Overview of the main changes since the previous report update

Author

Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen Visit Website

The report was previously updated in April 2023.

Asylum procedure

• Key asylum statistics: In 2023, a total of 35,507 persons applied for international protection in Belgium with an average of 2,959 applications per month – a decrease of 3.2% compared to 2022. 34,525 applications were registered on the Belgian territory (at the registration centre Pacheco in Brussels), 332 at the border and 650 in detention facilities. Out of the total number, 5,918 were subsequent applications. 2,596 applications were done by unaccompanied minors.Throughout 2023, the Commissary-General for Refugees and Stateless persons (CGRS) granted refugee status to 12,355 persons and subsidiary protection status to 424 persons, bringing the recognition rate to 43.5%. Refugee status was mostly granted to Syrians (2,689), Afghans (2,595), Eritreans (1,770) and Palestinians (929). Subsidiary protection status was mostly granted to Somalians (276), Syrians (57) and Palestinians (14). A total of 15,510 persons were refused international protection. This includes the number of persons who received an in-merit decision refusing refugee status and refusing subsidiary protection status (9,429) and those whose applications were declared inadmissible after subsequent applications and towards beneficiaries of international protection in another member state (4,625) or were declared manifestly unfounded (772). The CGRS decided on the cessation or withdrawal of the protection status in 69 cases. In the context of the Dublin procedure, a total of 14,055 take charge and take back-requests were sent to other states, 9,320 of which were accepted. A total of 1,239 persons were effectively transferred from Belgium to other Member States in 2023. There were 3,537 incoming take charge and take back requests, of which the Belgian authorities accepted 2,301. 556 persons were transferred to Belgium in the Dublin procedure (for more statistics about the Dublin procedure, see: Dublin).
• Limited capacity for registration of asylum applications: In the context of the reception crisis that started in mid-October 2021 and continues up to the present, access to the asylum procedure has been severely impacted throughout 2022. Single men were regularly not allowed to register their application and were in this case not always given an appointment to make their application on a later specific date making it impossible to ensure the registration of their request within three days after their presentation at the Immigration Office. After the location for registration of applications for international protection moved from ‘Petit Château’ to the headquarters of the Immigration Office (‘Pacheco’) on 29 August 2022, access to the registration process remained difficult on certain days due to the limited registration capacity at Pacheco. For a certain period in the second half of 2022, the delay for registering the applications was officially prolonged from 3 to 10 working days, in application of article 50 §2 Aliens Act. The registration capacity depends each day on the available personnel, the number of applicants and their profiles and can thus not be predicted. Priority is always given to minors, families and vulnerable people. Single men who cannot be registered on the day they present themselves, are now given a paper with an invitation to present themselves at another specific moment within 3 working days. In 2023, there were at least 8 days on which not all applicants were able to register on the day of presentation at the registration centre. (see Registration of the asylum application).
• Increasing backlog of cases with asylum instances: Overall, the caseload for asylum authorities has increased over the last year. The number of pending applications in front of the Immigration Office decreased, with 12,531 pending applications in February 2023 compared to 6,991 in February 2024.[1] The CGRS, however, reported 18,390 pending applications in February 2023 and 27,702 pending applications in February 2024 – representing a 50% increase.[2] Overall, the combined number of pending applications increased from 30,921 in February 2023 to 34,693 in February 2024. To reduce this backlog, the government decided to hire additional caseworkers for both services. At the level of the CGRS this resulted in 23.6% more decisions in 2023 compared to 2022.[3] Despite these efforts, the caseload keeps increasing at the time of writing (see Regular procedure – General). On the level of the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL), the number of appeals increased significantly in 2023, leading to a backlog of pending cases for the first time in years. In 2023, the average processing time of appeals concerning decisions on applications for international protection (where the CALL has “full judicial review” competence) was 153,7 calendar days or around 5 months for those appeals introduced in 2023 and for which a decision was taken in 2023. When adding appeals introduced before 1 January 2023 for which a decision was taken in 2023, the average processing time was 230,9 days; this number is significantly higher because it includes the treatment of the backlog of the cases pending before the CALL[4] (see Regular procedure – Appeal).
• “Migration deal” of Federal government to tackle the reception crisis: In March 2023, the Federal Government agreed on a ‘migration deal’ to tackle the reception crisis. This deal consisted out of four legislative proposals and three measures focussed on the reception crisis.[5] In May 2024 all four legislative proposals were adopted by the Federal Parliament:
  • A proposal introducing a specific procedure for stateless persons.[6] Comments on the law were put forward by two civil society organisations, Nansen and the European Network on Statelessness.[7]
  • A proposal limiting the right to reception for applicants who have received a final negative decision.[8] Currently, 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; other ongoing procedures might also cause a delay in the issuing of an order to leave the territory. The proposal aims to reduce the right to reception, by letting it end 30 days after receiving a final negative decision (see End of the right to reception).
