Overview of the main changes since the previous report update

Author

Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen Visit Website

The report was previously updated in May 2024.

Political context – New federal government and coalition agreement 2025

After nearly eight months of negotiations, a new federal government led by the Flemish nationalist New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) party was formed on 31 January 2025. The five party coalition’s government agreement includes proposals for a significant reform of the asylum system.[1] Incoming Minister of Asylum, Migration and Social Integration Anneleen Van Bossuyt (N-VA) announced that she wanted to move towards ‘more controlled migration’.[2] In order to achieve this objective, the government has proposed what Prime Minister Bart de Wever (N-VA) has described as Belgium’s ‘strictest migration policy yet’. It includes announced measures such as modernising and stepping up the deterrence campaigns targeting asylum seekers[3] and accessing their telephones for identification and verification. Regarding reception, it foresees that people seeking asylum will only be housed in collective centres, putting an end to emergency accommodation and small-scale local reception initiatives. In addition, the government plans to prioritise subsidiary protection over refugee status, temporarily halt resettlement,[4] optimise the execution of return decisions, limit family reunifications, make access to social welfare for beneficiaries of subsidiary and temporary protection subject to a waiting period of 5 years, make the decision-making process in asylum procedures subject to political influence and change the system of appointment of judges in migration matters. Several civil society organisations and other actors, including three former Commissioner-Generals for Asylum applicants and Stateless persons (CGRS), the president of the Council for Alien Law litigation (CALL) and academics, have voiced concerns about the envisaged measures and their impact on fundamental rights of applicants and beneficiaries of international protection.[5]

Asylum procedure

• Key asylum statistics: In 2024, a total of 39,615 persons applied for international protection in Belgium, an average of 3,301 applications per month – an increase of 11.6% compared to 2023. 38,463 applications were registered on the Belgian territory (at the registration centre in Brussels), 753 at the border and 399 in detention facilities. Out of the total number, 6,469 were subsequent applications. 2,345 applications were presented by applicants who declared to be unaccompanied minors on the moment of application (see Age assessment of unaccompanied children).

Throughout 2024, the CGRS granted refugee status to 15,668 persons and subsidiary protection status to 601 persons, making for a protection rate of 47.2% according to CGRS calculations. If only in-merit decisions are considered,[6] the protection rate was 62%. Refugee status was mostly granted to Palestinians (3,281), Syrians (2,774), Eritreans (2,155), Afghans (1,944) and Burundians (1,326). Subsidiary protection status was mostly granted to Syrians (169) and Eritreans (30). A total of 14,711 persons were refused international protection. This includes decisions refusing refugee status and subsidiary protection status (9,093), decisions declaring an application manifestly unfounded (896), decisions of inadmissibility of an application (e.g. with regards to subsequent applications or applications of beneficiaries of international protection in another EU Member State) (4,561) , decisions of exclusion of international protection (85) and decisions by which a protection status was ended or revoked (76) (see Statistics).

In the context of the Dublin procedure, a total of 12,501 take charge and take back-requests were sent to other states, 9,318 of which were accepted. For context, several requests can be sent to different Member States regarding the same person. A total of 954 persons were effectively transferred from Belgium to other Member States in 2024. There were 3,939 incoming take charge and take back requests, of which the Belgian authorities accepted 2,514. 566 persons were transferred to Belgium in the Dublin procedure[7] (see Dublin).

• Continued increase of backlog with asylum instances: Overall, the caseload for asylum authorities has further increased over the last year. The number of pending applications in front of the Immigration Office increased to 12,888 in December 2024, compared to 8,229 in December 2023.[8] The CGRS reported 26,119 pending applications in December 2024 compared to 26,525 pending applications in December 2023.[9] Overall, the combined number of pending applications increased from 34,754 in December 2023 to 39,507 in December 2024. In 2024 the CGRS applied several measures to increase the efficiency of its decision-making. Therefore, despite the significant increase in the number of applications in 2024 their backlog has remained relatively stable. Currently, the biggest increase of the backlog is situated at the Immigration Office. Because they transfer the file to the CGRS after Belgium has declared itself responsible for the treatment of the application, the backlog at the CGRS level is expected to increase. The CGRS indicated that it requires additional staff to clear the backlog[10] (see Regular procedure – General).

