 and 2023 (see Registration of the asylum application).

Consequences on the applicants’ livelihoods

Applicants without access to the reception network sleep rough for multiple months. Some sleep on the streets, only protected by sleeping bags, mattresses and blankets provided by humanitarian organisations and solidary citizens, who also distribute food and warm drinks. Since the summer of 2022, a group of asylum seekers set up tents on a bridge over and alongside the canal, right across the famous Arrival Centre “Petit Château”. Other homeless asylum seekers have sought shelter in several unoccupied buildings in Brussels. The largest of those occupations or ‘squats’, situated in Rue des Palais and called by its inhabitants the “Palais des droits”, soon became completely overcrowded, hosting around 1000 persons. After the situation became precarious, due to unsafe living conditions[34] and the spread of infectious diseases[35] the Federal government and the region of Brussels decided to evacuate the building in February 2023.[36] After this evacuation, Fedasil indicated that it provided shelter to 840 registered asylum seekers who were living in the squat.[37] However, due to an underestimation of the amount of asylum seekers residing in the building, not all of them received a place in the Fedasil reception network. A remaining 150 to 200 persons, although entitled to reception, were forced to search shelter in the tent camp at the Arrival Centre.[38] As a result, the number of tents increased to 110 with an estimated 250 persons.[39] In the beginning of March 2023, the mayor of Molenbeek decided to evacuate this makeshift camp.[40] Around 135 asylum seekers were either sheltered by Fedasil or brought to temporary shelter for destitute and homeless persons. A remaining 50 persons were left behind, deprived from their tents. They found shelter in an empty building further alongside the canal, “Alée du Kaai”.[41] Two days later, this building was evacuated as well.[42] With the help of a collective of citizens called “Stop the reception crisis”[43], the persons concerned occupied the empty building of the future National Crisis Centre.[44] These applicants were offered a place in emergency accommodation, from where they would afterwards be integrated in the general reception network.[45] In April 2023, another large building – the former headquarters of political party CD&V – was occupied by the same collective of citizens, offering accommodation to dozens of asylum seekers.[46] In October 2023, the asylum seekers sheltering there were evicted.[47] Dozens of other smaller squats are present in the city of Brussels.[48] In a period of a few months, civil society organisation Samusocial, that provides support to people living in occupied buildings, counted 2,000 persons (not all asylum seekers) in 13 buildings in Brussels, without counting those sheltered in smaller squats.[49] In November 2023, there were reports of new informal camps appearing near the registration centre and the Humanitarian Hub.[50] After these reports, the tents were quickly dismantled by the local police.[51]

Medical organisations have denounced the dire medical situation for destitute asylum seekers on multiple occasions. Although Fedasil remains responsible for the reimbursement of medical costs, the group of applicants deprived of reception in the context of the reception crisis encountered many difficulties accessing medical aid through the online “requisitorium” (see Health care). Language barriers, lack of access to internet and urgent and complex medical needs because of precarious living situations, were some of the reasons why this group had difficulties accessing medical aid via this system.

In order to make medical care more accessible for the applicants for international protection sleeping rough, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) Belgium opened a medical unit at the registration centre (Pacheco) in October 2022. After one month, they had conducted more than 500 medical consultations. 94% of the patients were male, of which 90% were sleeping rough. The organisation counted 40 cases of cutaneous diphtheria and 99 cases of scabies, it gave 20 prescriptions to resume medical care for chronic non-transmittable illnesses like diabetes, epilepsy and hypertension.[52] In the three months during which the post was operational, 2,480 patients sought medical and psychological help. Of these patients, 2,203 people (88,8%) registered as applicants for international protection without reception.[53] Since January 2023, this medical unit is taken over by Croix-Rouge and called the “Refugee Medical Point” and funded by the federal government.[54]  Humanitarian organisations providing medical care, such as the medical services at the Humanitarian HUB ran by MSF and Doctors of the World (MdM), registered an increase in the ratio of applicants for international protection on their entire visitors’ population. While before the reception crisis, only 5% of the visitors of the service ‘Mental health care’ of MSF consisted of applicants for international protection, the share of this category increased up to 85% in March 2023.[55] This increase is also clearly visible in the other medical (and legal) services of the Humanitarian HUB.[56] There was also a clear increase in the amount of people whose need to medical care was directly related to a lack of housing.[57] Medical services indicate that many of the health problems treated among applicants for international protection are directly related to their dire living situations and the lack of access to preventive and curative health care: skin diseases, digestive issues and dental problems, joint problems and mental health problems.[58] They also treat several contagious diseases that would usually be prevented or cured when people would undergo a medical examination on the moment of entering the Fedasil reception network, such as diphtheria, scabies, tuberculosis and measles.[59] MSF teams also observed a marked deterioration in the mental health of applicants for international protection living on the streets. Main diagnoses identified are: psychotic disorders, post-traumatic stress and depression. These disorders are exacerbated by the insecurity and uncertainty associated with the lack of housing. In some cases, this can lead to suicidal thoughts or suicide attempts. During medical consultations for the Immigration Department, 8 persons spontaneously reported experienced violence in Belgium.[60]

Access to legal assistance and information

The reception crisis has severely hindered access to legal assistance for applicants sleeping rough. After the registration of their application, single men are automatically left on the streets without any information about their rights – including the right to legal assistance – nor any practical indications on accessing the legal assistance they are entitled to. As a result, they are not able to challenge the violation of their right to a reception place. Most applicants lack information on the course of the asylum procedure. This can result in missing their first interview, potentially leading to the closure of their procedure. Many go to their interviews uninformed and unprepared. Although the presence of a lawyer is allowed during interviews of the CGRS, many do not have a lawyer by the time they are invited for this interview and they go without the legal assistance they are entitled to. In addition, 1,300 applicants on the waiting list have already received a decision on their application whilst being deprived of accommodation.[61] In case this decision is negative, the possibility to introduce an appeal is dependent on the access to legal assistance.

Several NGO’s try to mitigate this issue by providing legal information and ensuring access to lawyers to victims of the reception crisis. SISA, the social and administrative information service of the NGO BelRefugees, has been providing legal information and assistance to migrants living in precarious situations for a long time and continues to do so in the context of the reception crisis. Whereas SISA is accessible for all persons living in precarious situations and having questions about migration, the share of applicants of international protection among the total amount of visitors was above 80% and often above 90% in January – September 2023.[62] In April 2022, a legal helpdesk was set up by the NGO Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, a consortium of law firms and the Bureau of legal aid of Brussels (Barreau de Bruxelles). In this ‘first line’ helpdesk, volunteers provide information about the asylum procedure to applicants without access to a reception place, help them with registering on Fedasil’s waiting list and finding their way to emergency accommodation and other humanitarian services. Through this helpdesk, a ‘second line’ lawyer is appointed for further legal support in their asylum procedure. To this purpose, a collaboration has been set up with different bureaus of legal aid in Gent, Antwerp, Leuven, Limburg and Brussels, so as to ensure the swift designation of a lawyer. In 2023, 3,400 individual applicants came to the legal helpdesk, with a total amount of 7,464 visits throughout the year.[63]

 In September 2023, Fedasil has reopened their Info Point, an information centre where applicants for international protection, migrants in transit and undocumented persons can get information about the asylum procedure, medical aid, legal advice etc.[64] Although the Info Point does not serve as a point of access to reception for those excluded in the context of the reception crisis, it can provide this group with information and help them, for example, to fill out the medical requisitorium that allows them to get medical costs reimbursed (see Health care).