  • A proposal changing several family reunification procedures.[9] It provides a new right to stay on the Belgian territory for parents of a minor child who receives international protection, a more precise definition of the rules for family reunification between a Belgian citizen and EU-citizens, the introduction of the concept of ‘genuine care’ as a prerequisite for family reunification as a parent of a Belgian child, the expansion of cessation grounds for some categories of family reunification and lastly a more precise and transparent right to family reunification for beneficiaries of temporary protection.
  • A law for a “proactive return policy”, aiming to enshrine in the Aliens Act, inter alia: 1) the duty to cooperate in the organisation of transfer, expulsion, return or removal (this comprises forced medical examination in case of refusal); 2) the case management by civil servants of the Aliens office in the context of a return or transfer procedure (ICAM procedure); 3) a listing of the preventive measures and the less coercive measures that can be taken by the authorities and 4) banning the detention of families with minor children in closed centres, except in return houses.[10]
• To reach consensus on these legislative proposals, the secretary of state for asylum and migration announced several measures to try and solve the reception crisis:
  • The creation of 750 additional reception places by opening two sites using EUAA containers.[11] 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.[12] 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.[13]
  • The creation of 2,000 additional individual reception places by changing the legal framework for local governments who are responsible for these places. In January 2024, Fedasil communicated that 153 new individual reception places were opened since the Migration Deal.[14]
  • Increasing the number of exits out of the reception network, by fast-tracking the files of ‘long term residents’ of the reception network. In January 2024, Fedasil communicated that of the 4,000 identified ‘long term residents’, 2,025 left the reception network.[15] 20% of those who left received a residence permit, while the rest received a negative decision to their asylum application.[16]
• Proposal of a new Migration Code: Since its establishment, the current government expressed the ambition to draft a new Migration Code. The previous Secretary of State for asylum and migration, Sammy Mahdi, started this project by identifying several guiding concepts when drafting this new code. Overall, the Code would be a codification of the current legal framework, domestic and European case law. This ambition was highly anticipated since the current legal framework dates back to 1980 and has been updated several times since. The goal was to create a more readable, comprehensible, and transparent Migration Code. The Secretary of State requested input to a wide range of stakeholders within the migration sector, after which a commission of legal experts would co-draft the new legislation together with the government and relevant administrations. In January 2024, Secretary of State for asylum and migration Nicole de Moor, announced the new Migration Code to the press.[17] However, the Code was not yet agreed upon by the government. At the time of writing, it remains unclear if the government will be able to draft and agree on the final texts before the closure of Parliament in April 2024, before national elections.
• Legal framework for remote interviews: Since 19 September 2022, two Royal Decrees allow the Immigration Office and the CGRS to organise ‘remote’ interviews. The migration officers (Immigration Office) and protection officers (CGRS) can be physically present in another room than the applicant and can conduct the interview through communication tools that would enable a conversation on distance in ‘real time’, such as audio-visual connections or videoconference technology. Audio(visual) recordings of the interviews are not allowed. Physical interviews remain the standard procedure. The Immigration Office and the CGRS investigate on a case-by-case basis whether a remote interview should be preferred. Applicants can object to this measure on the level of the Immigration Office or the CGRS, but no appeal is possible against a decision to conduct the interview remotely. Guardians (and lawyers and trustees as for CGRS interviews) can attend the remote interview. However, both Royal Decrees allow the agent conducting the interview to decide that they can no longer be present in case they do not respect the measures that aim to ensure the confidentiality of the interview. The interview can continue in their absence. In two judgments of 3 October 2022, the Council of State has suspended the execution of these exceptions as far as the guardians of unaccompanied minors are concerned. Article 9 of the ‘Guardianship Law’ requires the presence of guardians during interviews of their pupils. The Council of State did not suspend the exception concerning lawyers and trustees. Following the entry into force of these Royal Decrees, the CGRS resumed interviews by videoconference in the closed centres. The project for conducting remote interviews from open reception centres has been put ‘on hold’. Lawyers or trustees need to be present in the same room as the applicant because the current software does not allow a third party to participate in the videoconference while also ensuring its confidentiality. The new Migration Code includes new legal provisions that would allow the Immigration Office and the CGRS to conduct remote interviews (see Personal interview).