On the level of the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL), for the second year in a row, the overall backlog of pending appeals nearly doubled from 4,700 in December 2023 to 8,232 in December 2024.[11] The average processing time of appeals concerning decisions on applications for international protection (where the CALL has ‘full judicial review’ competence) was 145.3 days calendar days or around 5 months for those appeals introduced in 2024 and for which a decision was taken in 2024. When adding appeals introduced before 1 January 2024 for which a decision was taken in 2024, and thus taking into account the backlog of pending cases, the average processing time was 257.8 days. (see Regular procedure – Appeal)

• New law on a ‘proactive return policy’: On 10 May 2024 a new law introducing a ‘proactive return policy’ was adopted by the Belgian Parliament and is in effect since 20 July 2024.[12] Among other things, the bill enshrines in the Aliens Act, 1) the duty to cooperate in the organisation of transfer, expulsion, return or removal, including an extensive list of situations in which the person is presumed to be ‘absconding’ (see Transfers and the return procedure) 2) the obligation of cooperating with medical examinations, with the possibility of imposing medical examinations under constraint in certain circumstances; 3) individual follow up (‘case-management’ or ICAM) of foreigners who have been ordered to leave the territory (see Voluntary return procedure); 4) an expansion of the list of competent escorts (see Forced return procedure); 5) a listing of new ‘preventive measures’ and ‘less coercive measures’ that can be taken as alternatives to detention (see Alternatives to detention) and 6) the prohibition of detention of families with minor children in closed centres (see Detention of vulnerable applicants). Several civil society organisations from both the sectors of migrants’ and medical rights have voiced their concerns and have introduced an appeal at the Constitutional Court, denouncing a violation of constitutional rights and European and international law by several Articles of the new law and requesting their annulment.[13] At the time of writing (March 2025), the appeal is pending.
• Suspension of Belgian resettlement program: In March 2025, the new Minister of Asylum and Migration has announced to suspend the Belgian resettlement program. The shortage of reception places and high backlog of cases at the asylum institutions are indicated as main reasons for this measure[14] (see Legal access to the territory).
• New location of the registration centre for asylum applications: On 24 October 2024, the Registration Centre for international protection moved from Pachecolaan 44 to Belliardstraat 68 in Brussels.[15] During the first weeks after the move, the overall security situation for applicants waiting to enter the registration centre raised concerns, the centre being situated right next to a four-lane motorway and a cycling lane intensively used by commuters. Combined with the high number of persons wanting to make an application in October and November, this led to some tension.[16] In January 2025 the Immigration Office started with a test project, opening the doors earlier (from 07:00 instead of 8:30, until 08:45).[17] The new system is still applied at the time of writing (March 2025) (see Registration of the asylum application).
• Limited capacity for registration of asylum applications: Limited capacity at the registration centre remained an issue throughout 2024. The available registration capacity on a given day depends on the profile and number of persons wanting to make an application, the available interpretation services and the available staff.[18] If the maximum capacity of the day has been reached, the remaining applicants are given a non-individualised ‘certificate of presentation’ with an invitation to return on a later day.[19] Although these are mostly given to single men, families and vulnerable persons might also receive such an invitation, but the Immigration Office verifies whether they have an option for accommodation until the day of the appointment (this mostly concerning people who already have a right of residence in Belgium, such as people with family reunification permits). The Immigration Office has up to a maximum of ten working days to register an application after it was made. Due to a low registration capacity in Fall and Winter of 2024, the Immigration Office regularly gave ‘certificates of presentation’ with an invitation to return two to three weeks later, in violation of the legally prescribed registration deadline. The ‘certificate of presentation’ does not contain the name of the applicant, so that it does not serve as proof that they have applied for international protection. This significantly impacts the effectiveness of the rights to which they should be entitled as asylum seekers, such as their right to reception: the certificate of presentation is not recognised by Fedasil to get access to a reception place or, in the context of the reception crisis, to register on the waiting list. In 2025, the registration services received additional staff and the number of applicants slightly decreased. As a result, applicants who receive a ‘certificate of presentation’ are invited to return within maximum 10 days.[20] (see Registration of the asylum application)
• CGRS Recommendations on the use of medical elements: In the context of a project ‘Vulnerability and asylum: applicants for international protection’ that the CGRS started in 2023, the CGRS published recommendations on the use of medical elements in the asylum procedure in July 2024. [21] The recommendations enumerate the situations in which elements relating to the medical situation of the applicant can be relevant, and contains recommendations related to the form and content of the medical reports. The CGRS has organised several online information sessions for professionals in the (mental) heath care sector and other stakeholders to inform about these recommendations and gather input for further finetuning (see Use of medical reports).
