Dublin

Author

Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen Visit Website

General

Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December 2024[1]

Source: Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, December 2024, available here and information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2024.

In 2024, the total number of outgoing take-charge and take back-requests was 12,425 (4,097 take-charge and 8,328 take-back requests). 9,977 of these requests were based on a hit from the Eurodac database. None were for dependency reasons and three for humanitarian reasons to Germany, Croatia and Austria.[2] 9,262 requests were accepted out of the total number of requests, none of which were for dependency or humanitarian reasons. The difference between the number of requests and the number of agreements is partly because the Immigration Office often sends requests to several countries simultaneously for a single person.[3]

A total of 954 persons were transferred from Belgium to other Member States in 2024. The top 3 most transferred nationalities are Afghanistan (159 persons), Morrocco (100) and Algeria (94). 843 of these transfers were carried out within six months, 64 within 12 months, and 11 within 18 months after the acceptance by the other Member State.

In 2024, there was a total of 3,938 incoming take charge and take back requests (784 take charge requests, and 3,154 take back requests), of which two for dependency reasons[4] and seven for humanitarian reasons.[5] Out of the total of incoming requests, 2,509 were accepted, none for dependency reasons and one for humanitarian reasons. 566 persons were effectively transferred to Belgium.

According to available statistics,[6] the Immigration Office applied the sovereignty clause for 2,634 persons.[7] In 2024, Belgium further became responsible ‘by default’ for 5,099 persons who were not transferred in within the legal time limits.[8]

Application of the Dublin criteria[9]

Since 2021, the Immigration Office has provided statistics about the application of the Dublin criteria.[10] This overview does not give a breakdown of the Dublin criteria per Article. It instead provides a more general breakdown of the outgoing and incoming take charge and take back requests. Information about a more detailed breakdown of the Dublin criteria per Article, can be obtained through Parliamentary questions and questions during the monthly contact meetings, of which the reports are published online.[11] The numbers below were provided by the Immigration Office upon request.

Source: information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2024. Totals by author.

Source: Source: information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2025.

In 2024 the Immigration Office sent 23 take charge requests for family reasons, 20 based on Article 11, and three based on Article 10. Seven of these requests were accepted based on Article 11, and one based on article 10. There were four outgoing transfers based on family reasons in 2024. Two transfers based on article 8, and two transfers based on article 10.[12]

In 2024 the Immigration Office received 88 take charge requests for family reasons, out of which 43 were based on Article 8, ten were based on Article 9, 14 were based on Article 10 and 21 were based on Article 11 of the Dublin Regulation. The Immigration Office accepted 27 of these requests. Ten based on Article 8, five based on article 9, ten on Article 10 and two on Article 11. There were 31 incoming transfers based on family reasons, with 18 based on Article 8, three based on Article 9, nine based on Article 10 and one based on Article 11. The majority of these incoming transfers came from Cyprus (18) and Greece (9).[13] Since the number of implemented transfers based on family reasons is higher than the number of agreements based on family reasons in 2024, some transfers were based on agreements given before 2024.

The dependent persons and discretionary clauses

Settled case law indicates that the Immigration Office, as confirmed by the CALL, strictly applies the dependency clause of Article 16 of the Dublin Regulation.[14] However, this observation does not consider the decisions in which the Immigration Office declared itself responsible for applications. In practice, it appears that information exchange on dependency and the situation in the other Member State between the Immigration Office and the lawyer prior to the decision in a specific case may lead to Belgium declaring itself responsible.[15] However, it is impossible for the lawyers to know which element is decisive in each case, The threshold to prove dependency as defined under Article 16 is rather high. According to the CALL, there have to be indications of a ‘more than usual relationship of dependency’, which has to be proven by substantial evidence.[16]

While the ‘sovereignty clause’ of Article 17(1) of the Regulation is mentioned in Article 51/5(2) of the Aliens Act, the ‘protection clause’ of Article 3(2) and the ‘humanitarian clause’ of Article 17(2) are not. So far, it is unclear when the Immigration Office declares itself responsible or applies the ‘sovereignty clause’ since no decision is taken, but the file is immediately transferred to the CGRS.