• Pilot project Tabula Rasa – Written questionnaire in preparation of oral interview: Between September 2023 and January 2024, the CGRS tested a pilot project named ‘Tabula Rasa’, aiming at experimenting several new working methods to maximise the number of decisions and alleviate the backlog of cases. One of the measures includes sending preliminary questionnaires to applicants to obtain more information before the personal interview. Recipients of the questionnaire must outline the significant facts and events that motivated their application for international protection. Completing this questionnaire does not substitute for the personal interview; rather, its purpose is to streamline it. The portion of the interview typically reserved for the applicant’s spontaneous narrative is now replaced with specific questions derived from the written responses to the questionnaires. There are no sanctions for not responding, nor are there any substantive or formal requirements as to what must be included in the written declaration. The test phase of this project only included files on French-language roles and applicants from specific countries of origin (DRC, Guinea, Mauritania, Senegal, Türkiye, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, Albania, Iran, Latin American countries, a few Asian countries) staying in a reception centre. The project will be evaluated in February and March 2024. Several NGOs and lawyer associations have voiced their concerns about the current functioning of this new measure. The new system entails a significant increase in the amount of work and responsibilities required from the applicant’s lawyers, to help their client fill out the questionnaire. In case a lawyer is not capable or willing to take up this extra work, NGOs first line legal services have taken up this task. Concerns have been raised regarding their ability and resources for handling such responsibility (see Personal interview).
• Fast-track procedure for certain nationalities: As of 1 February 2024, a ‘fast track procedure’ is applied for applicants from safe countries of origin and countries with a low recognition rate. These cases are treated with priority by the Immigration Office and the CGRS. The aim is to take a decision within 50 working days. After a first pilot phase, the project will be evaluated by the Secretary of State and adapted if needed. The nationalities on which the fast-track procedure will be applied can vary. In the first phase, the procedure will be applied to applicants from safe countries of origin (currently: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Northern-Macedonia, Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro, and India) and the following countries with low recognition rates: Georgia, Moldavia and DRC)[18] (see Prioritised examination and fast-track processing).
• Procedure for submitting documents in support of an application: Applicants are expected to provide any documents, especially those concerning the identity, the grounds for the application for protection and the travel route, as quickly as possible. In March 2023, the CGRS changed the procedure for submitting documents in support of an application for international protection, only allowing the submission of documents by registered mail or by delivery to the CGRS against receipt. This procedure was revised from of 15 May 2023. Documents can since then be submitted to the CGRS (1) by sending them to the CGRS via registered or ordinary mail; (2) by handing them at the reception desk of the CGRS against receipt; (3) by sending them to the CGRS by e-mail. When sent by e-mail, documents can be included in JPEG, PNG, PDF, Word or other Microsoft Office file formats. It is impossible to submit documents through Internet links (YouTube, WeTransfer or anything that can lead to an insecure website). CD-ROMs or USB sticks containing video or audio clips can be submitted by regular or registered mail or handed in at the reception desk. The CGRS has drafted an explanatory document about the submission of documents, including an inventory that it recommends using for this purpose (see Personal interview).
• CALL – Similar rates of recognition of international protection between Dutch and French language roles: The discrepancy between the jurisprudence of the Francophone and Dutch chambers in appeals concerning decisions on applications for international protection (where the CALL has “full judicial review” competence) has been subject to criticism for several years. In 2023, for the first time since the establishment of the CALL, the recognition rates were similar in the Dutch and French chambers of the CALL. In 2022, Francophone chambers recognised international protection in 9.54% of the appeals (7.93% refugee status, 1.61% subsidiary protection), compared to a recognition rate of only 1.5% (1.03% refugee status, 0.47% subsidiary protection) in Dutch chambers.[19] In 2023, the discrepancy between recognition rates is much smaller for the first time in years: Francophone chambers recognised international protection in 11.73% of the appeals (9.67% refugee status, 2.06% subsidiary protection), compared to a recognition rate of 7.36% in Dutch chambers (7.24% refugee status, 0.12% subsidiary protection). However, the discrepancy between rejection rates remains high: 67.86% of the appeals were rejected by French chambers, compared to 85.19% in Dutch chambers. This is explained by a discrepancy in the number of annulment decisions: French chambers annulled 20.42% of the appeals compared to only 7.45% in Dutch chambers (see Regular procedure – Appeals).[20]
• Dublin case law:
  • Individualised guarantees for Croatia:[21] In November 2022, the Croatian Ministry of Internal Affairs sent out a communication regarding its willingness to correctly apply the provisions of the Dublin III Regulation. However, the CALL ruled that this communication from the Croatian Ministry of Internal Affairs does not provide the same guarantee as individualised guarantees, which means that this communication is not sufficient to exclude any risk of a violation of Article 3 ECHR. After these judgements, the Immigration Office started to systematically request individual guarantees for Dublin returnees to Croatia.[22] The CALL has confirmed this policy in several judgements (see Dublin – Procedure).[23]
  • Dublin transfers to Bulgaria: In April 2023, transfers to Bulgaria were resumed by the Belgian authorities. This was confirmed by the Immigration Office in June 2023.[24] This change is based on the latest AIDA report, the EUAA factsheet ‘Information on procedural elements and rights of applicants subject to a Dublin transfer to Bulgaria’ and a working visit to Bulgaria by the Immigration Office. These sources show “that Bulgaria acts in accordance with the provisions provided for in the Dublin Regulation and that transfers can take place in accordance with national and international regulations” according to the Immigration Office.[25] This policy has been confirmed by the CALL in several cases (see Dublin – Suspension of transfers).[26]