• CALL launches child-friendly court room and adapted convocation letters: In 2024, the CALL started a pilot project with a court room specifically designed for unaccompanied minors, with adapted furnishings and which offers more privacy. The lawyer of the minor and the representative of the CGRS plead while being seated. The pilot is running from December 2024 until May 2025, after which it will be evaluated. Also, as of December 2024, unaccompanied minors receive an adapted convocation for the court hearing at the CALL. The language in the letter is adapted to minors, explains what happens on the day of the hearing and informs the minor that apart from their lawyer and guardian they can bring a person of trust[22] (see Adequate support during the 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 (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Northern-Macedonia, Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro, India and Moldova) and certain applicants from countries with a low recognition rate (in 2024: Georgia and DRC). Fast-tracked cases are treated with priority by the Immigration Office and the CGRS: within 50 working days or even 15 days for safe countries of origin. In 2024 (until December), the CGRS treated 650 in the context of a fast-track-procedure. An evaluation of this new procedure has yet to take place[23] (see Prioritised examination and fast-track processing).
• Update list safe countries of origin: A new Royal Decree of 27 May 2024 lists the following countries as safe countries of origin: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of North-Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, India and Moldova.[24] These are the same countries as those listed in the previous Royal Decree, adding Moldova (see Safe Country of Origin).
• Interviews through videoconference: In 2022, civil society actors filed an appeal at the Council of State regarding two Royal Decrees regulating interviews by the Immigration Office and the CGRS by videoconference. On 18 March 2025, the Council of State annulled the articles of the Royal Decrees that allow for the exclusion of guardians and lawyers from the interview in certain situations.[25] The Council of State also referred a preliminary question to the Constitutional Court, requesting whether the Aliens Act could provide for this matter, that concerns the transmission of personal data, to be arranged by Royal Decree or whether it needed to be regulated by law instead[26] (see Personal interview).
• Suspension and resumption of processing of files of specific nationalities by the CGRS: Throughout 2024, the CGRS has on several occasions suspended the processing of cases or decision-making for applicants originating from certain countries due to instability in the country and/or the need for research on the country of origin information, and has resumed processing or decision-making regarding other countries (see Differential treatment of specific nationalities):
  • Resumption of processing of Russian files: On 1 February 2024, the CGRS resumed the processing of applications filed by Russian nationals, which were temporarily blocked due to the war in Ukraine.[27] Conscientious objectors might qualify for international protection, a case-by-case examination is deemed necessary.[28]
  • Resumption of processing of Sudanese files: After a suspension of the processing of Sudanese files and forced transfers to Sudan since mid-2023,[29] decision-making in Sudanese cases of was resumed for applicants from certain regions on 26 February 2024 and has resumed for all Sudanese applicants at the time of writing (March 2025). The CGRS provides subsidiary protection for applicants from Khartoum, Kordofan, Orduhan, Darfour, Sennar en Al Jazera. The overall recognition rate increased from 37% in 2023 to 87% in 2024.[30]
  • Temporary suspension of certain decisions regarding Lebanese files: Since October 2024 the CGRS temporarily suspended the notification of decisions granting or rejecting subsidiary protection status to Lebanese applicants, due to the unstable situation in Lebanon.[31]
  • Temporary suspension of processing of Syrian files: Since December 2024, the CGRS temporarily suspended the processing of files of Syrian applicants, until it will have gathered sufficient objective information to accurately assess the security situation in Syria and the risk of persecution.[32]
• Long processing times for Palestinian files: After a temporary suspension of the processing of applications from applicants from Gaza and the West-Bank in October 2023, the CGRS resumed all decision-making for Palestinians from Gaza and West Bank in December 2023, indicating that there is a clear need for protection for applicants from Gaza but applications would continue to be examined on a case-by-case basis.[33] However, the CGRS had difficulties delivering a decision within the legal time limit of 6 months, due to both an increase of Palestinian applications (2,963 first time applications in 2023 compared to 5,332 in 2024[34]) and due to the need to permanently reassess the security situation. Upon appeal filed by several NGOs, the Brussels Court of First Instance requested that the CGRS communicate about any delays to Palestinian applicants and stated that although the legal deadlines are not binding, the CGRS should take a decision within a reasonable [35] Therefore, the CGRS communicated in May 2021 that it would apply the legal possibility to make decisions within a prolonged time limit of 21 months in cases where the situation in the country of origin is uncertain.[36] It sent a letter to all Palestinian applicants informing them of the long processing times (see Differential treatment of specific nationalities).
• Belgian age assessment procedure in violation of Article 8 ECtHR: On 6 March 2025, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8 ECHR. The Court held that the applicant had not been given the opportunity to consult with a guardian or legal representative before undergoing the medical examinations, and that she had been insufficiently informed about the tests and the necessity of her explicit and informed consent. As such, the age assessment procedure in Belgium lacks adequate procedural safeguards. Moreover, the authorities had failed to assess whether alternative, less intrusive methods could have been used which could have allowed for a preliminary assessment of her age based on other available evidence.[37] The impact of this judgment on the Belgian practice related to age assessment remains to be seen (see Age assessment of unaccompanied children).
• Sufficient guardians for unaccompanied minors: Where in previous years, the Guardianship Serivce was confronted with a lack of guardians for unaccompanied minors, it reported in November 2024 that for the first time in three years, there was no longer a waiting list for the appointment of a guardian.[38] This is due to both a decrease of the number of non-accompanied minors arriving in Belgium and successful campaigns by the Guardianship Service to try and find more guardians. As a result, the Guardianship Service can assign a guardian within the legal timeframe of eight weeks (see Legal representation of unaccompanied children).