The criteria for applying the clauses are unclear. Since 2021 the Immigration Office provides general statistics on the application of the sovereignty clause of article 17(1). Belgium applied this provision 592 times in 2021, 2,244 times in 2022, 4,292 times in 2023 and 2,634 times in 2024. These statistics do not provide a detailed breakdown per member state.[17] Since the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgment of the ECtHR, detention and reception conditions, guarantees in the asylum procedure, and access to an effective remedy in the responsible state seem to be considered in some cases when deciding whether or not to apply the ‘protection clause’. Since the C.K. and others v. Slovenia judgment of the CJEU,[18] the CALL pays particular attention to the risk of inhuman and/or degrading treatment that a transfer in itself might entail for people with severe mental or physical illnesses, even if the responsible Member State does not demonstrate systematic flaws.[19] The determining element is whether the transfer would deteriorate the person’s state of health in a significant and permanent manner. Case law analysis shows that CALL uses a very strict standard concerning the nature of the illness and the evidence thereof.[20] Heavy reliance is placed on medical attestations for both the state of health and the impact of a transfer thereon.[21]

Procedure

The Dublin procedure is laid down in the Aliens Law under Articles 51/5 and 51/5/1. The Aliens Law refers to ‘the European Regulation’ for further details.

All asylum applicants are fingerprinted and checked in the Eurodac and Visa Information System databases after making their asylum application with the Immigration Office.[22] In case they refuse to be fingerprinted, their claim may be processed under the Accelerated Procedure.[23] In 2019, the CGRS stated that it did not use this legal possibility in practice and it did not keep statistics of these cases.[24] Nevertheless, refusal to get fingerprinted could be interpreted as a refusal to cooperate with the authorities, which could result in detention (see Detention – Legal grounds).

Based on the fingerprints and any other relevant information, the Immigration Office then determines which EU state is responsible for examining the asylum application based on the criteria of the Dublin III Regulation. This is a preliminary procedure to decide whether the file must be transferred to the CGRS. In case Belgium is deemed the responsible state, the asylum applicants’ file is transferred to the CGRS, and it is further mentioned on the registration proof of the asylum application.

If another Member State might be responsible, the Immigration Office will send a take back or take-charge request. The Immigration Office has clarified that, in line with the CJEU ruling in Mengesteab,[25] the time limit for issuing a Dublin request starts running from the moment an asylum applicant makes an application at the Immigration Office and not from the moment they are issued a ‘proof of asylum application’ (‘Annex 26’).[26]

A decision to transfer following an implicit or explicit agreement to take back or to take charge of an asylum applicant is delivered in a written decision containing the reasons for the decision in person (the so-called ‘Annex 26quater’, or ‘Annex 25quater’ in case of a border procedure). The asylum applicant’s lawyer does not automatically receive a copy of the decision sent to the asylum applicant.[27]

Individualised guarantees

The Immigration Office does not systematically ask for individualised guarantees for vulnerable asylum applicants. However, it sometimes requests guarantees when the continuity of an asylum applicant’s medical treatment has to be ensured in the country of destination. In the past, the CALL has overruled the Immigration Office’s practice in some cases, without this having a generalised effect on it.[28]

In 2022, some decisions of the Immigration Office to transfer an asylum applicant with a specific vulnerability to Croatia were suspended by the CALL, because no guarantees concerning the possibility to reintroduce an asylum application had been demanded beforehand. [29] 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 and to guarantee the possibility for applicants transferred under the Dublin III Regulation to reapply for international protection. 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.[30] In order to overcome this risk, the Immigration Office systematically requests individual guarantees from the Croatian authorities. In such a case, the CALL does not suspend the transfer.[31]

Transfers and the return procedure

 When receiving their negative Dublin decision (‘annex 26quater’), the applicant is informed about the procedure to organise a transfer to the responsible Member State. The applicant is expected to cooperate with the transfer under the ‘voluntary return procedure’. If someone does not cooperate, this could be considered as ‘absconding’ which is a criterion that can lead to detention under the ‘forced return procedure’ (see Return procedure). The Immigration Office has 6 months after the agreement of the responsible state to execute the transfer. In application of Article 29(1) Dublin III regulation, the 6 months transfer period is suspended when the CALL suspends the transfer in the context of an emergency appeal in view of suspension of the execution of the transfer decision (see Dublin: Appeal).