Legal proceedings

 In the past two years, multiple legal procedures have been initiated in order to force the Belgian government to respect the international and national obligation to provide reception to people asking for international protection. In individual procedures initiated by lawyers of applicants being denied reception, Fedasil has been condemned at least 8,812 times by Labour Courts for violation of the right to reception.[65] Similarly, the European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) has indicated more than 2,086 interim measures to the Belgian state, ordering to provide shelter to the persons involved.[66] A consortium of NGO’s has also initiated several collective procedures, asking Belgian courts to condemn the violation of the right to reception and the right to asylum.[67] 

• Individual legal proceedings

From the early stage of the reception crisis, lawyers started legal procedures to challenge the violation of the right to reception of their clients, often through ‘unilateral request’ (non-contradictory procedure in extreme urgency) lodged before the presidents of the Labour courts. In many of these cases, courts confirmed the right to reception to the applicants, ordering Fedasil (and later also the Belgian State, being declared responsible in solidum) to give them immediate access to a reception place, on penalty of a fine of €100 to €250 per working day it fails to respect the court decision. Fedasil has been condemned by Belgian labour courts 8,812 times since the start of the reception crisis.[68]  The total amount of fines that are due is estimated to be above 100 million euros. The amount of cases brought before the Brussels Labour Court, led this court to publish a press release in May of 2022. It stated that in normal years it treats -on average – 38 cases against Fedasil. At the time of the press release, the number of cases brought before the Brussels Labourt Court reached 1007.

Some Labour courts included additional elements in their convictions, adding to the legal pressure on Fedasil. In a ruling of 13 June 2022, the Brussels Labour Court communicated an individual case against Fedasil to the public prosecutor’s office.[69] In its communication the Court explained that Fedasil appears to have a deliberate, concerted and persistent practice of not granting the right to reception to applicants for international protection who are clearly entitled to it. The Court asked the public prosecutor to start an investigation on the claim that there “seems to have been put in place a system by persons holding public authority with a view to not granting the right to reception guaranteed by the Reception Law”. This could be a possible violation of Belgian penal law, prohibiting measures contrary to the law concerted by a public authority. On 24 June 2022, the public prosecutor closed the investigation, indicating that there was no violation.[70] In a ruling of 28 March 2023, the Brussels Labour Court fined Fedasil for €2.500 to be paid as a ‘civil penalty’, because of “clear procedural abuse”.[71] The court ruled that Fedasil showcased a deliberate and manifest violation of the Reception Law, hereby not executing its legal mission. In this case, Fedasil fails to provide adequate legal justification for the violation of the Reception Law. Continuing, the Court states that an aggravating circumstance is disruption of the public service of justice: “this disruption is very significant in view of the number of cases and the urgency with which they have to be dealt with, profoundly affecting the functioning of the French-speaking labour court of Brussels, to the detriment of this court and, ultimately, of all its litigants”. Both the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation upheld this conviction, imposing the maximum civil fine of €2,500 on Fedasil. [72]

The wide amount of case proceedings and convictions against Fedasil has so far had a limited impact in practice, with less results registered in the latter phases of the reception crisis. While at the beginning of the reception crisis, applicants who received a positive court decision were given an appointment for accommodation within a week, the waiting time for persons having received a positive court order soon started increasing, to reach several months. As a result, applicants started introducing requests for interim measures at the European Court of Human Rights.[73] The first interim measure was granted on 31 October 2022.[74] On 12 March 2024, the ECtHR had granted 2,128 interim measures in this context (751 in 2022, 1,297 in 2023).[75] Although the interim measures were effective in the beginning, leading to an invitation to access the reception network within a short period, the waiting time increased for this group of applicants as well.

In July 2023, Fedasil announced it would no longer give priority to persons having received a positive court order: every applicant in need of reception is requested to register on a waiting list, after which they will be invited in a chronological order based on the date on which they have asked for asylum.[76] This practice renders the available legal remedies at the domestic and European level virtually ineffective. The Camara v. Belgium case resulted in a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the ECtHR found that Belgium violates article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and observed “a systemic failure on the part of the Belgian authorities to enforce final court decisions relating to the reception of applicants for international protection”. [77] The failure of the Belgian government to comply with the rule of law has been largely criticised on both the national and international level (see International reaction).

Several lawyers have tried to force Fedasil and the Belgian state to respect the court decisions by claiming the penalties imposed by the courts in case of non-respect of the court decisions. However, Fedasil has until now refused to pay, a decision that has been confirmed on several occasions by the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration and Fedasil.[78] The lawyers have thus taken further legal steps in order to force the payment of the penalties by Fedasil and the Belgian state by the confiscation and public sale of goods of Fedasil and of the cabinets of the Secretary of State and the prime minister.[79] However, the possibilities of confiscating public goods are strongly limited by Belgian law in order to not hinder the functioning of these services, making the enforcement of the judicial convictions very difficult in practice.

• Collective legal proceedings

In a decision of 19 January 2022 in a case brought on the initiative of several NGOs,[80] the court of first instance of Brussels condemned the Belgian State and Fedasil for not ensuring access to the asylum procedure and to reception conditions and ordered both parties to ensure the respect of these fundamental rights, imposing a €5000 penalty payment for the respective parties for each day during the following 6 months on which at least one person did not receive access to the asylum procedure (penalty for the Belgian State) or to the reception system (penalty for Fedasil).[81] Although the situation had improved slightly since the opening of new places in December 2021 and the opening of an emergency night shelter in January 2022,[82] the court deemed the state of the reception system too unstable to guarantee access to the asylum procedure and to reception conditions for all applicants in the near future. The court also explicitly stated that the waiting list used by Fedasil is unlawful.

After this judgement, single men were still being denied access to the reception network, and the waiting list was still used. On 24 January 2022 – only 5 days after the Court of First Instance ruled against the Belgian State and Fedasil – the government launched a ‘five-point action plan’ to counter the ‘growing problem of asylum seekers crossing Belgium’.[83] One of the pillars of this action plan consisted in giving priority to ‘new’ asylum seekers, who had not yet applied for or/and received asylum in another EU member state. Male applicants with a Eurodac hit indicating they had already applied for or received international protection in another country, were denied access to the reception network and were told to send an e-mail to Fedasil in order to be put on the waiting list.[84] Between the 24th of January and 23rd of March of 2022, 813 applicants with a Eurodac hit were excluded from reception.[85]

As a result, the NGO’s filed a new appeal at the court of first instance, requesting an increase of the penalty payment from €5000 to €10.000 for each day that the judgement would not be respected. In a judgement of 25 March 2023, the Court condemned Fedasil again, thereby increasing the penalty payment to €10.000. The court repeated that Fedasil is bound by the European Reception Directive to provide accommodation to all first-time applicants for international protection, regardless of external factors influencing the availability of places. It specifically stated that it is unlawful to automatically exclude applicants for international protection with a Eurodac hit or with a protection status in another EU member state. Fedasil introduced an appeal against this judgement of 25 March at the Court of Appeal. This led to a new judgement on 13 October 2022. The Court of Appeal discarded Fedasil’s arguments and upheld the judgement of the 25 March. It also lifted the period of 6 months during which the penalty fees could be claimed. It argued that Fedasil did not provide a concrete action plan to solve the reception crisis. The court went further and stated that Fedasil ‘deliberately and manifestly disregards the judgement of the 19 January 2022’. Therefore, the penalty fees could be claimed for every working day that Fedasil did not respect the judgment of 24 January 2022, until the date of the in-merit decision on the case from the Court of First instance.

