Author
The 2002 Royal Decree on Closed Centres provides for the legal regime and internal organisational guidelines. The detention centres are managed by the Immigration Office, not by Fedasil, as are the open reception centres. In 2017, an informal group of several Belgian human rights organisations active in the field of administrative detention of migrants(see Access to detention facilities),[1] released a report on the state of detention centres for administrative detention in Belgium.[2] In 2019 the same NGO group also published a report focusing on vulnerability in detention.[3] It does not concern the detention conditions as such. Still, it addresses certain relevant topics such as the profiles of the detainees, the legality control on detention, the right to family life etc. In 2021, a formal Coalition of NGOs accredited to visit detention centres was created; it was named ‘Move: Beyond detention of migrants’. The visitors of Move continue to visit all detention centres in Belgium weekly, which enables them to confirm that the findings in these previous reports are still relevant at the moment of writing. Each year, Move publishes a ‘Monitoring report’ on the situation in each of the 6 closed centres in Belgium. The last report covers the situation in 2023.[4]
Overall conditions
The most essential basic rights of the asylum applicant are guaranteed by the Royal Decree on Closed Centres,[5] including its amendment by the Royal Decree of 7 October 2014 which has established a complaints mechanism. The managing director of the centre has broad competences to limit or even refuse the execution of most of these rights if they deem this necessary for the public order or safety, to prevent criminal acts or to protect the health, morality or the rights of others.[6] A whole range of measures of internal order, disciplinary measures, measures of coercion and body search can be imposed by the managing director of the centre, and in some case by other staff members.[7] The Immigration Office organises training for the security personnel at the detention centres on the use of coercion, as provided for by law.[8] Within the first year of employment, each member should get a 3-day course on the theoretical aspects and techniques of coercion, followed by a refresher course with situational practices of 3 hours every third year afterwards. These are given by an internal Immigration Office instructor. Also, training sessions on dealing with aggression and on intercultural communication are organised.
On arrival at the centre, every asylum applicant is subjected to a search.[9] The search is aimed at verifying if the asylum-applicant is in possession of objects or substances that are prohibited or dangerous to themselves, other residents, the staff or the security of the centre.[10] The search shall not exceed the time necessary for this purpose and the asylum applicant is obliged to fully cooperate.[11] The search can be done in several different ways such as by using a metal detector or other screening equipment, by thoroughly touching the body over the clothes or by having an asylum applicant undress completely in order to enable a thorough search of the clothing.[12] It is carried out by two members of the staff having the same gender as the asylum-applicant.[13] If prohibited or dangerous objects or substances are found as a result of the search, they shall be taken into custody, made available to the competent authorities or, with the consent of the asylum applicant, be destroyed.[14] After the security screening, the asylum-applicant must use the sanitary facilities, unless this is not appropriate for medical or safety reasons.[15] The person must cooperate in a medical examination, after which, if necessary, appropriate medical treatment will follow.[16]
For every new resident, an administrative record is opened. Every document which can be deemed useful for the identification and the processing of the administrative record shall be taken into custody for the duration of the stay in the detention centre.[17] The asylum applicant has the right to inspect these documents and is allowed to keep a copy, unless it has been established that the documents are false or forged, in which case they are handed over to the judicial authorities.[18] Upon arrival, every asylum applicants is entitled to one free national phone call of minimum ten minutes.[19]
Upon arrival, every asylum applicant receives a brochure that provides an overview of his rights and obligations during his stay in the detention centre, as well as the possibilities in the field of medical, psycho-social, psychological or religious assistance.[20] A more general brochure is also distributed informing them of the right to appeal against detention, the possibilities to make a complaint about the conditions of detention, the possibilities to obtain assistance from a non-governmental organisation and to seek legal advice.[21]
The Royal Decree on Closed Centres characterises daily life in the detention centres as being collective during daytime.[22] Detention facilities have separated rooms or wings for families (without children) and single women, including at the border. In sanitary and sleeping facilities, single women and men are separated; in sanitary installations, only staff members of the same sex are present.[23] For persons who appear not to be able to adapt to the collective regime, the managing director can decide to place the person in isolation, either in the context of a ‘room regime’ or in an isolation room.[24] The other isolation regimes are the medical isolation and the disciplinary isolation. The latter is used as a sanction, whereas the ’room regime’ and placement in isolation as an order measure are used as security measures. Migrants can be placed in disciplinary isolation in case of the following infringements: damage to goods, theft, threats, beatings, escape, sexual assault and weapon possession[25] or when a migrant commits the following infringements three times: insults to staff or fellow residents, entering restricted areas, sale-purchase between residents, possession of prohibited substances, disobedience to orders, disturbing the peace or safety and disregard of obligations.[26] In principle, the isolation can last a maximum of 24 hours, with a possibility of extension to 48 or 72 hours.[27] In case of assault of persons, the duration of the isolation measure can immediately be brought to 72 hours, with the possibility to extend the measure with another 24h and up to 7 days on decision of the Minister of asylum and migration.[28] It happens nonetheless that the legal regime applicable to the isolated person changes throughout isolation period (e.g. from a specific ‘room regime’ – which isn’t considered an isolation measure sensu stricto but means in practice that the person spends most of the day on their own – to disciplinary isolation) which ends up to a de facto isolation period longer than the legally prescribed duration.