After receiving the annex 26quater, applicants will be invited to an individual coaching trajectory (ICAM: individual case management), during which they are intensively assisted with the voluntary return procedure through a series of interviews. Applicants residing in a reception centre and who are moved to an ‘open return place’ will be accompanied in this trajectory by an ICAM-coach of the Immigration Office present in that centre (see Return track and assignment to an open reception place). Persons residing outside of the reception network are invited to ICAM-interviews at the ‘Dublin Pacheco desk’.[32] Attendance to these ‘ICAM interviews’ is mandatory. Not attending without giving valid justification can be considered as a ‘failure to cooperate’[33] with return procedures that can lead to the extension of the transfer period and may, eventually, result in detention (see Return procedure). For applicants staying in a reception centre, non-attendance can lead to the limitation of the right to material assistance by Fedasil.[34]

During the transfer period, the applicant is supposed to remain at the disposal of the Immigration Office, otherwise they can be considered to be absconding. In that case, the transfer period can be extended from 6 months up to 18 months. The decision to extend the transfer deadline must be individually motivated in writing to make effective judicial review possible.[35]

Previously, the Immigration Office and the CALL referred to the CJEU’s Jawo judgment of 19 March 2019,[36] and its interpretation of ‘absconding’ in Article 29(2) Dublin III Regulation.[37] According to this interpretation by the CALL, the concept of absconding in this context requires the establishment of both a material and an intentional aspect. The material aspect can be proven whenever the applicant has not communicated a place of residence to the Immigration Office or the applicant cannot be found at this address if a check is conducted. As for the intentional element, the mere circumstance that the applicant indicates that they will not voluntarily comply with the transfer decision is not sufficient to consider that someone is absconding.[38] An analysis of the case law of the CALL on this concept of ‘absconding’, indicates that the CALL allows to conclude that the applicant has absconded in mainly two types of cases: (1) the applicant did not provide the Immigration Office with their latest address or (2) the applicant could not be found by the police at the latest known address. In the context of the ICAM procedure, the Immigration Office considered applicants to be absconding when they did not show up for an ICAM interview, or when they expressed during the ICAM interview that they did not want to cooperate with the voluntary return. The CALL has ruled against this policy in several cases.[39], arguing that the fact that an applicant does not give voluntary effect to the transfer decision, is insufficient to consider that person as absconding.

 To address the above ambiguities regarding interpreting the concept of ‘absconding’, the Aliens Act was amended in May 2024.[40] Article 51/5, §6 Aliens Act now contains a definition of absconding with a list of non-exhaustive criteria:

• The applicant does not go to or left the designated reception centre and failed to provide a residence address within three working days.
• After one or more address checks, it is clear that the applicant does not reside at the residence address.
• The applicant did not go to the ICAM appointment without giving due reasons within three working days.
• The applicant did not cooperate with the required medical examination to organise the transfer.
• The applicant did not respect the less coercive measures enforced on him.
• The applicant left the centre for administrative detention without providing a new residence address within three working days.

Some of these criteria continue to rely on the intentional element of absconding. The law does not consider an address check essential in case the applicant provided a residence address. For example, if the applicant did provide a residence address but chose not to go to the ICAM appoint this could be considered as absconding. Thus, it would allow the Immigration Office to consider someone as absconding based solely on the intentional element without investigating the material element. This seems to go against the case law of the CALL and the Jawo judgement.[41]

The average processing time between the asylum application and the delivery of a decision refusing entry (at the border) or residence on the territory based on the Dublin Regulation is not provided by the Immigration Office but can vary greatly depending on the number of pending cases at the Dublin Unit and the Member State to which the Immigration Office wants to transfer a person to.

