Author
Definition of ‘subsequent application’
Traditionally, an application was considered as a ‘subsequent application’ when it was made after one or more previous application(s) made in Belgium that resulted in a final negative decision. A new law of 14 July 2025 has broadened the scope of the definition of ‘subsequent application’. As of 2 August 2025, applications made by applicants having received a final negative or positive decision on a previous application for international protection in another EU member state are also to be considered as ‘subsequent applications’.[1] This law change has important consequences for the applicants involved, such as the possibility to limit their reception rights and ban their access to the labour market during the admissibility phase of the procedure (see below). In practice, the law changes indeed led to a quasi-systematic refusal of reception to persons, including to families with children and other vulnerable applicants, applying in Belgium after having previously received a positive decision in another EU member state (“M-status applicants”[2]) (see Right to reception: subsequent applications).
On 26 February 2026, the Constitutional Court has temporarily suspended the new stipulations and has referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the question whether an application by an applicant with international protection in another EU member state can be treated as a “subsequent application”.[3] Nevertheless, the Minister of Asylum and Migration has announced that the practice of treating applications by persons having received a final (positive or negative) decision in another member state, including the refusal of reception, will be continued. As for persons having received a previous final negative decision in another member state, this continued practice is based on the CJUE Khan Yunis ruling.[4] As for persons having received a previous final positive decision in another EU member state (“M-status applicants”), the Minister states that regardless the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Aliens Act provides for another legal basis to continue treating these as “subsequent applications” and refusing reception to the applicants involved.[5] However, according to several NGO’s, the legal basis the Minister refers to is exactly the one that had been questioned by the Constitutional Court and referred to the Court of Justice for further clarification. The organisations lodged an appeal at the Council of State requesting for the suspension in extreme urgency of the instruction of the Minister to continue this practice regarding M-status applicants. On 27 March 2026, the Council of State indeed suspended the Minister’s instruction.[6] After this suspension and increasing political pressure, the Minister withdrew her instruction.[7] However, she stated that the Council of State supposedly still allows Fedasil to continue to refuse reception conditions to M-status applicants on an individual basis. The Minister established new ‘working arrangements’ with her departments, which are intended to comply with the ruling.[8] At the time of writing it is unclear what legal basis Fedasil could use to refuse reception conditions, given the fact that the Constitutional Court found it to be uncertain if M-status applicants can be refused reception conditions in the first place. Because of these legal uncertainties, and the impact of this policy on Fedasil working conditions, 500 Fedasil employees signed and published an open letter denouncing Van Bossuyt’s policy. The signatories “request” the Minister “to respect the court rulings and to provide shelter to those who are still being denied their rights today”.[9]
Procedure
The Immigration Office is competent for registering subsequent applications, i.e., the asylum applicant’s declaration on new elements and the reasons why they could not invoke them earlier and transmit the claim ‘without delay’ to the CGRS.[10] Applicants receive an “annexe 26quinquies” as proof of the registration of their subsequent application.
It is not always possible for the Immigration Office to deduct from the databases those applicants who have previously received a final negative decision in another EU-member state. When this cannot be determined on the moment of the registration, the applicant receives an annexe 26 and the case is treated according to the rules applicable to a general asylum procedure. It is not possible to change the procedure once it is later established that the applicant had previously received a final negative decision in another EU member state.[11]
After the application is transmitted, the CGRS first decides on the Admissibility of the claim by determining whether there are new elements which significantly add to the likelihood of the applicant qualifying for international protection. If the previous application was terminated based on implicit withdrawal, the claim is deemed admissible.[12]
The CGRS should take this decision within 10 working days after receiving the application from the Immigration Office. If the person is in detention, this decision should be taken within 2 working days.[13] The decision is generally taken based on of the administrative file, without an interview.[14]
If the CGRS declares the application admissible, this has important consequences for the applicant involved, such as that they obtain access to the labour market and that their right to reception conditions an no longer be limited. After the admissibility decision, the CGRS can examine the merits under the Accelerated Procedure. The final decision should in that case be made within 15 working days.[15] Generally, this delay is not respected. The CGRS indicates that it cannot decide within this strict legal deadline but stresses that treating subsequent applications is a priority.[16] In March 2026, the average processing time of a subsequent application after its transmission to the CGRS was 28 days.[17]
If the subsequent application is dismissed as inadmissible, the CGRS should determine whether the applicant’s removal would lead to direct or indirect refoulement.[18]
An appeal to the CALL against an inadmissibility decision should be made within 10 days, or 5 days when the applicant is in detention.[19] The appeal has an automatic suspensive effect, except where:[20]
- The CGRS deems that there is no risk of direct or indirect refoulement; and
- The application is either (i) a second application within one year from the final decision on the previous application and made from detention or (ii) a third or further application.