On 29 June 2023, the Court of First Instance of Brussels (French-speaking) condemned the Belgian State and Fedasil on the merits for their persistent misconduct in violating the right to asylum and the right to reception, as well as for not respecting judicial decisions.[86] The Belgian state violated the right to asylum by restricting access to asylum procedure. The court held that the right to apply for asylum may not be unlawfully prevented or delayed. The fact that the Belgian state is doing its best to organise the situation and does not intend to prevent the exercise of this right is irrelevant in this regard. The court finds that the Belgian state was in violation of the abovementioned obligations.

With regards to Fedasil, the Court found that the Federal Agency violated the right to reception. According to the court, it is not in doubt that the right to reception has been violated since the summer of 2021. The fact that there is a waiting list for reception sufficiently demonstrates this violation, according to the court. The Belgian state and Fedasil argued that there is force majeure that makes guaranteeing the right to shelter impossible. The court concludes that there is no force majeure. Therefore, saturation of the shelter network does not relieve the state of its obligations.

According to the court, it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the defending parties do not respect judicial decisions. This attitude endangers the foundations of the rule of law. Consequently, the Belgian state and Fedasil violate Article 1382 of the Civil Code.

Despite these judgements, Fedasil has continued to violate the right to reception up until the time of writing.[87] This has been confirmed by Fedasil in several official communications.[88] On 13 February 2024, it communicated that it could not provide accommodation to 8,816 applicants in 2023.[89] Fedasil has not yet paid the penalty fees that are due, hereby violating legal judgements.[90] The 10 NGOs have tried to demand the payment of the penalty fees, so far without success. Legal procedures on the payment of these penalties are currently pending. In January 2024, the Court of Appeal of Brussels authorised the NGO’s to proceed to the seizure of certain specific bank accounts of Fedasil, under certain conditions specified by the Court.[91] The NGO’s announced that the amounts that would be seized following this authorisation – which could amount up to 2,9 million euros of penalties due by Fedasil – would be entirely used for the direct support of victims of the reception crisis.[92] Fedasil appealed both this decision and the subsequent seizure of one of their bank accounts. These appeals are currently pending. Until a decision has been taken in the procedures, the amounts on the seized bank account remain frozen.

(Inter)national reaction

On 13 December 2022, the Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe Dunja Mijatovic  sent a letter to the Belgian secretary of state for asylum and migration expressing her concern about the deteriorating reception crisis in Belgium.[93] In August 2023, the Commissioner repeated that “the lack of accommodation has serious consequences for the human rights of people applying for asylum in Belgium, including from the perspective of their right to health.”[94]

In January 2023, the European Commission issued Belgium a formal notice concerning incorrect transposition of Directive 2013/33. The Press Release does not specify which provisions are included in the infringement action, but it is possible that the reception crisis is at the basis of this procedure.

On 30 March 2023, four UN Special Rapporteurs (the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context; and the Special Rapporteur on the right to drinking water and sanitation) sent a letter to the Belgian Government to underline their deep concern regarding the deterioration of the reception conditions.[95]

In September 2023, several Belgian human rights institutions addressed an open letter to the rapporteurs and representatives of various European institutions and the United Nations, voicing their concern on the ongoing infringement of both human rights and the rule of law and calling the European institutions and UN to examine the situation in Belgium.[96] Despite insistence of the human rights institutions, their letter received very little response.

In October 2023, Amnesty International published a statement urging the Belgian authorities to take all possible measures in order to adequately respect, protect and fulfil the rights of asylum seekers and to comply with the court rulings ordering Belgium to provide adequate accommodation.[97] In December 2023, Amnesty International launched an international campaign, calling on the Belgian Government to provide adequate shelter to asylum seeker applicants and to respect international human rights obligations.[98]

Reception support

In December 2021, the EUAA and Belgium signed their first operating plan, focusing on increasing reception capacity and improving reception quality, in the short and medium term.[99] An amendment was signed in May 2022 following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and subsequent displacement, and adding a third pillar of enhancing the capacity of the Belgian authorities to implement effectively the TPD.[100] A second amendment was signed in November 2022, extending the operational support throughout 2023.[101]

The support of EUAA comes in the form of experts, interpreters, containers and support with training policies. As for the creation of reception places through containers, the creation of 750 additional reception places in EUAA containers is foreseen in 2024.[102] The search for suitable locations for these containers took several months and in January 2024 Fedasil communicated that the containers would be used in Ypres and Charleroi.[103] The containers in Ypres are expected to open in July 2024, providing 375 additional places. The containers in Charleroi are expected to open in December 2024, providing 375 additional reception places.[104]

Throughout 2023, the EUAA deployed 76 experts in Belgium,[105] mostly external experts (68). The majority of them were asylum information provision experts (19), along with reception child protection experts (17) and reception child protection experts (5).[106]

As of 19 December 2023, a total of 52 EUAA experts were deployed in Belgium, out of which 13 were asylum information provision experts, 11 reception child protection experts, 4 members of the roving team and 4 senior social workers.[107]

In 2023, the EUAA delivered 26 training sessions to a total of 127 experts and personnel of national authorities, relevant partners and EUAA contracted personnel.[108]

Right to reception: subsequent applications

The Reception Act provides the possibility for Fedasil to refuse reception to asylum seekers who lodge a second or further subsequent asylum application, until their asylum application is deemed admissible by the CGRS.[109]Between the moment of the subsequent application and the admissibility decision by the CGRS, asylum seekers who are refused reception nevertheless have the right to medical assistance from Fedasil and to free legal representation. Once the CGRS has deemed the application admissible, the right to access reception is reactivated. Asylum seekers must then present themselves to the dispatching desk to be allocated a reception place.

If the asylum seeker has not obtained reception from Fedasil during the first stage of the procedure and the CGRS declares the subsequent asylum application inadmissible, they will not be entitled to reception during the appeal with the CALL.

If, after a final negative decision in the asylum procedure, a request for a prolongation of reception (see End of the right to reception) was pending or granted and the person lodges a second or further subsequent asylum application, the Dispatching service of Fedasil will take a new decision regarding access to reception conditions in the new procedure. If it decides to refuse reception, the previously pending or granted prolongation is withdrawn. The right to reception is thus linked to the most recent asylum procedure.[110]

Article 4 of the Reception Act is aligned with the recast Reception Conditions Directive and explicitly states that decisions which limit or withdraw the right to reception should be in line with the principle of proportionality, individually motivated and based on the individual situation of the person concerned, especially in the case vulnerable persons. Health care and a dignified standard of living should be always ensured. According to the Constitutional Court, the decision to refuse reception in such cases can only be taken in cases of abuse of the asylum procedure, e.g. when the person applies for asylum for the sole purpose of extending the right to reception.[111] In practice, however, Fedasil almost systematically refuses to assign a reception place to subsequent applicants until their asylum application is declared admissible by the CGRS, mostly through standardised refusal decisions. On multiple occasions, labour Courts have ordered Fedasil to motivate such decisions individually and consider all case elements.[112] In certain cases, subsequent applicants obtained reception after challenging such decisions before the courts. This means that the access to the right to reception in these cases often depends on whether the applicant is supported by an experienced lawyer. The Federal Mediator has received many complaints about this issue in the last years, including from families with minor children, having been refused reception after lodging a subsequent application for international protection. In several cases, Fedasil has reviewed its decision after intervention by the Federal Mediator and has granted the applicants reception.[113]