Reception conditions

• Continued reception crisis: Since October 2021, the Belgian reception agency (Fedasil) is unable to provide a reception place to all applicants for international protection (see Criteria and restrictions to access reception). Priority is given to those applicants considered vulnerable (families, children, single women, ). Unless they present an exceptional (medical) vulnerability, single male applicants are almost systematically not considered as vulnerable and are thus denied access to a reception place. In 2024, 10,191 single male applicants were denied their right to reception.[39] They have to register on a waiting list of Fedasil on which, at the end of 2024, around 3,000 isolated men were registered.[40] The average waiting time on the waiting list amounted to 112 days in 2024.[41] During the waiting period, the applicants are left to fend for themselves, many living in extremely precarious conditions which are detrimental to their health (see Consequences on the applicants’ livelihoods). The past two years, multiple legal procedures have been initiated in order to force the Belgian government to respect the international and national obligation to provide reception to people asking for international protection (see Legal proceedings). Despite more than 10,407 convictions of Fedasil by Labour Courts for violation of the right to reception, more than 2,284 interim measures by the European Court of Human rights to the Belgian state and multiple condemnations of both Fedasil and the Belgian State by several Belgian Courts in collective procedures initiated by NGOs, these legal proceedings have not led the Belgian government to implement a structural solution to the reception crisis. The reception crisis, as well as the lack of respect for court decisions and thus the rule of law, has been largely criticised on both the national and the international level, including in a joint memorandum by Belgians three highest courts expressing their concern about the state of the rule of law in Belgium[42], by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in its review of the implementation of the ECtHR Camara v. Belgium judgment[43] and by Amnesty International in its report ‘Belgium: Unhoused and unheard – How Belgium’s persistent failure to provide reception violates asylum seekers’ rights’, published in April 2025[44] (see [Inter]national reaction).
• Emergency accommodation for families: Due to a lack of reception places, Fedasil has opened different types of emergency places to ensure reception for families. In that context, 8 emergency shelters (‘NOCs’) with a total of 833 places were opened in hotels in Brussels in 2024. 480 of those places were closed again throughout the year. In January 2025, Fedasil has reopened 120 of those places because of acute shortage of places. In the winter of ’24-’25, Fedasil has also opened 260 temporary places for families in youth centers to cover the winter months; these will close again between February and April 2025. 238 more temporary winter places were opened to cover the winter months; these will also close by April 2025. The average stay of families in these centres was 55 days in the NOCss and 67 days in the other emergency locations.[45] (see Types of accommodation) The quality of the reception offered in the NOCs is below standards, as it appears from complaints by residents received by the author of this report and as is confirmed by the Director-General of Fedasil.[46] An evaluation of this new type of reception is ongoing but is not finished at the time of writing (March 2025)[47] (see Conditions in reception facilities).
• Exclusion of beneficiaries of international protection in other EU countries from reception: In November 2024, the Secretary of State announced that she wanted to tackle the issue of the high amount of asylum applications in Belgium by persons who have already been granted international protection in another Member State.[48] In practice, this mostly concerns Syrian and Palestinian applicants who have already been granted international protection in Bulgaria and Greece. The Secretary of State issued an instruction according to which such applications should be considered as a ‘subsequent applications’, even if it is their first application in Belgium, which would allow for a limitation of the reception conditions of these applicants. To support this definition of subsequent application, the Secretary of State declared that she had received a written approval by the European Commission to frontload certain parts of the Reception Directive 2024/1346. Reference was also made to the definition of ‘subsequent application’ adopted by the CJEU in the judgement in joined cases C-123/23 and C-202/23 Khan Yunis and Baabda.[49] Civil society organisations appealed this instruction at the Council of State, which, on 27 December 2024, suspended the instruction on the grounds that the legally prescribed steps for issuing such a reglementary act – including submitting the act for prior advise to the Council of State – hadn’t been followed.[50] In reaction to this judgement, the Secretary of State stated that she would not accept this decision and repeated her wish to use all legal means possible to ‘tackle the phenomenon of secondary migration by applicants with an M-status’.[51] On 13 March 2025, the Brussels Labour Court issued a decision on an individual appeal introduced by an applicant who had been subject to a decision restricting his right to material assistance in the context of this measure. The Labour Court decided that current Belgian legislation does not allow for the concept of ‘subsequent application’ to be applied to applications of beneficiaries in other Member States who apply for the first time in Belgium. No legal provisions in Belgian law justify the limitation of the right to material assistance in the context of such applications.[52] At the time of writing (March 2025), it remains unclear whether this judgment will halt altogether the practice of Fedasil to limit the right to material assistance of this category of applicants (see Right to reception: Applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State).