Legal assistance is arranged in the same way as concerning first asylum applications. However, in practice, some asylum applicants or lawyers have experienced difficulties obtaining legal aid assignments because these applicants are generally not accommodated in a reception centre, which makes the proof of their lack of income more burdensome (see Legal assistance).
An applicant does not have a right to remain on the territory even before the CGRS decides on admissibility in cases where:[21]
- The application is a third application; and
- The applicant remains without interruption in detention since their second application; and
- The CGRS has decided in the previous procedure concerning the second application that removal would not amount to direct or indirect refoulement.
In principle, all applicants for international protection, including subsequent applicants, have the right to access reception conditions during the examination of their case. However, the Reception Act allows the possibility to refuse reception to subsequent applicants until their asylum application is deemed admissible by the CGRS. Although the Reception Act explicitly states that decisions which limit or withdraw the right to reception should be in line with the principle of proportionality, individually motivated and based on the particular situation of the person concerned, Fedasil almost systematically refuses to assign a reception place to subsequent applicants until their asylum application is declared admissible by the CGRS (see Right to reception: subsequent applications).
A total of 6,865 applicants lodged subsequent applications in 2025. In 3,042 cases, a subsequent application was declared inadmissible.
|
Subsequent applicants by 5 main countries of origin: 2025 |
|
| Country | Number |
| Afghanistan | 1,549 |
| Palestine | 581 |
| Moldova | 415 |
| Congo (DRC) | 301 |
| Turkey |
266 |
Source: CGRS, Asylum Statistics December 2025, p. 6, available in English here.
[1] Article 50 §5 Aliens Act, introduced by article 2 of the Act of 14 July 2025 modifying the Act of 15 December 1980 with regard to the processing of a subsequent application for international protection, available in Dutch and French here.
[2] In this context, applicants with a previous final positive decision in another EU member state are consistently referred to as “M-status applicants”, referring to the code “M” attributed to these applicants in the Eurodac database.
[3] Constitutional Court, judgment n° 23/2026 of 26 February 2026, available in Dutch here and in French here; Court of Justice Cause list numbers 8548.
[4] Court of Justice of the EU, C-123/23 en C-202/23, (Khan Yunis en Baabda), 19 December 2024, available here.
[5] Minister for Asylum and Migration Anneleen Van Bossuyt, Van Bossuyt continues reception stop for those who already have protection in the EU, 4 March 2026, available in Dutch here.
[6] Council of State, Belga, Council of State also suspends minister Van Bossuyt’s controversial migration regulation, 27 March 2026, available in English here.
[7] Anneleen Van Bossuyt, Federal Chamber of Representatives CRIV 56 PLEN 106, 2 April 2026, p. 54, available in French and Dutch here.
[8] VRT NWS, Belgium to continue to deny board and lodging to asylum seekers with protection elsewhere in the EU, if justified, 2 April 2026, available in English here.
[9] Belga News Agency, ‘Staff of federal asylum agency denounce Migration minister’s policy’, 3 April 2026, available in English here.
[10] Article 51/8 Aliens Act.
[11] Information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2026.
[12] Art. 57/6/2 Aliens Act; art. 57/6/5 §1 Aliens Act.
[13] Article 57/6, §3 (4)-(5) Aliens Act.
[14] CGRS, Subsequent applications, available in English here.
[15] Article 57/6/1 §1 (2) Aliens Act.
[16] Myria, Contact meeting 15 June 2022, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3ZHDEVL.
[17] Information provided by the CGRS, March 2026.
[18] Article 57/6/2(2) Aliens Act. See for an application: CALL, Specific questions concerning Afghanistan, 20 October 2022, available in Dutch and French here.
[19] Article 39/57 Aliens Act.
[20] Article 39/70 Aliens Act.
[21] Article 57/6/2(3) Aliens Act.