The average time limit from accepting an outgoing request until the actual transfer was 79 calendar days in 2024.[42]

 Once the transfer period of 6 or – in case of extension – maximum 18 months has passed, Belgium’s responsibility for examining the asylum application will be accepted when the persons concerned present themselves to the Immigration Office again. In 2024, Belgium became responsible by default 5,099 times because the transfer was not carried out within the time limits.[43]

Personal interview

Asylum applicants must attend a specific Dublin interview, during which the Immigration Office gathers information to examine which Member State is responsible for the asylum application. To this purpose, a ‘Dublin interview’ is organised during which the applicant is asked, among other things, about the route taken to arrive in Belgium, the reasons for not applying in or leaving the other Member State, what motivated them to apply in Belgium and other elements that allow to establish the responsible Member State. During this interview, applicants can state their reasons for opposing a transfer to the responsible Member State.[44] Lawyers cannot be present at any procedure at the Immigration Office, including the Dublin interview. They can nevertheless intervene by sending information on the reception conditions and the asylum procedure in the responsible state or with regard to individual circumstances of vulnerability, presence of family members and relatives or others.[45] This is important since the CALL has repeatedly demanded from the Immigration Office that it responds to all arguments put forward and all information submitted.

During this interview, asylum applicants can state their reasons for opposing a transfer to the responsible country according to the Dublin Regulation.[46] When a request to take back or take charge an asylum applicant is being sent to another state, this is mentioned in the ‘proof of asylum application’ (‘Annex 26’).

The questionnaire contains relevant elements for determining if the sovereignty clause should be applied to avoid potential inhuman treatment of the person concerned in case of transfer to another responsible EU or Schengen Associated state. The asylum applicants are asked why they cannot or do not want to return to that country, whether they have a specific medical condition and why they came to Belgium. However, no questions are explicitly asked about the reception conditions, the asylum procedure and the access to an effective legal remedy in the responsible Member State. This is for the asylum applicant to invoke and they have to prove that such general circumstances will apply in their individual situation or that they belong to a group that systematically endures inhuman treatment.

When the Immigration Office accepts that Belgium is responsible for the asylum claim, it transfers the file to the CGRS.

Since 2018, the Immigration Office also conducts interviews with adult family members in the context of Article 8 of the Dublin III Regulation to ensure that the minor’s best interest is considered. Based on their advice, the Dublin Unit of the Immigration Office decides if reunification of the child with the adult involved is indeed in their best interest.

Appeal

Applications for which Belgium is not responsible are subject to a ‘refusal of entry or residence’ decision by the Immigration Office and are not examined on the merits. The appeal procedure against a Dublin transfer i.e. a decision of ‘refusal of entry or residence on the territory’ is a non-suspensive annulment procedure before the CALL, rather than a ‘full jurisdiction’ procedure (see section on Regular Procedure: Appeal). Dublin transfers decisions may be appealed within 30 days.

The ECtHR considered this procedure not to be an effective remedy in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece. However, under the ‘extreme urgency’ procedure, an appeal with short automatic suspensive effect may be provided (see section on Regular Procedure: Appeal). In its C-149/19 judgement of 15 April 2021 the CJEU ruled that an effective legal remedy has to give the opportunity to present any relevant elements that arose after the moment the decision of ‘refusal of entry or residence’ was given.[47] The Belgian Council of State further clarified the implications of this ruling on the legal remedy of the ‘extreme urgency procedure’ in the context of the Dublin-procedure. The CALL must verify whether new elements, provided by the applicant after the transfer decision has been taken, have a decisive effect on the correct application of the Dublin Regulation.[48]

The CALL further verifies if the Immigration Office has respected all substantial formalities.[49]

The CALL also considers whether the sovereignty or protection clauses should have been applied by assessing potential breaches of Article 3 ECHR. In order to do this, the CALL considers all the relevant elements concerning the state of reception conditions and the asylum procedure in the responsible state where the Immigration Office wants to transfer the asylum applicant to; frequently taking into account national AIDA reports. When such information on reception conditions and the asylum procedure in the country is only invoked in an annulment procedure, the CALL will only determine whether this information should have been known by the Immigration Office and included to its assessment of the sovereignty clause, in which case it will suspend the decision or annul it and send it back to the Immigration Office for additional examination.[50]

Following the Tarakhel judgment, in these suspension and action for annulment the CALL not only scrutinises the general reception and procedural situation in the responsible state on systemic shortcomings, but also evaluates the need for individual guarantees from such a state in case shortcomings are not systemic, where the applicant appears to be specifically vulnerable (see the section on Dublin: Procedure).[51]

There is no information available with regard to the average processing time for the CALL to decide on the appeals against Dublin decisions specifically, nor is this available for the annulment or suspension procedures before the CALL in general.