• End of the right to reception after final negative decision instead of after return decision: Changes to the Reception Act made by the law of 14 March 2024 changed, among other things, the moment on which the right to material reception ends. [53] Before the change, applicants with a right to reception who received a final negative decision had a right to reception until they received a return decision and the term to leave the territory indicated on this order, had expired. Since the order to leave the territory is not given at the same time as the final negative decision, this could lead to a prolonged right to reception for applicants with a final negative decision. The right to reception now ends 30 days after a person receives the final negative decision to their asylum application (see End of the right to reception).
• Financial contribution to reception for professionally active applicants: In July 2024, the legislation regarding the consequences of exercising a professional activity while staying in the reception network has been thoroughly revised. The modified Reception Act[54] and a new Royal Decree nicknamed “KB Cumul”[55] introduced a new contribution scheme and broadened Fedasil’s competences to verify the income of its residents – for example by requestion personal data from their residents to social security institutions[56] – and to claim the contribution directly from them. Since 1 July 2024, Fedasil received 9,226 declarations of professional income and € 2,8 million was contributed[57] (see Reduction or withdrawal of reception due to a professional income).
• Scaling back of local small-scale reception: On 17 March 2025, the new Minister for Asylum and Migration announced that she would stop financing LRI’s.[58] This measure aligns with the intention voiced in the new federal government agreement to gradually decrease the number of local reception places and focus on collective reception of asylum applicants. Several actors have reacted to this measure with criticism, pointing out the ongoing reception crisis the advantages of small-scale local reception for the well-being of residents (see Collective or individual?).
• Relevant case law on the reception crisis
  • Court of Appeal Brussels, 23 January 2024:[59] NGOs have tried to demand payment of the penalty fees due by Fedasil following its numerous condemnations in the context of the reception crisis,[60] attempting to pressure the agency to respect the court decision. In January 2024, the Court of Appeal of Brussels authorised the seizure of certain specific bank accounts of Fedasil, under specific conditions outlined by the Court. The NGOs announced that the amounts that would be seized following this authorisation would be entirely used for the direct support of victims of the reception crisis.[61] Fedasil appealed this decision, but the Court of Appeal of Brussels confirmed the decision in June 2024 (see below). After this, the NGOs proceeded with the seizure of a first bank account of Fedasil, which has appealed this seizure. This appeal procedure is still pending, and judgement is expected in Spring of 2025. Until a decision has been taken in this last procedure, the amounts on the seized bank accounts remain frozen.
  • Court of Appeal Brussels, 11 June 2024:[62] In June 2024, the Court of Appeal of Brussels confirmed its previous judgment allowing for the seizure of Fedasil’s bank accounts under certain conditions. The Court stated that the protection of public authorities against seizure of goods is not absolute. It stated that (own translation from French to English) “it is unacceptable that Fedasil, as a legal person of public order, which should set an example to those who are supposed to respect and execute the judicial decisions pronounced against it, is hiding behind the fact that, as a general rule, its bank assets cannot be seized in order to escape execution of the main sentence, which it is not voluntarily complying with. This is why the judge had to attach a sufficiently high penalty to the judgment to compel Fedasil to comply with the court orders against it”. The Court, “by authorising the defendants to seize and detain Fedasil’s bank funds, does not hinder the continuity of the public service; on the contrary – in the very specific circumstances of the case – it indirectly supports and helps to re-establish the continuity of the service” (own translation from French to English).
  • Council of State, 27 December 2024:[63] In December 2024, the Council of State suspended the instruction of the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration that limited the right to reception for male applicants with a protection status in another Member State. According to the Council, this instruction has a general regulatory scope and should therefore have been submitted to the Legislation Section of the Council of State. The Council of State therefore suspended the instruction for procedural reasons and did not pronounce itself on the question whether an application for international protection can, in such circumstances, be considered a ‘subsequent application’, allowing for the limitation of the right to reception. The procedure to annul the instruction is still pending before the Council of State.