• Shortage of guardians: Although the shortage of guardians for unaccompanied minors decreased significantly (with a peak of 1,830 minors waiting for the appointment of a guardian) the shortage continued throughout 2023, with still 522 minors waiting for the appointment of a guardian by the end of February 2024. The average waiting time differed for each region, with an estimated average of 6 months in 2023 and 3 to 4 months in February 2024 (depending on the region and the profile of the minor). This is problematic since the appointment of a guardian is required before the minor can undertake certain essential things, such as getting access to legal representation and financial aid (“Groeipakket”) and subscribing to a school. Recruitment of new guardians by the Guardianship Service are ongoing (see Legal representation of unaccompanied minors).

Reception conditions 

• Reception crisis: The reception crisis that started in mid-October 2021 (see AIDA report Belgium 2021) endured for the whole of 2022-2023 and persists at the time of writing (April 2024). Because of the shortage of places, available places are given to ‘the most vulnerable’ applicants for international protection. In practice, these are families with children, single women, and unaccompanied minors.[27] At the end of 2022, there were days on which not all families with children and unaccompanied minors received access to the reception network. In 2023, 8,816 persons could not be accommodated by Fedasil on the day of their application.[28] This were almost exclusively single men. Adult single male applicants for international protection are systematically denied access to the reception network and can register on a waiting list.[29] In some cases Fedasil provides accommodation to single men on the day of their application. This is mostly the case for applicants with visible vulnerabilities and applicants whose claim can be fast-tracked in the Dublin centre in Zaventem. Between October 2023 and December 2023, only 524 single men received accommodation on the day of their application.[30] Single men who do not receive accommodation on the day of their application, are invited from the waiting list based on the day when they lodged their application. This system based on the chronological order of registration on the waiting list replaces the previous way of working that prioritised single men who obtained a positive court injunction. Since the summer of 2023, Fedasil no longer respects court injunctions hereby rendering the right to an effective legal remedy ineffective.[31] On 30 August 2023, the Secretary of State communicated that Fedasil would no longer provide reception to single men.[32] This instruction was in violation of the reception law according to the Council of State.[33] However, before the pronunciation of this judgement the Secretary of State declared that she was fully aware of the illegality of this instruction, stating that the judgement would not be respected if it turned out to be negative. She confirmed this position after the judgement.[34] A group of constitutional law professors denounced this stance in an open letter.[35] They stated that: “for the executive to ignore the decision of a court constitutes a clear and serious violation of the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty. This has significant implications for confidence in political institutions”. In practice, the current policy means that the invitations from the waiting list are limited to an absolute minimum. Fedasil only invites those applicants with a vulnerable profile and those who have been on the waiting list the longest.[36] At the time of writing, Fedasil was inviting applicants who lodged their application in August of 2023. 3,200 applicants were registered on the waiting list on 23 February 2024.[37] During their time on the waiting list, applicants are forced to sleep rough (on the street, in tents or squats) or seek shelter with friends or family. Medical civil society organisations such as Doctors of the World and Doctors Without Borders have denounced the dire medical situation of destitute applicants on numerous occasions. They have warned of the risk of hypothermia in winter and the spread of highly infectious diseases such as scabies and diphtheria. Legal practitioners, judges and courts have denounced the impact of the reception crisis on the legal apparatus. The crisis significantly increased the courts’ workload, negatively impacting other legal proceedings. Amnesty International launched an urgent action on the reception crisis and urged the government to solve the issue in an international statement.[38] Over the course of the whole reception crisis, legal proceedings have led to 8,812 convictions of the federal reception agency (Fedasil) on the national level and 2,086 interim measures against the Belgian state granted by the European Court of Human Rights (Rule 39). At the time of writing, 175 interim measures were still active.[39] Even after receiving a positive court injunction, applicants must wait for several months before receiving an invitation to access the reception network (see Right to shelter and assignment to a centre).
• Relevant case law on the reception crisis
  • Tribunal of first instance Brussels, 19 January 2022 (summary proceedings):[40] Condemnation of 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 would not receive access to the asylum procedure (penalty for the Belgian State) or to the reception system (penalty for Fedasil), with a maximum amount of €100.000 that can be claimed per party.
  • Tribunal of first instance Brussels, 25 March 2022:[41] Heightening of the penalties imposed on Fedasil by the judgement of 19 January 2022 to €10.000 for each day during the following 3 months on which Fedasil does not give someone access to the reception system.
  • Court of Appeal Brussels, 31 October 2022:[42] Fedasil appealed the judgement of 25 March 2022, arguing that the increase of the penalty payments was incorrect, stressing that the reception authorities do everything possible to respect the previous judgements, but cannot do so due to reasons of force majeure. The Court of Appeal discarded Fedasil’s arguments and upheld the judgement of 25 March 2022. 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 can be claimed for every working day that Fedasil does not respect the judgment of 24 January 2022, until the Court of First instance has delivered a judgement on the merits of the case.
  • Tribunal of first instance Brussels (distraint chamber), 30 January 2023: Based on the judgements of 19 January 2022 and 25 March 2022, Fedasil was ordered to pay €490.000 of fines by the claiming parties for the period between 24 January and 10 June 2022. Fedasil did not pay these fines, so the claiming parties brought the case before the seizure court. The seizure court drafted a list of goods owned by Fedasil that can be claimed. Fedasil contested the list, arguing that it was not established that the right to reception was violated between the 24th of January and the 10th of June. The Court found that “Fedasil is clearly failing to provide unconditional and timely material assistance to any person applying for international protection”. It further states that Fedasil did not execute the convictions of the orders of 19 January and 25 March 2022. The existence of the waiting list for persons without reception provides ample evidence. As long as at least one person is on this waiting list, Fedasil does not respect the right to reception, according to the Court. As a result, the Seizure court confirmed the list of goods that can be claimed.
  • Court of First Instance Brussels (judgment on the merits), 29 June 2023, Belgian state violates right to asylum and Fedasil violates right to reception:[43] 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. The Belgian state violates the right to asylum by restricting access to asylum procedure. The court holds that the right to make an application 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 fault on the part of the Belgian state towards the above obligations. With regards to Fedasil, the Court finds that the Federal Agency violates 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 argue that there is force majeure that makes guaranteeing the right to shelter impossible. The state cites several elements in support. The court examines these elements and concludes that there is no force majeure. Therefore, saturation of the shelter network does not relieve the state of its obligations. If necessary, applicants should be referred to bodies of general public assistance (OCMW). 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.

• • Council of State, 13 September 2023, Belgian state violates article 3 of Reception Law:[44] On 30 August 2023, Fedasil communicated it would no longer provide reception places to single men.[45] This was challenged by a group of NGOs, contending that the decision infringed upon the fundamental right to reception. The Council of State found the arguments presented by the organisations to be substantial. The decision to exclude single male asylum seekers from reception facilities was considered a violation of the Belgian reception law and the corresponding EU directive. The court ruled that the decision was contrary to the fundamental right to reception and the dignity of asylum seekers, especially considering their vulnerable status. As a result, the court ordered the immediate suspension of the decision. Already before and right after the judgement, the Secretary of State announced that she would not reverse the decision to exclude single men from reception, since she is unable to respect this judgement for as long as there are only available places for vulnerable applicants.[46]
  • Court of Appeal Brussels 23 January 2024: The Court of Appeal of Brussels authorised the NGOs to proceed to the seizure of certain specific bank accounts of Fedasil, under certain conditions specified by the Court.[47] The NGOs 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.[48] 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.
  • ECtHR, Interim measures:[49]
    • Interim measure of 31 October 2022, Camara v. Belgium, application no. 49255/22;[50]
    • Interim measure of 15 November 2022, Msallem and 147 Others v. Belgium, applications nos. 48987/22 and 147 others;[51]
    • Interim measure of 21 November 2022, Reazei Shayan and 189 Others v. Belgium, applications nos. 49464/22 and 189 others;
    • Interim measure of 1 December 2022, Almassri and 121 Others v. Belgium, applications nos. 49424/22 and 121 others.
  • ECtHR, Camara v. Belgium:[52] 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”.
  • Labour court Antwerpen (Mechelen), 23/629/A and 23/630/A, 7 February 2024:[53] Some Labour courts have recently ruled not to have competence on the suspension of code 207, but that in a situation where Fedasil does not assume its responsibility of providing material aid (which is systematically the case in the context of the reception crisis), the PCSW cannot refuse to grant financial aid.
  • Court of Cassation 12 February 2024: 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”.[54] 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. [55]