As with all final judgments by administrative and judicial bodies, a non-suspensive cassation appeal before the Council of State can also be introduced against the judgments of the CALL concerning Dublin transfers.[52]

Legal assistance

Although assistance by a lawyer is not allowed during the Dublin interview, asylum applicants are entitled to a ‘pro-Deo’ lawyer in the context of the Dublin procedure. The lawyer can advise them prior to the interview and, if useful, write a letter containing certain information and arguments that are relevant in the context of the Dublin-procedure. Although the Ministerial Decree on Second Line Assistance, laying down the remuneration system for lawyers providing free legal assistance[53], has not determined specific points for a lawyer’s intervention in the Dublin procedure at first instance with the Immigration Office, actions in the context of the Dublin-procedure are covered in analogy with some other categories of the nomenclature, such as a general ‘consultation’ (1.1 of the Nomenclature) or, for a Dublin letter (analogy with a regularisation request – 8.3.4.1 of the Nomenclature, 3 points). Practices vary between Bar associations. For example, the French-speaking Brussels bar association allocates 3 points for a normal Dublin letter; exceptionally, if a letter is very well motivated on the basis of individual elements, 5 points can be attributed. Poorly motivated letters are only allocated 1 point (in analogy with a ‘consultation’).[54]

Concerning the appeal, the general rules for free legal assistance in annulment and suspension petitions with the CALL apply (see the section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance).

Impact of the reception crisis

Single male applicants who do not receive shelter often have their ‘Dublin interview’ within a month after registration. Since these destitute applicants do not have any social assistant (which is provided in the reception centre), they often experience difficulties obtaining second-line legal assistance. As a result, many of these applicants have to go to their ‘Dublin interview’ without having first received second-line legal assistance.[55] The same goes for many applicants who do receive a reception place in a first phase reception centre, where social support is limited and a lawyer is often not yet appointed.[56] This might have a negative impact on the applicant’s ability to explain their situation.

Suspension of transfers

Sometimes, transfers under the Dublin Regulation are not executed either following:

• An informal (internal) and not explicitly motivated decision of the Immigration Office itself; or
• A suspension judgment (in some rare cases followed by an annulment judgment) of the CALL.

Hungary: In 2016, the Immigration Office stopped Dublin transfers to Hungary, and Belgium started to declare itself responsible for the concerned asylum applications.[57] The situation has continued like this since. In January 2025, the Immigration Office confirmed that no transfers were carried out to Hungary and that no Dublin-transfer decisions are currently taken for Hungary.[58] The Dublin procedure takes place, but Belgium declares itself responsible for the asylum application by applying Article 17(1) of the Dublin Regulation.[59]

 Greece: In January 2025, the Immigration Office confirmed that no Dublin-transfer decisions are currently taken for Greece.[60] In most cases, Belgium declares itself responsible for the asylum application by applying Article 17(1) of the Dublin Regulation.[61] In a limited number of cases in 2024, the Immigration Office has sent take over or take back-requests to Greece which, however, refused them.[62]

Bulgaria: In April 2023, transfers to Bulgaria were resumed by the Belgian authorities. This was confirmed by the Immigration Office in June 2023.[63] 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.[64] This policy has been confirmed by the CALL in several cases, and remains unchanged in 2025.[65]

Italy: As a general rule, transfers to Italy are upheld by the CALL. In cases concerning an applicant with a vulnerable profile, the CALL has ruled against a transfer.[66] Based on case law, the decisive factor appears to be the lack of individualised guarantees or an inadequate investigation of the situation upon return to Italy. In December 2022, Italy communicated it would no longer accept forced Dublin transfers. The Immigration Office continues to give Dublin decisions for Italy, indicating that applicants can still return to Italy with the ‘voluntary return procedure’.[67] In practice, this means that forced transfers are not organised by the Immigration Office and that article 17(1) is not applied. In 2024 Belgium obtained 2,301 agreements of Italy, and in 2023 2,430 agreements. No statistics are available on the number of applicants that returned voluntarily to Italy.