Right to reception: Dublin procedure

Applicants registered as asylum seekers in another Member State

Right to reception until the moment of the effective transfer

During the examination of the Dublin procedure by the Immigration Office, asylum seekers are entitled to a reception place. If a negative Dublin decision (“annex 26quater”: refusal of residence with an order to leave the territory) is issued, the right to material assistance used to be terminated as soon as the deadline for leaving the territory has expired or as soon as the travel documents are delivered (in case the asylum seeker confirms their willingness to collaborate with the transfer but cannot obtain the necessary travel documents within the delay to leave the territory for reasons beyond their own will).[114] Fedasil considered this practice in line with the Cimade and Gisti judgement of the CJEU.[115] The Labour Courts of Brussels and Antwerp have overruled these instructions in individual cases, as they rely on a strict interpretation of the Cimade judgment, by ordering Fedasil to provide shelter until the Belgian state effectively executes the transfer decision itself, unless it gives clear instructions as to when and where the asylum seeker has to present themselves for this.[116]

Consequently, asylum applicants subject to a negative Dublin decision who are, on the moment of receiving this decision, residing in the reception network are invited to relocate to an ‘open return place’. If they do not wish to go this centre, their right to reception will be suspended (see “Return track” and assignment to an open return centre).[117]

After the maximum period allowed by the Dublin Regulation to transfer the asylum seeker to the responsible Member State has passed (6 months in principle, possibly extended to maximum 18 months), Belgium becomes responsible for the application by default and a reception place is re-assigned when the person presents themselves to the Immigration Office and their first asylum application is re-opened (see Dublin).

Reception crisis 2021-2022: no access to reception for male applicants for international protection with a ‘Dublin-hit’

In the context of the reception crisis that started in October 2021, the reception rights of applicants with a ‘Dublin-hit’ were restricted. Since 24 January 2022, applicants for whom, at the moment of registering their asylum application, a EURODAC hit indicated they had already applied for or received international protection in another country, were being denied access to the reception network and told to send an e-mail to Fedasil in order to be put on a waiting list.[118] Since March of 2022, all single men -regardless of a ‘Dublin-hit’- are excluded from the reception network (see Constraints to the right to shelter). Although Labour courts have issued thousands of decisions condemning Fedasil to provide applicants with reception, the rulings have not always been positive for applicants in the Dublin procedure. According to the Courts, these applicants could have accessed reception conditions in the responsible EU member state. Therefore, leaving this state for Belgium is a ‘self-inflicted’ situation of precariousness. This refusal of reception by Fedasil and the Labour Court seems to contrast with the Cimade and Gisti judgement from the European Court of Justice, which ruled that applicants in a Dublin procedure have a right to shelter until the moment of their effective transfer. At the time of writing, applicants in the Dublin procedure still faced these difficulties (see Constraints to the right to shelter).

2022: Dublin reception centre in Zaventem

In the summer of 2022, the Immigration Office opened a new ‘Dublin reception centre’ in Zaventem. This centre is a regular open centre, meaning that its residents are free to leave if they wish to do so.  The aim of this centre is to fast track the Dublin procedure for a specific target group, and to provide them with specific information and counselling. In doing so, the state secretary for asylum and migration hopes to ease the pressure on the reception network.[119] Applicants who have previously applied for international protection in another member state can be designated to this reception centre by Fedasil. Applicants who have previously applied for international protection in Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece are not designated to this reception centre.[120] Applicants who are designated to this centre can refuse this designation, after which their right to reception will be suspended.

Applicants in the centre in Zaventem are interviewed after 2-3 working days and will on that occasion be informed about the Dublin procedure and the possibility of a voluntary return to the responsible member state. After this interview, the Belgian Dublin Unit will proceed with the regular Dublin procedure. Once the responsible member state has agreed to take back the applicant, the Immigration Office will deliver an annex 26quater (Dublin decision) and will proceed with the voluntary return of the applicant. If the applicant does not collaborate with this voluntary return, the Immigration Office can detain the applicant and organise a forced return. In 2022 the average stay in this centre was 30 days, and 151 voluntary returns were already organised from the centre.[121] In 2023 (until 18 October), the average stay was 30,8 days, and 165 voluntary returns were organised from the centre.[122]

Dublin Returnees

Asylum seekers sent back to Belgium following a Dublin procedure in another country, are often considered subsequent applicants (see Situation of Dublin Returnees). Consequently, they often only get shelter after their asylum application is taken into consideration by the CGRS. In the case where an asylum seeker has left Belgium before the first interview, their first asylum procedure will be closed with a “technical refusal”. When this asylum seeker is then sent back to Belgium following a Dublin procedure and lodges their asylum application again, the CGRS is legally obliged to take it into consideration.[123] Nonetheless, these asylum seekers often are still considered as subsequent applicants and therefore are without shelter until this decision of admissibility is officially taken.

In the context of the reception crisis, male Dublin Returnees are systematically excluded from the reception network, like all other male applicants for international protection. They have to register on a waiting list in order to obtain shelter. The average waiting time to obtain shelter this way is several months at the time of writing (see Constraints to the right to shelter). In the meantime, applicants do not have any other solution than to sleep rough, on the streets or in occupied buildings. In the Netherlands and Denmark, courts have suspended Dublin transfers to Belgium as access to reception could not be guaranteed.[124]

Right to reception: Applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State

The right to reception of applicants with a protection status in another EU member state has been restricted in the past. On the basis of a Fedasil instruction (see Constraints to the right to shelter), beneficiaries of protection in another EU Member State were no longer provided accommodation in Belgium from 7 January 2020 onwards. After several NGOs introduced an appeal to the Council of State aiming for the suspension and the annulment of these instructions, Fedasil withdrew them in September 2020, right before the hearing before the Council of State was scheduled, after which applicants with a protection status in another EU member state regained their full right to material assistance, including reception, during their asylum procedure.[125]

2021-2022: Impact of the reception crisis

In the context of the reception crisis that started in October 2021, the reception rights of applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State are again limited. Between 24 January 2022 and March 2022, Fedasil denied access to reception to applicants for who, at the moment of registering their asylum application, a EURODAC hit indicates that they have already applied for or received international protection in another country.[126] Since March 2022, single male applicants for international protection -regardless of protection status in another member state- are systematically excluded from the reception network (see Constraints to the right to shelter).

“Return track” and assignment to an open return centre

The law foresees a so-called “return track” for asylum seekers.[127] This is a framework for individual counselling on return set up by Fedasil, which promotes voluntary return to avoid forced returns.[128]

The return track starts with informal counselling, followed by a more formal phase. The informal phase provides information on possibilities of voluntary return and starts from the moment the asylum application is registered. Within 5 working days after a negative first-instance decision on the asylum application by the CGRS has been issued, the asylum seeker is formally offered return assistance. When an appeal is lodged in front of the CALL, the asylum seeker is informed again about their options for return. The return track ends with the transfer to an open return place in a federal reception centre, when:

(1) The period to introduce an appeal in front of the CALL has expired or a negative appeal decision is taken by the CALL: Asylum seekers may ask Fedasil for a derogation of this rule and thus to stay in their first reception centre in case of:

• Families with children who are going to school, who receive a negative decision of the CALL between the beginning of April and the end of June;
• Ex-minors who turn 18 between the beginning of April and the end of June and go to school;
• A medical problem which prevents the asylum seeker from moving to the open reception place or during the last 2 months of pregnancy until 2 months after giving birth;
• a family reunification procedure with a Belgian child was initiated;
• an asylum procedure of a family member that is still pending.