Detention of asylum seekers

• Statistics 2022: In 2022, a total of 4,285 migrants were detained in closed centres. 3,300 persons were forcibly returned. It concerned 1,174 repatriations, 795 Dublin transfers, 1,329 refoulements at the border and 2 voluntary returns facilitated by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). A total of 111 families, which amounts to 347 persons (195 children, 105 women and 47 men) resided in the housing units, with an average duration of stay of 41 days (see Detention – General).
• Continued practice of systematic detention of asylum seekers at the border: In its fourth periodic report on Belgium, the UN Committee against Torture formulated its concerns about the continued practice of systematic detention of asylum seekers at the border. In practice, standard motivations for the detention of asylum seekers at the border are being used without adequately considering their individual situations. This confirms the concerns about arbitrary detention previously formulated by UNHCR (see Border detention).
• “Article 3 cell” verifies the compatibility of detention and expulsion with articles 3 and 8 ECHR: Mid 2021, a specific cell with 3 legal experts was created within the Immigration Office to verify whether the detention and/or expulsion would violate article 3 and 8 ECHR. Figures provided by the Immigration Office show that in 2022, the cell analysed 2,250 files and gave its advice in 68 cases, of which 3 concerned general questions and 65 were individual cases.[56]  Move Coalition finds that the unit is not easily reachable, and the decision-making process generally lacks transparency (see Detention on the territory).
• ICAM-coaching as an alternative to detention: In 2021, 60 new civil servants were recruited for the Immigration Office to start working for the newly founded department of ‘Alternatives to Detention’ as “ICAM-coaches” (Individual Case Management Support). These return-coaches provide intensive guidance for return. After receiving an order to leave the territory, a migrant will be invited to a series of interviews, where their file will be explained to them and a trajectory towards a return or other existing procedures will be organised (depending on the individual). Attendance is mandatory, and failure to cooperate with return procedures or to show up may result in detention. Since 2022, Dublin cases are, among other target groups, the priorities of the ICAM coaches (see Alternatives to detention).
• Alternatives to detention – “Proactive return policy”: On 2 May 2024, a law for a “proactive return policy” has been adopted by the Belgian Parliament.[57] The bill aims at enshrining in the Aliens Act, inter alia: 1) the duty to cooperate in the organisation of transfer, expulsion, return or removal (this comprises forced medical examination in case of refusal); 2) the case management by civil servants of the Aliens office in the context of a return or transfer procedure (ICAM procedure); 3) a listing of the preventive measures and the less coercive measures that can be taken by the authorities and 4) banning the detention of families with minor children in closed centres, except in return houses (see Alternatives to detention).

• Relevant case law on detention
  • CALL, 10 February 2023, 284.595: The Court of Alien Law Litigation (CALL) has criticised the use of the fast-tracked procedure and annulled the decision of the asylum authorities in a case of an asylum applicant at the border because of the threat to his rights of defence and the principle of equality of arms (see Judicial review of the detention order).
  • Committee on the Rights of the Child 24 March 2022, E.B. v. Belgium, CRC/C/89/D/55/2018 and Committee on the Rights of the Child 22 March 2022, K.K. and R.H. v. Belgium, CRC/C/89/D/73/2019: The Committee on the Rights of the Child condemned Belgium for having detained children in the family units of the 127bis repatriation centre. The Committee recalled that the detention of any child because of their parent’s migration status contravenes the principle of the child’s best interests. It further stated, that “detaining children as a measure of last resort must not be applicable in immigration proceedings”, reminding Belgium of its obligation to use alternatives to detention (see Detention of vulnerable applicants).

Content of international protection

• Beneficiaries of international protection without shelter: In the context of the reception crisis, some applicants received international protection without access to the reception network and thus were homeless. In the absence of an address, obtaining a residence permit (A-card) at the local municipality is very difficult when receiving a positive decision on the international protection application. Without this permit, the status holder can encounter difficulties obtaining financial aid, opening a bank account, and renting a place to live.
• Belgian Nationality: In 2022, 48,482 third country nationals have acquired Belgian citizenship, an increase of 24% compared to 2021. Provisional data on 2023 indicate that this trend continues, with Belgian citizenship being granted to 46,414 persons between January and October 2023. Legal discussions exist on the application of article 10 on Palestinian children born in Belgium. According to one vision, children from Palestinian parents born in Belgium have the Palestinian nationality, whereas others claim it is impossible for them to receive Palestinian nationality because Palestinian legislation on this matter is non-existent.[58] Legal case-law on this matter is inconsistent, and a ruling of the Court of Cassation is expected. On the basis of the second point of view, article 10 has indeed been applied to children from Palestinians born in Belgium. In 2023, the Immigration Office has sent 55 letters to local administrations who had granted the Belgian nationality in such cases, stating that these children have the Palestinian nationality and asking to change the nationality granted to these children. The federal Ombudsman has intervened, stating that the Immigration Office is not legally competent to instruct local administrations on the matter of nationality, this competence being reserved to the Central Authority for nationality or the public prosecutor.[59] In a reaction, the Secretary of State has stated that the letters do not instruct local administrations in these cases, but only provides information and advice, local administrations remaining exclusively competent to take the final decision.[60] However, the federal Ombudsman finds that the Immigration Office has composed these advisory letters in the same way as its (binding) instructions to local administrations in other matters concerning asylum and migration, and thus created confusion and chaos among local administrations, some communes having decided to ignore the letter whereas others have withdrawn the Belgian nationality of the persons involved. The Ombudsman advises the Immigration Office to stop sending these letters and to contact local administrations having received such a letter, to inform them that it does not dispose of any advisory competence in this matter and the received letter should not be considered[61] (see Naturalisation).
• Ongoing difficulties with the procedure of family reunification with beneficiaries of international protection: Given the preparations of a new legislative proposal on this topic, the Federal Migration Centre (Myria) published a report establishing obstacles and formulating recommendations on the procedure of family reunification for beneficiaries of international protection. It establishes that the family reunification procedure for refugee families is very complex and challenging due to both the living circumstances of the applicants and the Belgian procedure. It concludes that if neither the delays are prolonged nor the application procedure is facilitated, international protection beneficiaries cannot exercise their right to family reunification in practice. A separate report explicitly highlights the issues that Afghan family members encounter in applying for a visa in view of family reunification since the takeover of power by the Taliban. As part of the Migration Deal of March 2023, the government changed some legal provisions for family reunification. It provides a new right to stay on the Belgian territory for parents of a minor child who receives international protection, a more precise definition of the rules for family reunification between a Belgian citizen and EU-citizens, the introduction of the concept of ‘genuine care’ as a prerequisite for family reunification as a parent of a Belgian child, the expansion of cessation grounds for some categories of family reunification and lastly a more precise and transparent right to family reunification for beneficiaries of temporary protection (see Family reunification).
• Waiting lists for schools for non-Dutch speaking children: Local schools’ capacity is not always sufficient to absorb all non-Dutch speaking children entitled to education. During the school year of 2022-2023, hundreds of non-Dutch-speaking children were on a waiting list to get access to the Flemish OKAN-classes. During the current school year (2023-2024), there are sufficient places in Flemish OKAN classes for now, as far as is known. However, an efficient monitoring system of places in reception education is lacking. As a result, there is insufficient insight into the capacity of OKAN education in Flanders (see Access to education).