Against each decision taken on the basis of the aforementioned Royal Decree, the detained person can file a complaint to the ‘Commission of complaint’. The complaint is written either in one of the official Belgian national languages or in the person’s mother tongue (no translation is necessary). The complaint is signed and dated by the detainee who lodges the complaint, so a third party (witness, NGO visitor or lawyer) cannot lodge it in their place. The detained migrant can file their complaint with the Secretariat of the Commission or they can also file a complaint with the director of the centre where they are detained, who will then transmit the complaint to the Secretariat. This second option is generally preferred by the detainees. The complaint must be filed within five days from the day after the day on which it can be considered established that the complainant has actual knowledge of the facts or the decision giving rise to the complaint. Most of the complaints are declared inadmissible. But if the complaint is well-founded, the Commission can either issue a recommendation, annul the decision taken, or propose a sanction against the staff member. The lodging of a complaint does not suspend the expulsion measures or their execution. Civil society organisations have criticized the complaint mechanism because of its lack of transparency and independence and consider it an ineffective redress mechanism for migrants in detention.[29]
Apart from the complaint mechanism at the Commission, detainees can also file complaints at the director of the centre about various topics (e.g. food, refusal of request to change rooms, complaint about the treatment of the file, etc.). These complaints discussed immediately with the person involved and an attempt is made to find a solution. The complaint is also registered and included in the monthly reporting towards the management of the centre. Other control measures include visitation rights by several national and international instances.[30]
Each centre has a service responsible for the psychological and social supervision of the asylum applicant during their stay in the detention centre and prepares rejected asylum-applicants for their possible removal.
3 meals a day are provided, special diets can be delivered on medical prescription, pork is never to be served and alcohol is prohibited.[31] The asylum applicants get the opportunity to wash themselves on a daily basis and toiletries are at their disposal free of charge.[32] The asylum applicant can have clothes delivered at their own expense, but the centre is to provide free clothing in case they do not dispose of appropriate clothing.[33]
In practice, conditions vary from one centre to another. The Government has announced the replacement of the centre in Bruges, as the condition of the current centre is deemed ‘very bad’ (old building, deficient air-cooling system, broken sanitary, etc.)[34] The government has announced that a budget has been made available to address the most urgent renovations. The Government aims to build a new centre in the neighbouring commune of Jabbeke to replace the centre in Bruges, but there is no clarity on the start and end dates for construction works.[35]
Other issues have been reported regarding detention centres. The rooms in medical wings are described as bare and having only one window. In some detention centres, there is a television, toilet and washbasin in the room, in some others (e.g. Bruges) the room is common to 10 people with bunk beds.[36] Isolation cells can be described as extremely bear with grey walls and a small window. The room is lined with a bed with anti-tearing sheets and an aluminium toilet. Furthermore, persons placed in disciplinary isolation no longer have access to the telephone, only contact with a lawyer remains possible.