Croatia: In 2022, some decisions of the Immigration Office to transfer an asylum applicant with a specific vulnerability to Croatia were suspended by the CALL, because no individualised guarantees concerning the possibility to reintroduce an asylum application had been demanded beforehand.[68] In 2023, the Immigration Office has solved this issue by asking for individualised guarantees for every individual applicant.[69] Further information can be found under the heading ‘Individualised guarantees‘. The situation remained unchanged in 2025.

The situation of Dublin returnees

The procedure applied to Dublin returnees depends on the current state of the asylum procedure that started before they left Belgium. In case the person had not yet applied for asylum in Belgium and the person is transferred based on a take charge-request, the person can, upon arrival in Belgium, freely decide to apply for asylum in Belgium. In this case, the application will be considered as a first asylum application. For persons who had already applied for asylum in Belgium and whose asylum procedure is still pending on the moment of their return, the procedure is resumed upon their return. In case the previous procedure was closed because of a final negative decision, or after a ‘technical closure’,[70] a Dublin returnee will have to apply for asylum again and this application will be considered as a subsequent application (see Subsequent applications).

When considered as a subsequent applicant, Dublin returnees have no automatic access to reception. They will fall under the general practice of reception for subsequent applications, who are almost systematically excluded from reception (see Right to reception: subsequent applications).[71] Applicants who are not considered subsequent applicants suffer the consequences of the ongoing reception crisis (see Criteria and Restrictions to Access Reception Conditions). They can register on a waiting list, after which they will be invited to a reception place on a later date, often only months later. In the meantime, applicants do not have any other solution than to sleep rough, on the streets or in squats.

In the Netherlands, several male applicants who had to return to Belgium based on the Dublin regulation introduced an appeal at the court of First Instance of the Hague. In 2023, the court suspended a number of transfers, since access to the reception network for single male Dublin returnees could not be guaranteed by the Belgian authorities.[72] When asked by the Dutch Court what the average waiting time on the waiting list is, the Immigration Office responded that it could not give an indication of how long an applicant has to wait before receiving a place in the reception network.[73] In this same questionnaire, the Belgian authorities indicated that they are unable to respect domestic judgements within the legal time limits.[74] On 13 March 2024, the Dutch Council of State overruled this decision. The Council ruled that the court of first instance wrongly considered that the State Secretary did not provide adequate reasons why he may still rely on the principle of interstate trust for Belgium.[75] However, following new information regarding the asylum and accommodation situation in Belgium, several Dutch courts have again cancelled transfer decisions to Belgium based on the Dublin-regulation.[76] The Dutch Council of State handled another onward appeal in a Belgian Dublin case on 10 December 2024, for which there has not been a judgment yet.

In Denmark, the Refugee Appeals board ruled in a similar manner for three Dublin returnees: ‘In February 2023, the Belgian authorities informed the Danish Immigration Service that they cannot guarantee that accommodation can be offered shortly after arrival as the reception system was under great pressure. As a result, the Refugee Appeals Board overturned the Immigration Service’s decisions on the Dublin transfer’.[77]

[1] Immigration Office, ‘Procedure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, December 2024 available in French here.

[2] Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, December 2024 available here and information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2024.

[3] “Most of the published statistics refer to individuals. Therefore, if the same application involves more than one person from the same family, each family member is counted individually. Thus, the number of requests, the number of decisions and the number of transfers means the number of persons affected by these requests, these decisions and these transfers. In addition, the same person may be counted more than once during the same reference period if multiple requests or decisions were sent or received for that person”, Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, 28-29.

[4] Art. 16 Dublin III Regulation.

[5] Art. 17 Dublin III Regulation.

[6] Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, December 2024, available in French here and information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2024.

[7] Art. 17(1) Dublin III Regulation.

[8] Art. 29(2) Dublin III Regulation.

[9] Information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2024.

[10] Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, December 2024 available in French here and Dutch here.

[11] See, for example, the reports in French available here.

[12] Information provided by the Immigration Office, April 2023.

[13] Information provided by the Immigration Office, April 2023.