Temporary protection

The information given hereafter constitute a short summary of the main changes to the Belgian Report on Temporary Protection. For further information, see Annex on Temporary Protection. 

Temporary protection procedure

• Key statistics: Between 10 March 2022 and December 2023, 77,636 persons received a temporary protection certificate in Belgium.[62] Ukrainians account for 97.8% of temporary protection holders.[63] In 2023, 1,520 attestations of registration were given, as opposed to 15,626 Temporary Protection certificates and 1,097 refusal decisions.[64] 60,000 people were effectively registered in the Aliens Register by the municipalities as of 15 February 2024.[65] From 10 March 2022 to December 2023, 58,803 persons stated upon registration not to be in need of reception, while 17,906 indicated needing it.[66] This means that 23% of the people fleeing from Ukraine indicated being in need of support concerning accommodation upon registration.
• Scope of temporary protection: Following the Russian invasion, the Belgian senate agreed on 25 February 2022 that the necessary steps should be taken to accommodate Ukrainian war refugees temporarily.[67] A registration centre was set up in Brussels for people with a potential right to temporary protection.[68] Between 10 March 2022 and 29 December 2023, 77,636 persons received a temporary protection certificate in Belgium.[69] Under the implementation decision, the Belgian Aliens Act provides that temporary protection is applied to the same categories of people who are eligible for temporary protection under the EU decision.[70] While this is the case overall, there are slight differences in interpretation and application. Belgium does not offer temporary protection to those who do not have a permanent residence permit in Ukraine. For those who fall outside the scope of Temporary protection, there is the possibility to apply for international protection. However, since the Council Implementation Decision, the asylum applications of Ukrainian nationals have been frozen, meaning that their request is not processed, and this will most likely remain so for as long as temporary protection is not suspended on a European level. On the other hand, the requirements for family reunification (or a “derived status”) with a beneficiary have been significantly reduced.
• Extension of temporary protection directive: As a result of the extension of TPD, Ukrainian nationals now have a temporary residence permit that is valid until 4 March 2025.
• Limited registration capacity: Applicants for temporary protection are expected to present themselves at the registration centre from Monday to Friday between 8h30 and 13h. While in the beginning, all applicants could apply on the day they presented themselves, a shortage of personnel at the Immigration Office has led to limited registration capacity as of December 2023.[71] It has been observed on several occasions in the period January-March 2024 that a quota of 75 registrations per day is applied.[72] People who are not able to register receive an invitation to apply with priority the next day.[73] Persons who were not able to register due to the registration quota are not provided with reception solutions as Fedasil does not automatically take responsibility for this group.[74]
• Prolonged waiting times for decisions on temporary protection: Persons who do not receive a decision on their temporary protection application on the same day receive an attestation of registration which mentions they will be notified of the decision at a later stage. While at first, these persons received a decision within 3 days, there has been an increasing number of cases in which the waiting period lasted weeks or even months.[75] This problem returned intermittently and has been quite consistent during the period from December 2023 up until the time of writing (April 2024). The issue is due to both a shortage in personnel of IBZ and the increasing complexity of cases.[76] While waiting for a decision, applicants are not able to register at a municipality and there is generally no accommodation provided, except in exceptional cases such as pregnant women.[77]

• Shortage of housing facilities for applicants and beneficiaries of temporary protection: 3% of applicants for temporary protection indicate upon arrival to have a reception need.[78] This group faced serious issues in 2023. In the first period after the start of the war, Fedasil referred people expressing a housing need to the local municipalities on the basis of a list of the available places in each municipality. Up until a place at the local level was found, persons could stay in an emergency reception centre (Ariane). However, the willingness to provide housing solutions to this population is steadily decreasing on the local level and many reception centres at the local level are closing. This causes increasingly difficult progression from the emergency reception centre Ariane to the local level, which has led to Ariane equally becoming saturated and persons staying in this centre – where reception conditions are criticised and based on the idea of a short stay rather than prolonged stay – for longer periods, often up to several months.[79] Ariane being full, new applicants for temporary protection are no longer guaranteed to be given a place upon arrival.[80] Possible and used alternatives include homeless shelters provided by Samu social as well as an emergency reception centre (Hotel Plasky – provided by the Brussels based organisation Ukrainian voices).[81] Persons accommodated here can stay for one night and have to again present themselves at the registration centre the next day, indicating a continuing reception need and to enquire about the availability of places.[82] If persons do no longer present themselves, it is assumed there is no longer a need for reception.[83] Apart from the issues with accommodation, this instable living situation leads to serious administrative difficulties. For example, as long as they do not register in a commune on the basis of their address of residency, they cannot obtain a residence permit, which limits access to several fundamental rights such as the right to work, social aid, health insurance…[84]