Activities
In detention centres asylum applicants have access to open air spaces. In some centres they are allowed to get out in open air during daytime whenever they want. In other centres this is strictly regulated.[37] A minimum of two hours of exercise outside is provided.[38]
Assistance to religious services or non-confessional counselling is guaranteed in the detention centres and the provision of assistance by a minister of a non-officially recognised cult can be requested.[39]
The asylum applicant has an unlimited right to entertain correspondence during the day.[40] Writing paper is provided in the centre, as is assistance with reading and writing by staff members.[41] When there are specific risk indications, this correspondence can be subjected to the control of the managing director of the centre, with the exception of letters directed to the lawyer or to certain public authorities and independent human rights and public monitoring instances.[42] Asylum applicants can make calls at their own expenses during daytime to an unlimited extent.[43] In most detention centres, the residents are allowed to use their cell phone (without camera) at all times. Detainees have to pay phone calls through their own means, or they can earn phone credit by doing chores in the centre. This often represents a challenge and forces people to rely on NGOs providing them with mobile top-ups and old phones without cameras. Computers (with internet) are accessible on a regular basis, but this varies from one centre to another.[44]
The centres are required to organise sport, cultural and recreational activities.[45] In most centres, fitness activities are offered and sporting tournaments of volleyball, soccer and basketball are organised on a regular basis. Every centre has a library at the disposal of the inhabitants, which usually provides a diverse range of books in different languages.[46] Newspapers and other publication can be purchased at their own expense.[47] They are also entitled to follow radio and television programmes.[48] In several detention centres, the rooms are equipped with a television.[49]
According to Article 74/8(4) of the Aliens Act, asylum applicants who are detained in closed centres could be allowed to perform work for remuneration. However, to date, the implementing decree laying down the conditions has not been proposed or adopted. In practice, certain centres provide the possibility for residents with little to no financial resources to do cleaning chores in order to obtain call credit, cigarettes, hygiene products or sweets.[50]
Health care and special needs
Access to health care is legally determined to ‘what the state of health demands’ and every centre has its own medical service to provide for it with independent doctors.[51] The doctor attached to the centre can decide that a person has to be transferred to a specialised medical centre.[52] In practice, persons detained may have difficulties in accessing and obtaining sufficient medical care, as was made clear by the ECtHR in the case of Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v Belgium, in which the Court found that Belgium violated Article 3 ECHR for not providing the necessary medical care.[53] At the same time, the quality of the health care available depends a lot on the medical infrastructure and individual doctor in the centre.
When the medical doctor finds a person not suited for detention or forced removal because it could damage their mental or physical health, the managing director of the centre has to transfer these observations to the Director-General of the Immigration Office, who has to decide on the suspension of the detention or removal measure or ask for the opinion of the medical doctor of another centre, and in case of a dissenting opinion for that of a third one.[54] After every failed attempt of removal when force was used, the doctor has to examine the person concerned.[55] The person is not automatically provided with a medical report after examination. There have been no reports of the way this is applied in practice to date.
No other procedures to identify vulnerable individuals in detention is provided for by law.[56] If the person so wishes, they can request an external doctor to examine them in the detention centre at their own costs.[57] This does not happen very frequently in practice as there are few voluntary doctors to come to the centres (some of them being geographically isolated) and the detained persons do not usually have the financial means to pay for it.