If these derogations are granted, the asylum seeker can stay in the first reception centre until the conditions for the derogation are no longer met. At the end of the derogation, the asylum seeker can ask for a new designation at an open reception centre, or simply leave the old centre.

In November 2019, Fedasil published instructions specifically addressed to persons who cannot be accommodated in open return centres due to medical reasons which would render the accommodation inadequate.^[129] A specific track has thus been established for them by the “voluntary return” service of Fedasil. This service foresees the possibility to set up 3 appointments during which possibilities for voluntary return are discussed and which can take place in the reception centre of the asylum seeker, if necessary. The decision to further prolong the right to the reception of the concerned person will depend on their medical situation and cooperation.

(2) The Immigration Office takes a negative decision based on the Dublin Regulation: In this situation, derogations from the obligation to go to the open return centre are only possible in case of:

• A medical problem which prevents the asylum seeker from moving to the open reception place or during the last 2 months of pregnancy until 2 months after giving birth; and
• The asylum seeker has applied to prolong the order to leave the territory at the Immigration Office.

When this derogation is granted, the asylum seeker can stay in the first reception centre. Their return should be organised there, instead of in the open return centre.

Unaccompanied minors subject to a negative decision are not transferred to an open return centre until adulthood, after which they can apply for a place in an open return centre.

Regularly, decisions of transfer to an open return place are challenged before the Labour courts by applicants having received an annex 26quater, especially when an appeal against this Dublin decision has been brought before the CALL. According to Belgian law, this latter appeal possibility does not have an automatic suspensive effect (see Appeal). Consequently, notwithstanding the introduction of this appeal, a return procedure is initiated at the open return place. Lawyers have argued that this return procedure violates the applicants’ right to an effective appeal and other fundamental rights. In 2020, Belgian judges referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling in several cases to clarify this question of an effective appeal in the context of a Dublin transfer decision.[130] In two orders on request for a preliminary ruling of 26 March 2021, the CJUE has decided that the transfer to an open return place, where the Dublin transfer is being prepared, does not violate the right to an effective appeal, as long as the information provided to the applicants in the context of the return tracks does not put undue pressure on the applicants to abandon their procedural rights.[131] Some labour courts have nevertheless decided that the return track in open return places violates other fundamental rights – such as the inviolability of the home, article 3 and 5 ECHR, the right to legal assistance as guaranteed in article 23(3) Directive 2013/32/EU and article 6 ECHR – and puts applicants under undue psychological pressure. Therefore, labour courts ruled that Fedasil should allow the applicants to remain in their former reception centre for the duration of the appeal procedure before the CALL.[132]

End of the right to reception

The right to material reception ends when:[133]

• A legal stay for more than three months is granted; or
• An order to leave the territory is delivered and the deadline on this order has expired, and there is no possibility left for introducing a suspensive appeal.

Appeals do not have suspensive effect when they are appeals against:

• a decision of the Immigration Office (like a Dublin decision or an order to leave the territory),
• a judgment before the Council of State against a judgment of the CALL refusing to grant the appeal, or deciding to grant subsidiary protection;

During these non-suspensive appeals there is no right to shelter, unless:

• the CALL suspends or annuls the decision of the Immigration Office or CGRS;
• the Council of State declares a cassation appeal against a decision of the CALL admissible.

Therefore, the right to reception in the open return centre ends when the order to leave the territory expires. In case of a negative Dublin decision this deadline is mentioned on the “Annex 26quater” (see Right to reception: Dublin procedure). In case of a negative decision by the CGRS and if the person does not have a residence permit on another basis, the Immigration Office delivers an order to leave the territory only when the suspensive appeal has been rejected by the CALL, or after the deadline for introducing the appeal has expired. If a third (or further) asylum application was declared inadmissible by the CGRS and it deems that there is no risk of direct or indirect refoulement, the order to leave the territory is delivered immediately after the decision of the CGRS.[134] The time limit of the order to leave the territory will vary between 0 and 30 days (see Procedures).[135]

Until the expiry of the deadline of the order to leave the territory, every asylum seeker (whether they collaborate with voluntary return or not) is entitled to full material reception conditions. The order to leave the territory can be prolonged only if the person collaborates with their return.[136] When the period for voluntary return as determined in the order to leave the country expires and there is no willingness to return voluntarily, the right to reception ends and the Immigration Office can start the procedure to forcibly return the person, including by using administrative detention. In practice, the police may come to the open return centre and arrest a person whose right to reception has ended and is unwilling to return voluntarily.[137]

In case the right to reception ends due to a negative outcome in the asylum procedure, there are some humanitarian reasons and other circumstances which may allow for prolongation of the right to reception conditions, namely:

• to end the school year (from the beginning of April until the end of June);
• during the last 2 months of pregnancy until 2 months after giving birth;
• when a family reunification procedure with a Belgian child has been started;
• when the person cannot return to their country of origin for reasons beyond their own will;
• for medical reasons, when an application for legal stay has been made on this ground at the Immigration Office; or
• whenever respect for human dignity requires it.[138]

Fedasil has adopted internal instructions about these possibilities and how to end the accommodation in the reception structures in practice.[139]

A proposal limiting the right to reception for applicants who have received a final negative decision is pending at the time of writing. In the current system, applicants who receive a final negative decision on their application have a right to reception until they receive an order to leave the territory. In practice, it often takes several weeks before this order to leave the territory is given to the applicant. The proposal aims to reduce the right to reception, by having it end 30 days after receiving a final negative decision.

In case of a positive outcome of the asylum procedure, and thus after a decision granting a protection status or another legal stay (for example, a medical regularisation procedure – which has been started up parallel with an asylum procedure – with a positive outcome and thus a legal stay of more than 3 months), there is a transition phase during which the person can look for another place to live and transit from material aid by Fedasil to financial help of the PCSW if necessary.[140] People staying in collective structures at the moment of obtaining a positive decision about the residence in Belgium (international protection or other form of legal stay) will be offered the choice between moving to an individual reception structure, or leaving the collective structure within a short time with the support of food cheques for two months. If there is no place in an individual reception structure, the transition phase will take place in the collective reception centre. For persons who already stay in an individual reception structure, the transition phase takes place in this same place. The duration of the transition phase is two months (or 6 months or persons who came to Belgium through the resettlement scheme). In case it is impossible to leave the reception place after two months, up to three requests for extension of the transition phase can be done.[141] In general, prolonging one month is common; in exceptional cases – e.g., finishing the school year from April onwards or having a signed lease that starts after a month – prolongation can be granted for more than a month. A first, and exceptionally second prolongation can be granted on the basis of the steps taken by the persons to secure their own housing. A third prolongation request can exceptionally be granted for reasons linked to human dignity. This is not specified in the Reception act but Fedasil has adopted internal instructions allowing such rules to be put in place.[142]

[1] Article 3 Reception Act.

[2] Article 35/2 Reception Act.