Content of temporary protection

• Residence permit: Beneficiaries of temporary protection receive a temporary protection certificate necessary to apply for a residence permit (the A-card) at the local municipality.
• Rights of temporary protection holders: Beneficiaries with a residence permit have the right to health insurance and medical care, legal assistance, and access to the labour market and the education system. They receive social benefits if they need financial aid and have the option to follow integration courses. These rights can be opened almost immediately, although registration at the municipality is required to effectively enjoy these rights.

[1] Immigration Office, ‘Applications for international protection: monthly statistics February 2023’, available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/msxz4ban, 12 and ‘Applications for International protection: monthly statistics February 2024’, available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/482fphcw, 12.

[2] CGRS, ‘Asylum Statistics February 2023’, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5b6n6dfk and ‘Asylum statistics February 2024’, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3ky9yb2m.

[3] CGRS, ‘Asylum statistics: survey 2023’, 12 January 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2p8778s6.

[4] CALL Activity report 2023, available in Dutch and French at: https://tinyurl.com/3rec62sr.

[5] Nicole de Moor, ‘First package deal of reforms for a controlled and righteous migration model’, 9 March 2023, available in Dutch at: https://tinyurl.com/2neap2k5.

[6] Federal Chamber of Representatives, Legislative Proposal amending the law of December 15, 1980 concerning the request for admission to residence for statelessness, 29 September 2023 available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/23bs28j6.

[7] European Network on Statelessness and Nansen, ‘AVIS CONJOINT DU RESEAU EUROPEEN SUR L’APATRIDIE ET DE NANSEN SUR le projet de loi modifiant la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l’accès au territoire, le séjour, l’établissement et l’éloignement des étrangers, en vue de régler le droit de séjour des apatrides’, 6 december 2023, available in French at : https://tinyurl.com/ycycetv9. 

[8] Federal Chamber of Representatives, ‘Legislative proposal amending the law of January 12, 2007 and the organic law of July 8, 1976’, 29 September 2023, available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/ms54rwkc.

[9] Federal Chamber of Representatives, ‘Legislative proposal amending the law of December 15, 1980 with regard to the right to family reunification’, 29 September 2023, available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/yv5ms4n4.

[10] Chamber of representatives, Law proposal on proactive return policy, 29 September 2023, available in Dutch and French at: https://tinyurl.com/352cu2n5.

[11] 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.

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

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

[14] Ibidem, 35.

[15] Ibidem.

[16] Ibidem.

[17] VRT NWS, ‘Secretary of State de Moor announces long awaited migration code, opposition not impressed’, 10 January 2024, available in Dutch at: https://tinyurl.com/4mx2cmdh.

[18] Secretary of State Nicole De Moor, ‘Fast-track procedure for faster treatment of asylum applications from DR Congo, Moldavia and Georgia’, 1 February 2024, available in Dutch at https://tinyurl.com/47k7y5my; Chamber of Representatives, Commission of internal affairs, security, migration and administrative matters, Wednesday 7 February 2024, available in Dutch and French at https://tinyurl.com/2mhwru8p, p. 16-17. 

[19] CALL Activity report 2022, available in Dutch and French at: http://bit.ly/3nQHrmA, 29.

[20] CALL Activity report 2023, available in Dutch and French at: https://tinyurl.com/3rec62sr.

[21] CALL, Decision No 281.547, 7 December 2022, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3MBKtVV, Decision No 281.327, 5 December 2022, available in French at: https://bit.ly/41mCZdH.

[22] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 26 April 2023, available in French and Dutch at: https://tinyurl.com/wkdaffnj.

[23] CALL, Decision No 297.920, 29 November 2023

[24] Myria, Contact Meeting, 21 June 2023, 9, available in French and Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3U1D9GU.

[25] Ibidem, 10.

[26] E.g.: CALL, No 296780, 9 November 2023; No 296571, 6 November 2023 and No 296884, 10 October 2023.

[27] Fedasil, ‘Register for reception’ available at: https://tinyurl.com/ym6rvxa4.

[28] Fedasil, ‘A reception network under pressure’, 15 February 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2ubavru7.

[29] Fedasil, ‘Waiting list’, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5x34xk69.

[30] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 24 January 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3hn9wrd2, 31.

[31] Myria, ‘Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 20 September 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2dwfke25 and see European Court of Human Rights, Camara v. Belgium, 18 July 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2c26x6t5.

[32] Fedasil, ‘No reception for single men’, 30 August 2023, available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/3xsd8e35.

[33] Council of State, ‘Suspension of the decision to stop the reception of single men’, 13 September 2023, available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/3j3ap7mz.

[34] The Brussels Times, ‘Decision to stop providing shelter for single men reversed by Council of Sate’, 13 September 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/4y9abm63.

[35] The Brussels Times, ‘Asylum reception crisis: academic denounce ‘flagrant disregard’ for rule of law’, 20 September 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/bdh5wd5h.

[36] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 20 September 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2dwfke25, 52.

[37] Fedasil, ‘End of reception in Bredene’, 23 February 2023, available in French and Dutch at: https://tinyurl.com/37hcptcj.

[38] Amnesty International, ‘Belgium: urgent action needed to end human rights violations against asylum seekers’, 31 October 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/4r9canrv.