• • Labour Court Brussels, 13 March 2025:[64] The Brussels Labour Court issued a decision on an individual appeal introduced by an applicant who had been subject to a decision restricting his right to material assistance in the context of this measure. The Labour Court decided that current Belgian legislation does not allow for the concept of ‘subsequent application’ to be applied to applications of beneficiaries in other Member States who apply for the first time in Belgium. No legal provisions in Belgian law justify the limitation of the right to material assistance in the context of such applications.

Detention of asylum applicants

• Prohibition of detention of children legally enshrined: After long political discussions, the prohibition of the detention of (families with) minor children was legally enshrined by the law introducing a ‘proactive return policy’ that entered into force on 20 July 2024.[65] Families with minor children can only be held in ‘return houses’, not in detention centres. Less than a year after the prohibition on child detention was legally enshrined, the new minister for Asylum and Migration has indicated that the prohibition might be revised during the new legislative period[66] (see Detention of vulnerable applicants).
• ‘Proactive return policy’ – ‘Individual case management’ as alternative to detention: On 2 May 2024, a new law introducing a ‘proactive return policy’ has been adopted by the Belgian Parliament.[67] The law introduced, among other things, a system of ‘individual case management’ (ICAM) for persons having received a return decision as an alternative measure to detention. The aim is to steer the person concerned towards a sustainable solution either in their country of origin or in another country where they have the right of residence, or in Belgium, and to put an end to their illegal stay in Belgium. If no options can be identified to obtain a residence permit in Belgium, the person will be guided towards a return procedure.[68] Attendance to these ‘ICAM interviews’ is mandatory. Not attending without giving valid justification can be considered as a failure to cooperate with the return procedure which may, eventually, result in detention and forced return (see Voluntary return procedure).
• ‘Proactive return policy’ – Preventive and less coercive measures: The new law introducing a ‘proactive return policy’ also introduces three new ‘preventive measures’ which can be imposed during the period of voluntary return: the presentation or deposit of identity or travel documents with the authorities, the obligation to report to the police or the Aliens Office and the house arrest.[69] Furthermore, in case the person fails to cooperate proactively with their return, a new obligation to report to the police or the Aliens Office or a house arrest can be imposed as ‘less coercive measures’ to detention.[70] Due to the strict legal framework under which these conditions can be imposed, civil society actors such as the Move coalition fear that preventive or less coercive measures will rarely be applied in practice (see Alternatives to detention).

 Content of international protection

• Housing crisis – Shortage of housing for beneficiaries of international protection: Since several years, the outflow of beneficiaries of international protection from reception centres is hindered by a shortage in housing supply. In practice, it is common that beneficiaries stay in the reception centre longer than the ‘transitioning period’ of 4 months. At the end of 2024, 3,691 persons having received international protection from the CGRS were staying in the Fedasil reception network. In 2024, applicants who were granted international protection stayed on average for 121 more days in the reception network.[71] Although several civil society organisations and many volunteering groups offer support to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection by helping them to search a place to stay[72], other beneficiaries who need to exit the centres, end up homeless. This precarious situation has been denounced on several occasions by civil society, volunteer organisations supporting refugees and refugees themselves.[73] In March 2025, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) ruled that a lack of affordable housing for low-income and vulnerable families in Flanders violates the European Social Charter, stating that the Flemish Region “has implemented an unfair and inefficient housing policy, based on support for home ownership, that does not meet the objective of a coordinated approach to promote access to housing to eradicate poverty and social exclusion”. The report is not legally enforceable, but over time it will be used to evaluate the situation in Flanders.[74] (see Housing)
• Language requirements as condition for social housing in Flanders: From the start of 2024, new conditions for social renting apply in Flanders, including meeting conditions for Dutch language proficiency (A2 level) and being registered at the employment service if the applicant is not yet working.[75] In the coalition agreement of the Flemish government it was decided that this language level will be raised to level B1 from 2027[76] (see Housing). 