In the context of return procedures, following Belgium’s conviction by the ECtHR in its Paposhvili judgment,[58] a new procedure was introduced for persons placed in detention prior to their return. The ‘Paposhvili procedure’ is not laid down in law but is arranged by an internal service note of the Immigration Office.[59] The procedure foresees that, for each newcomer to a detention centre, the centre’s doctor fills out a medical certificate stating whether or not the person concerned suffers from an medical condition that could subject them to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the context of return (which would be contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR), or if additional medical examinations have to be carried out to determine this. If such a risk is identified by the doctor, a second examination will be conducted. The medical certificate is binding for the central service of the Immigration Office (MedCOI) which must ensure that the recommended treatments are available and accessible in the country of return. If this is the case, return will be carried out. If this is not the case, the person concerned can appeal to the ‘special needs’ programme or be released. The ‘special needs’ programme offers individual assistance to vulnerable persons who return to their country of origin. Within this framework, their stay in a detention centre can be adapted to their needs, assistance can be provided for their return and, if necessary, assistance can be provided for the reintegration in their country of origin.[60] In 2022, 72 persons benefited from the special needs programme.[61]
Furthermore, a questionnaire is filled out in view of determining whether there are other (medical or other) factors that would form an obstacle to the return of the person detained. This ‘general questionnaire’ in the context of the detainee’s right to be heard, is followed up by the “article 3-cell” of the Immigration Office. In 2020, this specific ‘Article 3-cell’ was created in order to verify whether the detention and/or expulsion would violate Article 3 and 8 ECHR. In 2023, the ‘Article 3-cell’ has analysed 2,414 files, among which 49 decisions of border determination for repatriation and 27 detention orders after asylum procedure. Driven from their experience in contacting this cell in some individual cases, the Move coalition (a coalition of NGOs accredited to visit the detention centres) finds that the unit is not easily reachable (there is no email address publicly known to reach out to them), that the decision-making process lacks transparency and the applicants do not receive a written analysis by the unit regarding their case.[62]
The provision of medical assistance varies from centre to centre. It has been reported that in some centres, medical care is only for the purpose of repatriation and there is no budget for serious interventions.[63] In some centres people complain about the fact that they only get painkillers and sleeping pills. A lack of adequate medical assistance for detainees with mental issues has also been reported.[64]
Finally, the Royal Decree of 9 April 2007 on OOC regulates the functioning of the OOC for unaccompanied children. Specific measures are adopted to protect and accompany the children. During their stay of maximum 15 days, their contacts are subject to special surveillance.[65] During the first 7 days of their stay, they are not allowed to have any contact with the outside world other than with their lawyer and their guardian.[66] The modalities of the visits, outside activities, telephone conversation and correspondence are strictly determined in the house rules.[67] When a child is absent for more than 24 hours or where vulnerable children (i.e. under 13 years of age, children with psychological problems or victims of human trafficking) are absent without informing the staff, the police and the guardian or the Guardianship Service are alerted.[68]
[1] Caritas, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, Ciré and others.
[2] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen et al., Closed centres for foreigners in Belgium, January 2017, available in Dutch available at: https://rb.gy/ogaeap. In the context of their right of reply to the 2024 AIDA report update, the Immigration Office notes that the Immigration Office always takes account of these reports and formulates its observations.
[3] Caritas, Ciré, JRS Belgium, Platforme Mineurs en Exil, Point d’appui and Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, Vulnerabilité et Détention en Centres Fermés, October 2019, available in French at: https://rb.gy/nl1yre.
[4] Available in French here and in Dutch here. In the context of their right of reply to the 2024 AIDA report update, the Immigration Office notes that the report includes some inaccuracies, but does not specify which.
[5] Royal Decree of 2 August 2002 holding the determination of the regime and the operating measures applicable to places located on Belgian territory, managed by the Immigration Office, where a foreigner is detained, placed at the disposal of the government or held, in accordance with the provisions referred to in Article 74/8, § 1, of the Act of 15 December 1980 on access to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreigners, available in Dutch and French here.
[6] Articles 21, 25, 31, 41, 65 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[7] Articles 85-111/4 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[8] Article 74/8 Aliens Act and Royal Decree on the Use of Coercion for Security Personnel.
[9] Article 10 and 111/1 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[10] Article 11 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[11] Article 111/1 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[12] Article 111/2 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[13] Article 111/2 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[14] Article 11 and 111/3 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[15] Article 12 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[16] Article 13 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[17] Article 14 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[18] Article 14 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[19] Article 15 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[20] Article 17 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[21] Article 17 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[22] Article 83 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[23] Article 83 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[24] Article 83/1 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[25] Article 98, §2, 1° Royal Decree Closed Centres.
[26] Article 98, §2, 3° Royal Decree Closed Centres.
[27] Article 101, §1 Royal Decree Closed Centres.
[28] Article 101, §2 Royal Decree Closed Centres.