[14] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, Contribution externe dans le rapport annuel de Myria 2018 : ‘Le droit à la vie privée et familiale dans le cadre du règlement de Dublin. Comment faire correspondre la pratique à la réalité des relations familiales?’, available in French at https://www.myria.be/files/MIGRA2018_FR_Contribution-Baeyens.pdf  and Petra Baeyens and Eva Declerck, ‘Welk recht op een gezins- en familieleven binnen het Dublin-systeem’, Tijdschrift Vreemdelingenrecht, 2017/4, 389-400 ; CALL, Decision 297920, 2 November 2023 ; CALL, Decision No 297849, 28 November 2023.

[15] Based on exchanges of Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, the NGO responsible for writing this AIDA-report, with lawyers and practitioners, January 2025.

[16] CALL, Decision No 234423, 25 March 2020; CALL, Decision No 230767, 22 December 2019

[17] Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, december 2024 available in French here and Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, december 2022 available in French here.

[18] CJEU, Case C-578/16, C. K. and Others, Judgment of 16 February 2017.

[19] See for example CALL, Decision No 215 169, 15 January 2019; CALL, Decision No. 223 809, 9 July 2019.

[20] CALL, Decision no 245144, 30 November 2020

[21] CALL, Decision No 206588, 5 July 2018.

[22] Article 51/3 Aliens Act.

[23] Article 57/6/1(i) Aliens Act.

[24] Myria, Contact meeting, 16 January 2019, available in French here, para 290.

[25] CJEU, Case C-670/16 Mengesteab, Judgment of 26 July 2017.

[26] Myria, Contact meeting, 22 November 2017, para 10.

[27] Article 71/3 Royal Decree 1981.

[28] See e.g. CALL, Decision No 144544, 29 April 2015; No 155882, 30 October 2015; No 176192, 12 October 2016; CALL, Decision No 201167, 15 March 2018; for further examples of case law, we refer to the previous versions of the AIDA report.

[29] CALL, Decision No 278 106, 29 September 2022; CALL, Decision No 278 108, 29 September 2022; CALL, Decision No 279 783, 7 November 2022; CALL, Decision No 280 105, 14 November 2022; CALL, Decision No 280 106, 14 November 2022; CALL, Decision No 281 086, 29 November 2022; CALL, Decision No 281 327, 5 December 2022; CALL, Decision No 281 547, 7 December 2022; CALL, Decision No 281 730, 13 December 2022.

[30] CALL, Decision No 281 547, 7 December 2022.

[31] See e.g. CALL, Decision No 297.920, 29 November 2023; CALL, Decision No 297.919, 29 November 2023 and CALL, Decision no 297.83, 20 November 2022.

[32] This desk is situated in the main building of the Immigration Office at Boulevard Pachec 44, 1000 Bruxelles.

[33] Article 74/22 §1 4° Alien Act.

[34] Article 4 §1, 2° Reception Act.

[35] CALL, Decision No 203684; CALL, Decision No 203685, 8 May 2018 and Council of State, Decision No 245 799, 17 October 2019.

[36] EDAL, CJEU, Jawo, Judgment in case C-163/17, 19 March 2019, available here.

[37] For an extended overview of the interpretation of the concept of ‘absconding’ by the Immigration Office and the CALL before the introduction of a definition of this concept in the Aliens Act by the Law of 12 May 2024 on a proactive return policy, see the previous update of AIDA Belgium 2023, available here.

[38] See e.g. CALL, Decision No 296473, 30 October 2023.

[39] See e.g. CALL, Decision No 278 146, 29 September 2022; CALL, Decision No 281 100, 29 November 2022; CALL, Decision No 282 524, 23 December 2022; CALL, Decision No 282 525, 23 December 2022; CALL, Decision No 282 966, 10 January 2023.

[40] Law of 12 May 2024 on a proactive return policy, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[41] MOVE, ‘Avis de move sur le project de loi relatif à la politique de retour proactive’, 6 November 2023, available in French at https://movecoalition.be/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Loi-de-retour-Note-Technique-Nov-23-1.pdf, p. 11-12.

[42] Information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2025.

[43] Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, december 2024 available in French here.

[44] Article 10 Royal Decree on Immigration Office Procedure.

[45] Article 18 Royal Decree on Immigration Office Procedure.

[46] Article 10 Royal Decree on Immigration Office Procedure.