[3] Article 35/1 Reception Act.

[4] Article 50/1 Aliens Act.

[5] Article 6(1) Reception Act.

[6]   The Brussels Times, Temporary solution proposed for migrant crisis at reception centre, 24 August 2022, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3iw02SG. 

[7] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2024.

[8] Fedasil, ‘In a reception centre’, available at: http://bit.ly/3SkOkrm.

[9] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2024.

[10] Fedasil, ‘Modaliteiten betreffende het recht op materiële hulp van verzoekers om internationale bescherming met een bijlage 26quater of een bescherming in een andere lidstaat’, 3 January 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3lmlFWU.

[11] Myria, Contact meeting, 16 September 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SpsP94, § 720.

[12] Vrt News, Asylum seekers wait on the streets for weeks before being able to register: “Barely 1 in 3 gets the chance”, 8 May 2020, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3t38o3D.

[13] ECRE, Belgium: Electronic Registration System Blocking Access to Material Reception Declared Unlawful, 9 October 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/33VHO5t ; The Bulletin, Court condemns Belgium’s failure to receive asylum seekers, available at: https://bit.ly/33BVkeB.

[14] Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV 55 COM 1184, 4 October 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3FBiqBi, 8.

[15] Chamber of Representatives, Nicole de Moor, CRIV 55 COM 1010, 1 March 2023, 26, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3JmL4rn.

[16] Fedasil, ‘Register for reception’, https://tinyurl.com/mureyrc9; the waiting list can be accessed online at: http://bit.ly/3LzAIr0.

[17] Chamber of Representatives, Nicole de Moor, CRIV 55 COM 1267, 7 February 2024, 12, https://tinyurl.com/2mhwru8p.

[18] Brussels Times, ‘Belgium’s reception crisis: Over 100 families and children on the streets tonight’, 3 November 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/42npsEb.

[19] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 23 November 2022, 30-31, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3Lxwccu.

[20] Ibidem, 42.

[21] Brussels Times, ‘Asylum reception crisis: 21 unaccompanied minors left sleeping on streets’, https://bit.ly/3TJp3Kj.

[22] Vrt Nws, ‘Brussel burgemeester Close laat kartonnen tenten van minderjarige migranten verwijderen, hulporganisaties verbolgen’, 19 October 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4aMo0PC.

[23] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 25 January 2023, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3JKpIWk, 48.

[24] Brussels Times, ‘Belgian Reception Crisis: 24 underage asylum seekers officially missing’, 11 January 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/3YU6pOK.

[25] KRC, ‘Opvangcrisis: dat jongeren op straat moeten slapen mogen we niet gewoon worden’, 2 December 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49S39dn; KRC, ‘Bernard De Vos and Caroline Vrijens’, ‘Opvang van niet-begeleide minderjarigen gaat van kwaad naar erger’, 21 October 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/47Tt6rl.

[26] Fedasil, Families received in emergency accommodation, 18 September 2023, available in English at https://tinyurl.com/mwzwfuxy.

[27] Euronews, ‘Belgium’s asylum shelters will no longer take in single men in order to make room for families’, 2 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/4989oJN; Nicole de Moor, ’Tijdelijk geen opvang meer voor alleenstaande mannen’,29 August 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3PHqC7R; Fedasil, ‘Pas d’accueil pour les hommes isolés’, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3QyxJ40.

[28] Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV 55 COM 1184’, p. 8 available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3FBiqBi.

[29] Council of State, Ruling n° 257.300 of 13 September 2023, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/v5w53wcy; Euractiv, ’Belgian court halts decision denying housing to single male asylum seekers’, 14 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3QA4KNx.

[30] The Brussels Times, ’Decision to stop providing shelter for single men reversed by Council of State’, 13 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3scsldB and Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV 55 COM 1169’, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3QcaETx, 12

[31] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, ’De weg uit de opvangcrisis’, September 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3DDgHe9.

[32] Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV COM 877, 21 September 2022, available in French and Dutch at: https://bit.ly/45PpJQw, 28.

[33] Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV COM 1169, 20 September 2023, available in French and Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3QcaETx, 23-34.

[34] BX1, ‘Sad weekend at “Palais des droits” in Schaerbeek : one dead and one wounded”, 29 December 2022, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/yc3vdxwd; La Libre, ‘A drama avoided after a fire at Palais des Droits in Schaerbeek: the sanitary conditions or the residents continue to worsen’, 12 January 2023, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/45hj9838.

[35] VRT NWS, ‘Infectious diseases rife at Schaarbeek squat housing around 800 asylum seekers’, 9 December 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/3zwD6HF.

[36] The Brussels Times, ‘Residents of ‘Schaerbeek squat’ to be evacuated and given new place to shelter’, 10 February 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/484Yd3F.

[37] VRT NWS, ‘Schaarbeek asylum seeker squat to be sealed on Wednesday’, 13 February 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/40JqPvF.

[38] VRT NWS, ‘150 asylum seekers from Paleizenstraat squat spend the night on the street’, 16 February 2023, available at http://bit.ly/3nNSGMD; Rtbf, ‘Crise de l’accueil: 200 demandeurs d’asile à la rue après evacuation complete du squat de la rue des Palais, 16 February 2023, https://bit.ly/3Hff48a.

[39] Doctors without Borders, ‘Opvangcrisis: Artsen Zonder Grenzen hekelt chaos aan Klein Kasteeltje’, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3zv1UzY.  

[40] VRT NWS, ‘Video: Brussels asylum seeker tent camp cleared’, 7 March 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/3mbFTmM.

[41] BX1, ‘Molenbeek : les demandeurs d’asile non-relogés sont hébergés à l’Allée du Kaai, mais les conditions sont difficiles’, 8 March 2023, available in French at: https://bit.ly/48trR2w.

[42] La Libre, ‘Crise de l’accueil : une soixantaine de personnes, dont des demandeurs d’asile, évacués de l’Allée du Kaai’, 10 March 2023, https ://bit.ly/3vxzC9d.

[43] Translated from the Dutch “Stop de opvangcrisis” or the French “Stop à la crise d’accueil”: https://bit.ly/48wWswf.

[44] VRT NWS, ‘Video: Asylum seekers occupy future National Crisis Centre HQ’, 13 March 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/3MegVO8; The Brussels Time, ‘Asylum seekers occupying Crisis Centre demand national crisis plan’, 16 March 2023, available in English at https://tinyurl.com/3br95nzz.

[45] VRT NWS, ‘Accommodation solution for asylum seekers occupying the future office of the National Crisis centre’, 14 March 2023, available in Dutch at https://tinyurl.com/k6dphvs4.

[46] The Brussels Time, ‘Activists with masks of Belgian politicians open up disused building for asylum seekers’, 24 April 2023, available in English at https://tinyurl.com/yzfsxcu7.

[47] The Brussels Time, ‘Asylum seekers at Rue de la Loi evicted by police on Friday morning’, 20 October 2023, available in English at https://tinyurl.com/yc44kxxm.

[48] De Standaard, ‘Wij doen het werk van de overheid zonder de middelen van de overheid’, 28 January 2023, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3zz0Hru.

[49] Het Nieuwsblad, ‘Samusocial telt tot 2.000 mensen in Brusselse kraakpanden’, 28 February 2023, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3UhT9Tu. ‘

[50] Bruzz, ‘Tentenkamp in de maak aan Dienst Vreemdelingenzaken’, 8 November 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/46AJT1b.