[29] CECLR (ex-Myria), La Commission des plaintes chargée du traitement des plaintes des personnes détenues en centres fermés (2004-2007), available in French here. See also Myria, Committee against torture, 71e session, 4th periodical report on Belgium – 2021 : Parallel reports of National Human rights institutes Unia and Myria, available in French at : https://tinyurl.com/3ehatt76: §§81-82 : ‘Le faible taux de plaintes introduites, le taux insignifiant de décisions qui donnent raison aux plaignants et le caractère relativement anodin des quelques plaintes qui ont été déclarées fondées, sont autant d’indices qui exigent que l’on s’interroge sur le système de plainte lui-même. Différentes critiques peuvent être faites à l’égard de la Commission des plaintes : – absence de garanties suffisantes d’indépendance et d’impartialité ; – mécanisme insuffisamment pertinent du point de vue de l’auteur de la plainte ; – absence de garanties procédurales suffisantes ; – manque de transparence.’ The Immigration Office, in the context of its right to reply to the 2024 AIDA update, notes that the Complaint commission is an independent body from both the closed centre and the Immigration Office, and residents can transfer their complaint in a confidential manner.
[30] See Immigration Office, Regulatory compliance and control, https://tinyurl.com/2p9wx79y.
[31] Articles 79-80 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[32] Article 78 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[33] Article 76 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[34] Chamber of Representatives, Policy Note on asylum and migration, 4 November 2020, available in Dutch and French, available at: https://bit.ly/3sJdgMd, 34.
[35] Cd&v, ‘Nicole de Moor: ‘Plannen voor terugkeercentra worden bakstenen’’, available in Dutch here.
[36] JRS Belgium, Monitoring report 2022, available in English at: https://tinyurl.com/bdhzwkej.
[37] JRS Belgium, Monitoring report 2022, available in English at: https://tinyurl.com/bdhzwkej.
[38] Article 82 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[39] Articles 46-50 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[40] Articles 19 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[41] Articles 22 and 23 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[42] Articles 20-21/2 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[43] Article 24 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[44] PICUM, Working together to end immigration detention: A collection of noteworthy practices, 2024, available in English at: https://tinyurl.com/292746fp.
[45] Articles 69-70 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[46] Caricole annual report 2021.
[47] Articles 71-72 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[48] Article 72 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[49] Annual report CIH, CIM, Vottem en Caricole
[50] Annual report detention centres Caricole, Vottem, CIM.
[51] Article 53 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[52] Article 54-56 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[53] ECtHR, Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium, Application No 10486/10, Judgment of 20 December 2011. Not the threatened deportation at an advanced stage of her HIV infection to Cameroon, her country of origin, without certainty that the appropriate medical treatment would be available was considered in itself to constitute a violation of Article 3 ECHR, but the delay in determining the appropriate treatment for the detainee at that advanced stage of her HIV infection.
[54] Article 61 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[55] Article 61/1 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[56] The Immigration Office, in the context of its right to reply to the 2024 AIDA update, notes that in practice every centre applies a multidisciplinary approach with attention to vulnerabilities.
[57] Article 53 Royal Decree on Closed Centres.
[58] ECtHR, Paposhvili v. Belgium, Application no. 41738/10, 13 December 2016.
[59] Information provided by the Immigration Office in the context of their right of reply, May 2025.
[60] Myriadoc, Terugkeer, detentie en verwijdering van Vreemdelingen in België, November 2017, available in Dutch: https://bit.ly/3l5zW9V.
[61] 13 in Merksplas, 4 in Brugge and 3 in Holsbeek.
[62] The Immigration Office, in the context of their right to reply to the 2024 AIDA update, notes that the service proceeds to internal controls, that the detention measures are motivated and that if necessary, a new and motivated decision will be taken, which are notified to the person concerned. The file of the Immigration Office can be consulted in the context of the right to transparency in public governance.
[63] Based on reportings received by the Move coalition, 2024. The Immigration Office, in the context of its right to reply to the 2024 AIDA update, notes that medical intervention are carried out if they are of (vital) importance.
[64] Ciré, Vulnerabilité et detention en centre fermé, October 2019, available in French at: https://rb.gy/nl1yre. The Immigration Office, in the context of its right to reply to the 2023 AIDA report, indicates that the doctors operating in closed centres are independent. Urgent medical care is always offered. Each centre has a psychologist.
[65] Articles 7 and 10 Royal Decree on OOC.
[66] Article 10 Royal Decree on OOC.
[67] Article 10 Royal Decree on OOC.
[68] Articles 10 and 11 Royal Decree on OOC.