[39] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 24 Januari 2024, available in French and Dutch at: https://tinyurl.com/yp3zbd4w, 33.

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

[41] Tribunal of first instance of Brussels, 25 March 2022, 2022/13/C, available in French via https://bit.ly/3FcOKe1.

[42] Brussels Court of Appeal, ’2022/KR/14’, 31 October 2022.

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

[44] Council of State, 13 September 2023, 257.300, available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/2adj3ekn.

[45] Fedasil, ‘No reception for single men’, 30 August 2023, available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/3xsd8e35.

[46] The Brussels Times, ‘Decision to stop providing shelter for single men reversed by Council of Sate’, 13 September 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/4y9abm63.

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

[48] 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.

[49] Until 24 January 2024, the European Court of Human Rights issued 2086 interim measures in total. At the time of writing, 175 interim measures were still active. See: Myria, ‘Contact meeting International Protection’, 24 January 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yp3zbd4w.

[50] HUDOC, Interim measure of 31 October 2022, Camara v. Belgium, application no. 49255/22, http://bit.ly/42avsA2.

[51] The Brussels Times, ‘Court urges Belgium to provide immediate shelter for 148 asylum seekers’, 17 November 2022, http://bit.ly/3Jr6gO8.

[52] ECHR, ‘Camara v. Belgium’, 18 July 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/4kvr9dyh.

[53] Labour court Antwerpen (Mechelen), 23/218/A, 21 June 2023, available in Dutch at https://tinyurl.com/przyp9vh; Labour court Brussels, 23/1547/A, 18 September 2023, available in Dutch at https://tinyurl.com/2cenmxjy; resume of these decision available in Dutch at: https://tinyurl.com/6dctrks6; Labour court Antwerpen (Mechelen), 23/629/A and 23/630/A, 7 February 2024, available in Dutch at: https://tinyurl.com/29sfvnaf and https://tinyurl.com/p8k9kpbs.

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

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

[56] Immigration Office, Annual Rapport 2022, available in Dutch at: https://tinyurl.com/mr4xaj3y.

[57] Chamber of representatives, Law proposal on proactive return policy, 29 September 2023, available in Dutch and French at: https://tinyurl.com/352cu2n5.

[58] For an extensive overview of this legal discussion, see: ‘Zijn in België geboren kinderen van Palestijnse origine Belg? Gemeenten en rechtbanken zijn bevoegd, niet DVZ’, 21 november 2023 (modified 1 February 2024), available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3PFhVvu.

[59] Federal Ombudsman, ‘Advice 2023/06 to the Immigration Office: respect the legal competences regarding nationality’, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3xlASwU.

[60] Chamber of representatives, Commission of Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Administrative matters, 10 January 2024, https://bit.ly/3TU3pm1, 14.

[61] Federal Ombudsman, ‘Advice 2023/06 to the Immigration Office: respect the legal competences regarding nationality’, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3xlASwU.

[62] Statbel, Displaced persons from Ukraine, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3ZmG5O4.

[63] IBZ, Temporary protection monthly statistics, available in Dutch and French at: https://rb.gy/7er9ta (see table 2.7, year 2022) and; https://rb.gy/pzwj7v (see table 2.7, year 2023). The number of the 2022 period of March – December are added up with the 2023 period of January- December.

[64] IBZ, numbers provided by e-mail on 5 April 2024.

[65] Vlot (Flemish Taskforce), numbers provided by email on 13 March 2024.

[66] Statbel, Displaced persons from Ukraine, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3ZmG5O4.

[67] The Senate, The senate passes a resolution on the Russian invasion in Ukraine, 25 February 2022, available in Dutch and French at: http://bit.ly/3KPummS.

[68] Fedasil, Reception of the Ukrainian nationals, 4 March, 2022, available in English at: http://bit.ly/3KImDXF.

[69] Statbel, Displaced persons from Ukraine, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3ZmG5O4.

[70] Law of 15 December 1980 regarding the entry, residence, settlement and removal of aliens (Aliens Act), Article 59/27, available in Dutch and French at:  https://bit.ly/3YaTMyC.

[71] The infoline of Vluchtelingenwerk received numerous calls of people who were not able to register in the January-February 2024 period.

[72] Observation by NGO on 22 January 2024; Observation by Vluchtelingenwerk on 4 March 2024.

[73] Response from the Cabinet following enquiry Vluchtelingenwerk, 2 February 2024. On March 4^th 2024, approximately 50 persons were not able to enter the registration centre on the same day; observation by Vluchtelingenwerk at the registration centre.

[74] Vlot (Flemish Task Force), e-mail after enquiry Vluchtelingenwerk about reception rights for people with registration certificate, 29 February 2024.

[75] In a case communicated to the Infoline of Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, a person who had applied for temporary protection at the beginning of July 2023 had not yet received a decision in September 2023.

[76] Confirmation IBZ by e-mail, 11 March 2024.

[77] Ibid

[78] Statbel, Statbel, Displaced persons from Ukraine, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3ZmG5O4, numbers mentioned up until the end of 2023.

[79] Myria, Contact meeting, 5 October 2022, p.45-46, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SDmKpq.

[80] IBZ, e-mail following enquiry from Vluchtelingenwerk if there is always a reception place for vulnerable persons who indicate a reception need, 14 September 2023; confirmed by cases Infoline Vluchtelingenwerk.

[81] Observation by Vluchtelingenwerk at the registration centre, 4 March 2024.

[82] Observation partner organisation, 3 October 2023.

[83] Ibid.

[84] See for example: The Brussels Times, Belgium’s reception crisis: Ukrainian refugees now also sleeping rough, 18 November 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/3KMcyZJ. The infoline of Vluchtelingenwerk Flanders has in recent months (end of 2023 – beginning 2024) received numerous reports of people who did not find a reception place upon arrival and did not know where to go.