[47] CJEU, case C-194/19, H. A. v. Belgium, 15 April 2021, available here.

[48] Council of State, Judgement No 252.462, 7 December 2021.

[49] Article 39/2(2) Aliens Act.

[50] See e.g. CALL, Decision No 116 471, 3 January 2014 (suspension, Bulgaria) available in Dutch here; Decision No 117 992, 30 January 2014 (annulment, Malta), available in Dutch here.

[51] See e.g. CALL, Decision No 201 167, 15 March 2018; CALL, Decision No 203 865, 17 May 2018; CALL, Decision No 203 860, 17 May 2018; CALL, Decision No 207 355, 30 July 2018; CALL, Decision No 215 169, 15 January 2019; CALL, Decision No. 217 932, 6 March 2019; CALL, Decision No. 224 726, 8 August 2019.

[52] Article 14(2) Acts on the Council of State.

[53] Ministerial Decree establishing the nomenclature of points for services provided by lawyers in charge of partially or totally free second-line legal assistance, 26 July 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[54] Information provided by the Brussels Bar Assocation.

[55] Information based on the ‘Legal Helpdesk’ project of Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen. The project, a collaboration between the NGO Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and the Brussels Bar Association, provides free first line legal assistance to destitute applicants and ensures the assignment of a second-line lawyer. In total, more than 10,000 applicants were given free legal assistance between April 2022 and April 2025 in the context of this project.

[56] Based on observations by Startpunt, a team of the NGO Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen that is present every day at Pacheco, the office of the Immigration Office where applicants come for their Dublin-interview, to inform these persons about the course of this interview and their rights.

[57] Myria, Contact meeting, 21 December 2016, available in French and Dutch here.

[58] Myria, Contact meeting, 29 January 2025, available in French and Dutch here, 10.

[59] Information provided by the Immigration Office, August 2024.

[60] Myria, Contact meeting, 29 January 2025, available in French and Dutch here, 10.

[61] Ibidem.

[62] Information provided by the Immigration Office through their right of reply, May 2025.

[63] Myria, Contact Meeting, 21 June 2023, available in French and Dutch here, 9.

[64] Ibidem, p. 10.

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

[66] See e.g. CALL, Decision No 272 323, 5 May 2022; CALL, Decision No 278 667, 12 October 2022; CALL, Decision No 278 668, 12 October 2022.

[67] Myria, Contact Meeting, 20 September 2023, p. 14, available in French and Dutch here.

[68] CALL, Decision No 281 327, 5 December 2022 and Decision No 281 547, 7 December 2022.

[69] Myria, Contact Meeting, 26 April 2023, p. 10, available in French and Dutch here.

[70] The asylum instances can stop the assessment of an asylum application in case an applicant has not responded to a request for further information or if they did not show up for the interview; see article 57/6/5 Aliens Act.

[71] Myria, Contact meeting, 21 June 2016, available here, para 9.

[72] Knack, ‘Nederlandse rechters vrezen onmenselijke behandeling voor asielzoekers in België’, 13 October 2023, available in Dutch here; De Tijd, ‘Nederlandse rechter legt vinger op de wonde in Belgische asielcrisis’, 21 February 2023, available in Dutch here; Rechtbank Den Haag, case n° ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:6096, 11 April 2025, available in Dutch here; De Morgen, ‘Fear for systemic issues in Belgian reception crisis: Dutch judges refuse to send asylum seekers back to Belgium’, 16 April 2025, available in Dutch here.

[73] Rechtbank Den Haag, ‘ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:15458’, 12 October 2023, available in Dutch here.

[74] ‘Currently, however, the Belgian authorities are not in a position to immediately act on a court ruling that obliges to grant a shelter’ (author’s translation).

[75] Dutch Council of State, ‘202304212/1/VR’, 13 March 2024, available in Dutch here.

[76] Rechtbank Den Haag, case n° ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:6096, 11 April 2025, available in Dutch here; De Morgen, ‘Fear for systemic issues in Belgian reception crisis: Dutch judges refuse to send asylum seekers back to Belgium’, 16 April 2025, available in Dutch here.

[77] EUAA, ‘Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law: Issue no 2’, June 2023, p. 14.