• Belgian Nationality – Palestinian children born in Belgium: Legal discussions are ongoing on the application of Article 10 Nationality Code on Palestinian children born in Belgium. On the basis of this article, local administrations have granted certain children in this situation the Belgian nationality. 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, and asking the Immigration Office to stop this practice and inform the local administrations that it does not dispose of any advisory competence in this matter and the received letter should not be considered.[77] In January 2025, the Federal Ombudsman directed two new recommendations to the Immigration Office and the Minister of Justice[78], having found that despite its previous recommendations, the Immigration Office continued to communicate with local administrations about the interpretation of Article 10. Consequently, some local administrations revoked the Belgian nationality of children to which they had previously granted it, the Federal Ombudsman being aware of 130 of these cases concerning Palestinian children. The Ombudsman also received complaints from parents of a child having received the nationality on the basis of Article 10 Nationality Code, who had themselves applied for a residence permit based on the nationality of their child. The Immigration Office had contacted the relevant local authorities and expressed doubts about the application of Article 10 in these cases, and postponed decisions on the requests for residence permit of the parents. Six of the seven cases concerned Palestinian parents, whose requests for residence permit had been pending for over a year. The Federal Ombudsman reaffirmed that the Immigration Office has no legal authority to advise on nationality matters and emphasised that its actions go beyond merely providing information, demonstrating a serious lack of caution in the analyses it submits to civil registrars (see Naturalisation).

• New law limits possibility of family reunification for ex-unaccompanied minor beneficiaries or young-adult children of beneficiaries: A new law of 13 March 2024 modifying certain rules related to family reunification[79], has modified the term during which children, who were minor on the moment of registration of the asylum application (either of themselves if they were unaccompanied minor applicant, or of their parent if they are reunited with the parent-beneficiary) but who reached the age of 18 during or shortly after the granting of international protection can apply for family reunification. Previously, the Council of State had ruled in 2022 that an extra term of 12 months after the granting of international protection could be considered as reasonable.[80] However, the new law now grants an extra term of only 3 months after international protection has been granted. Several actors have criticised this legislation, since a term of only 3 months will often be too short to gather all necessary documents and take the necessary steps for the application. On the initiative of several civil society organisations, an appeal against this new legislation – related to this and several other aspects of the new law – has been introduced at the Belgian Constitutional Court in January 2025. The appeal is currently (March 2025) pending (see Family reunification).

• Obstacles for family reunification with beneficiaries of international protection in Belgium: On publishing the part of its year report 2023 related to the right to family life, the Federal Migration Centre (Myria) published a press release entitled “Family reunification: still many obstacles”.[81] For years, several organisations have been highlighting the many difficulties encountered by beneficiaries of international protection who want to be reunited with their families. A recurring issue is the great lack of support by professional services. Due to the increasing complexity of the procedure and the many disfunctions of the procedure in practice, the success of an application for family reunification with a beneficiary of international protection depends almost entirely on whether the family receives professional support. Due to a lack of sufficient organisations and lawyers who can offer this professional support, many families are unable to realise their right to family reunification.[82] Another issue relates to the long waiting times to receive an appointment at the Belgian diplomatic post, due to an increase of the number of applications and lack of personnel in the diplomatic posts. In certain cases, it has even been impossible to make an appointment. These waiting times make it very difficult to meet the strict deadline of one year during which family members of beneficiaries of international protection should apply in order to be exempt from certain strict conditions (see Family reunification – Criteria and conditions).

• Applications for family reunification exceptionally remotely following Afrin-judgment: In the Afrin judgement from 18 April 2023[83], the CJEU compelled Belgian authorities to provide alternative methods of submitting applications for family reunification in case of the impossibility of going to a Belgian diplomatic post to submit the visa application. On the basis of this judgment, applications for family reunification visa can exceptionally be introduced remotely (by e-mail), if it is proven that it is impossible or very difficult for family members to render themselves to the competent diplomatic post. The law has not yet enshrined this possibility, but it is applied in practice and the Immigration Office has added information on this possibility on its website.[84] In October 2024, Myria has published a note on the occasion of the 1-year application of this new measure. The note contains information on the practice, relevant case-law and recommendations. Although Myria considers this new practice as an improvement, allowing for family reunification for certain families for who it used to be practically impossible, it identifies several points of attention, such as the lack of legal framework for this kind of applications and the fact that the family members should still, at one point in the procedure, go to the diplomatic post in-person.[85] Myria also recommends that this remote method of application should become the rule rather than the exception, in order to ensure effective access to the procedure.[86] (see Family reunification – Criteria and conditions).