[51] Bruzz, ‘Politie verhindert opbouw tentenkamp aan Humanitaire Hub’, 23 November 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/46teFZH and Bruzz, ‘Politie ontruimt mini-tentenkamp aan Dienst Vreemdelingenzaken’, 9 October 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4a8399t.

[52] Doctors without Borders, ‘1 maand medische interventie aan Pacheco-registratiecentrum: cijfers, tendenzen en aanbevelingen’, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3KAZfv1 and Doctors without Borders, ‘Crise de l’accueil: un mois après, quel bilan pour MSF à Pachéco ?’, 15 november 2022, https://bit.ly/48Ox0lz (shortened version).

[53] ‘Crise de l’accueil: etat des lieux’, May 2023, available in French at : https://bit.ly/46be1QI, p. 11.

[54] Croix Rouge, ‘Bruxelles: la clinique mobile de la Croix-Rouge devient un véritable centre médical’, 16 January 2023, https ://bit.ly/3tQ7NZg ; News Belgium, ‘Fedasil: subsidies aan gemeenten 2022 en verlenging van het ‘Refugee Medical Point’’, 29 september 2023, https ://bit.ly/3tFlsCt.

[55] ‘Crise de l’accueil: état des lieux’, May 2023, available in French at : https://bit.ly/46be1QI, 10.

[56] Ibidem, 7-9.

[57] Ibidem, 7.

[58] Crise de l’accueil: état des lieux, May 2023, available in French at : https://bit.ly/46be1QI, 11-12.

[59] Ibidem, 12.

[60] Ibidem.

[61] Information provided by Fedasil during the Contact Meeting for International Protection of October 2023.

[62] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen et al., ‘Politique de non-accueil: état des lieux’, 4 December 2023, available in French at : https://bit.ly/48rTIjt, 9.

[63] Information provided by Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, author of the AIDA report. For more information, contact info@vluchtelingenwerk.be.

[64] Fedasil, ‘Ouverture du Point Info à Bordet’, 29 September 2023, available in French at: https://bit.ly/41sfBgh.

[65] Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV 55 COM 1169’, 20 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3QcaETx, 13.

[66] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting for International Protection’, 24 January 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yp3zbd4w, 33.

[67] The Brussels Times, ‘Tribunal of first instance condemns Belgium for reception crisis’, 5 July 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/476vESx.

[68] Information provided by Fedasil in March 2024.

[69] Francophone Labourt Court of Brussels, 22/1343/K, 13 June 2022, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3MANYfF.

[70] Openbaar Ministerie, ‘Communiqué de Presse – Bruxelles’, 24 June 2022, available in French at: http://bit.ly/3KgamYG.

[71] Francophone Labour Court of Brussels, 2022/CB/15, 28 March 2023.

[72] Court of Cassation, Decision n° S.23.0046.F of 12 February 2024, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/5dceufs9.

[73] HLN, ’Europees Mensenrechtenhof verzoekt België opnieuw onderdak te geven aan asielzoekers’, 16 December 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40ajGoJ.

[74] De Standaard, ’Mensenrechtenhof beveelt België asielzoeker onderdak te geven’, 3 november 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Sfduto.

[75] Information provided by Fedasil on 12 March 2024.

[76] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 20 September 2023, available in French and Dutch: https://bit.ly/3Mdfw9E, 48; Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV COM 1154’, 12 July 2023, 9 available in French and Dutch: https://bit.ly/4908b7j  and Myria, ’Contact Meeting International Protection’, 21 July 2023, available in French and Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3MjZRp1, 28.

[77] ECHR, ‘Camara v. Belgium’, 18 July 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3Sc3GQZ, §118.

[78] Nicole de Moor, Federal Chamber of Representatives, CRIV 55 COM 1288, 12 March 2024, available in French and Dutch at: https://tinyurl.com/5n7t9nvr, 12 and The Brussels Times, ’State ignoring court judgements in asylum seeker cases’, 8 October 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/46Oh0iQ.

[79] VRT NWS, ‘Dwangsommen niet betaald? Rechter laat nu ook spullen van Fedasil in beslag nemen’, 20 januari 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3PWCEv3; VRT NWS, ’Dwangsommen blijven staatssecretaris De Moor (CD&V) in de nek hijgen’, 1 February 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4145Kvp; VRT NWS, ‘Deurwaarder neemt diepvriezer en koffiemachine kabinet-De Moor in beslag’, 11 January 2024, available at: https://bit.ly/4aySHqT.

[80] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, CIRÉ, Médecins sans Frontières, Médecins du Monde, NANSEN vzw, ADDE, Ligue des Droits Humains, SAAMO and the Order of French and German speaking bar associations (OBFG).

[81] Brussels Court of First Instance, Judgment nr. 2021/164/C of 19 January 2021, available in French at https://bit.ly/363Nqvk; The Brussels Time, ‘Court condemns Belgium for asylum crisis, the situation remains precarious’, 21 January 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3H2kTUo.

[82] VRT Nws, ‘Asielzoekers kunnen voor nachtopvang terecht in voormalig ziekenhuis’, 4 January 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3CuJpfF.

[83] Website Secretary of State Sammy Mahdi, ‘Sammy Mahdi sharpens approach of asylum seekers who already applied in another country’, 24 January 2022, available in French at https://bit.ly/35Jk3Pb; Bruzz, ‘Sammy Mahdi sharpens approach of asylum seekers who already applied in another country’, 24 January 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3HT2vxb; RTBF, ‘Belgium sharpens approach of asylum seekers who already applied in another country, 24 January 2022, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3i015WQ.

[84] Chamber of Representatives, Sammy Mahdi, ‘CRIV 55 COM 672’, 26 January 2022, 17 available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3TnqQlU.

[85] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting, 23 March 2022, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3lthNTX.

[86] Brussels Court of First Instance, ’2022/4618/A’, 29 June 2023, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3QxbV98,

[87] The Brussels Times, ‘Despite 6,000 convictions, Belgium still refuses to tackle reception crisis’, 23 January 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3YQ7hEM.

[88] Fedasil, ‘4.000 reception places created in 2022’, 20 January 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/3JVzZz7; Fedasil, ‘A reception network still under pressure’, 24 November 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/3LAgNbr; Fedasil, ‘Review 2021: Reception – Resettlement – Voluntary Return’, July 2022, p. 8, available at: https://bit.ly/40j55G4; Fedasil, ‘A reception network under pressure’, 25 July 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/42vuwGA; Fedasil, ‘Entrance arrival centre’, 8 December 2021n, available at: http://bit.ly/3FHFYVQ; Fedasil, ‘Additional Reception Places Needed’, 16 November 2021, available at: http://bit.ly/3FAKdlZ.

[89] Fedasil, ‘A reception network under pressure’, 13 February 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2ubavru7.

[90] Fedasil, ‘Inbeslagname goederen bij Fedasil’, 20 January 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3yWVbyy.

[91] Court of Appeal Brussels, Judgment n° 2024/QR/3 of 23 January 2024, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/26xap9mk.

[92] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, ‘Government omission forces NGO’s to seize bank accounts of Fedasil’, 2 February 2024, available in Dutch at https://tinyurl.com/5fr4jd6t; Ciré, ‘Court authorizes NGO’s to seize Fedasil’s bank accounts’, 2 February 2024, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/mr45apnk; Le Soir, ‘Three million seized on bank account of Fedasil on behalf of several NGO’s’, 2 February 2024, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/59y72rnx.

[93] Dunja Mijatovic, ‘Letter to Belgium concerning reception of applicants for international protection’, CommHR/DM/sf 040-2022’, 13 December 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3Kz8RGi.

[94] Associated Press, ’Belgium’s asylum shelters will no longer take in single men in order to make room for families‘, 30 August 2023, https://bit.ly/47dSGHf.  

[95] United Nations, ‘AL BEL 1/2023’, 30 March 2023, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3ROGMP7.

[96] Myria et al., ‘Human Rights Institutions invite Europe and the United Nations to investigate human rights violations’, 2 October 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49wPnfZ; The Brussels Time, Human rights institutions sound the alarm on asylum seekers‘ rights in Belgium, 26 October 2023, https://bit.ly/3sguuF99.

The letter was sent by the following human rights institutions: Myria Federal Center on Migration, Federal Institute for Human Rights, Federal Ombudsman, Unia, Institute for the Equality of Women and Men, General Delegate for Children’s Rights, Kinderrechtencommissariaat and Interfederal Service for Combating Poverty.

[97] Amnesty International, ‘Belgium: Urgent Action Needed to End Human Rights Violations against Asylum Seekers’, 31 October 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/483CqJD.

[98] Amnesty International, ‘Urgent Action: Asylum seekers denied shelter’, 14 December 2023, https://bit.ly/4aqTjQ0.

[99] EUAA, ‘Belgium: EASO launches operation to support reception authorities’, 16 December 2021, available at: http://bit.ly/3ZSYoud.

[100] EUAA, Operational Plan 2022 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Belgium, amendment 1, May 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3YAc0cL, annex 1.

[101] EUAA, Operational Plan 2022-2023 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Belgium, amendment 1, November 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3Jp4FZo.

[102] Federal Chamber of representatives, Commission of Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Administrative matters, CRIV 55 COM 1044, 29 March 2023, https://tinyurl.com/3ab2zvzc, 23.

[103] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 24 January 2024, available in French and Dutch at: https://tinyurl.com/yp3zbd4w, 34.

[104] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 20 March 2024.

[105] EUAA personnel numbers do not include deployed interpreters by the EUAA in support of asylum and reception activities.

[106] Information provided by the EUAA, 26 February 2024.

[107] Information provided by the EUAA, 26 February 2024.

[108] Information provided by the EUAA, 26 February 2024.

[109] Article 4(1)(3) Reception Act.

[110] Fedasil, Update of instruction – Right to material aid – Subsequent application for international protection, 27 November 2023, available in French via https://tinyurl.com/3nvne8x2.

[111] Constitutional Court, Decision No 95/2014, 30 June 2014.

[112] Labour Court of Brussels, Decision No 21/538/K, 31 August 2021, available in French at: https://bit.ly/37kYDIH; Labour Court of Brussels, Decision No 17/1762/A, 8 February 2018; Labour Court of Brussels, Decision of 17 February 2015, available in French at: http://bit.ly/1Q3cOBn; Labour Court of Brussels, Decision No 16/1384/A, 14 November 2016; Labour Court of Bruges, Decision No 16/8K, 11 October 2016.

[113] Federal Mediator, Annual Report 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3u2VaFi

[114] Fedasil, Instructions on the termination and the prolongation of the material reception conditions, 15 October 2013, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1Km961S. These internal instructions replaced the Instructions of 13 July 2012 before they were eventually quashed by the Council of State, Judgment No 225.673, 3 December 2013.

[115] CJEU, Case C-179/11, CIMADE, GISTI v. Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration, 27 September 2012.

[116] Labour Court, Brussels, Judgment of 4 December 2013; Labour Court of Antwerp, Judgment of 6 March 2014, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1FGadUL. In the judgment V.M. v Belgium issued in July 2015, the ECtHR found that Belgium had violated Article 3 ECHR because (back in 2011) it had not provided for adequate material reception conditions for a particularly vulnerable family (asylum seekers, children, disabled, Roma) during the (non-automatically suspensive) appeal procedure against a negative Dublin decision.

[117] Fedasil, Instruction on the change of place of mandatory registration of asylum seekers having received a refusal decision following a Dublin take charge, 20 October 2015, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1MuInwV.  This instruction replaces point 2.2.4. of the Instructions of 15 October 2013.

[118] MO Magazine, ‘Ongoing reception crisis in asylum policy, while humans are concerned’, 17 February 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3IZhaYQ.

[119] The Brussels Times, Defence Ministry opens 750 places in military barracks for asylum seekers, 9 July 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/3klYAmK.

[120] Myria, Contact Meeting, 21 September 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3Za40zZ, 13.

[121] Myria, Contact Meeting, 25 January 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3JKpIWk, 10-11.

[122] Myria, Contact Meeting International Protection, 18 October 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2nz4rfcd.

[123] Article 57/6/2 Aliens Act.

[124] Rechtbank Den Haag, ‘ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:15458’, 12 October 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4643J4H; Knack, ‘Nederlandse rechters vrezen onmenselijke behandeling voor asielzoekers in België’, 13 October 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Swl5UP; De Tijd, ‘Nederlandse rechter legt vinger op de wonde in Belgische asielcrisis’, 21 February 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40rOdya; EUAA, ‘Quartely Overview of Asylum Case Law: Issue no 2’, June 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/4afU2TB, 14.

[125] Myria, Contact meeting, 16 September 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SpsP94, § 720.

[126] MO Magazine, ‘Ongoing reception crisis in asylum policy, while humans are concerned’, 17 February 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3IZhaYQ.

[127] Article 6/1 Reception Act.

[128] Fedasil, Instruction concerning the return track and the assignment to an open return place, 20 October 2015, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1Nof30n, and Instruction concerning the modification of the reception place of asylum seekers who have received a negative decision on the basis of the Dublin Regulation, 20 October 2015.

[129] Fedasil, Instructions on Return assistance – medical exceptions for open return places, November 2019, available in French at: http://bit.ly/3baE7qJ.

[130] Labour Court Liège, 10 February 2020, N° 2020/CL/3; Labour Tribunal Brabant-Wallon (div. Wavre), 24 July 2020 and CJUE, 22 January 2021, N° C-335/20, available at http://bit.ly/2PRitCD.

[131] CJUE, order of 26 March 2021, N° C-134/21, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3KtZB3u; CJUE, order of 26 March 2021, N° C-92/21, available in English at: https://bit.ly/35MDR43.

[132] An overview of the development of this jurisprudence is available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3I1abx8. See also: Labour Court Liège, 19 April 2021, N° 21/12/K, available in Dutch: https://bit.ly/3CxhlZd.

[133] Article 6 Reception Act.

[134] Article 52/3 Aliens Act; Article 6 Reception Act.

[135] Article 74/14 Aliens Act.

[136] Article 6/1 Reception Act and Article 52/3 Aliens Act.

[137] Myria, Contact Meeting, September 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/32Bz939

[138] Article 7 Reception Act.

[139] Fedasil, Instructions on the termination and the prolongation of the material reception conditions, 15 October 2013.

[140] Fedasil, Instructions on the transition from material reception to social aid: measures for residents of collective centres and the accompaniment in the transition phase, 3 April 2020, available in Dutch: https://bit.ly/3vusomC.

[141] Ibid.

[142] Ibid.