• Waiting lists for schools for non-Dutch speaking children: Since several years, local schools’ capacity is not always sufficient to absorb all non-Dutch speaking children entitled to education. Several sources reported shortages in certain regions in 2024.[87] Most reports came from guardians of unaccompanied minors. Although no data are available on the size of the deficit, across Flanders as a whole there are probably several hundred places lacking (see Access to education).

 Temporary protection

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

• Key statistics: Between 10 March 2022 and December 2024, 92,259 persons received a temporary protection certificate in Belgium.[88] In 2024, Ukrainians accounted for 98.94% of temporary protection holders.[89] In 2024, 13,277 temporary protection certificates were given, as opposed to 883 refusal decisions.[90] 66,006 people were effectively registered in the Aliens Register by the municipalities as of 31 December 2024.[91] From 10 March 2022 to end of March 2025, 63,546 persons stated upon registration not to be in need of reception, while 18,334 indicated needing it.[92] This means that since the outbreak of the war, 22% of the people fleeing from Ukraine indicated being in need of support concerning accommodation upon registration.
• 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 2026. 

• Limited registration capacity: Applicants for temporary protection are expected to present themselves at the registration centre from Monday to Friday between 8h30 and 13h. A shortage of personnel at the Immigration Office has led to limited registration capacity as of December 2023. Until the time of writing (May 2025), there are days on which not all persons presenting themselves to apply for temporary protection are able to register. Civil society organisations observed that during a certain period, a quota of maximum 75 applications has been applied.[93] People who are not able to register receive an invitation to apply with priority on another day, which on average can be up to two weeks later.[94] Persons who were not able to register due to the registration quota are not provided with reception solutions by Fedasil, but may find other solutions provided through Ukrainian Voices.[95]

• Increased burden of proof for applicants with passports issued after 24 February 2022: Potential beneficiaries must provide documents that prove they fall under the scope of the temporary protection directive.[96] For persons whose passport was issued after 24 February 2022, the Immigration office requires the person to proactively present proof of his residence in Ukraine at the time of the outbreak of the war. The absence of such proof will not only lead to a negative decision but also prevents the person from qualifying for temporary protection as a family member under article 2(4) of the implementation decision. The fact that other (nuclear) family members may have received temporary protection, does not exclude the applicant from presenting individual proof that they fall under the scope.[97]

• No guaranteed reception upon arrival: While the reception needs have declined over time, certain obstacles arise with regard to the right to reception upon arrival. In 2024, not everyone who indicated a need for reception (an estimated 15% of the arrivals[98]) effectively obtained a place. Already in the summer of 2022, there were reports that the emergency centre of Ariane was becoming saturated, and as a result, referrals to Ariane were almost exclusively made for people considered vulnerable.[99] Since then, the profiles of people eligible for emergency reception, as well as the availability of places, has fluctuated, and emergency reception could never be fully guaranteed for any group. At the beginning of 2025, the government stated that the current needs for reception can be accommodated and future accommodation for reception needs can be addressed depending on the inflow.[100] The persons most at risk of not receiving reception are those who are not able to apply for temporary protection on the day on which they present themselves (see the paragraph on ‘Limited registration capacity’ above), or those who do not immediately receive a positive decision. The waiting times for registration and, after registration, of decision-making, have been fluctuating. While people wait for registration or a decision, Fedasil does not usually take responsibility as these people have no temporary protection yet.[101] Ukrainian Voices, a Brussels based refugee-led organization that provides services and emergency housing (Hotel Plasky & Centre Marie Curie) for Ukrainians, serves as a back-up when Fedasil is not able to accommodate everyone at Ariane. However, the duration of the stay there is limited and a place in emergency reception through Ukrainian Voices is also not always guaranteed. In 2025, there are still signals of persons being unable to register or waiting for a decision not being able to obtain reception, including families with children.[102]

• Closure of collective reception centres and increased focus on orientation to private housing market: The focus on creating emergency reception places has shifted to integration and participation-trajectories, as part of which beneficiaries were increasingly guided towards the private housing market. As a result, the offer of public reception places has started to decrease significantly going back to mid-2023. Since the 1 January 2025, it is no longer possible for municipalities to create and thus offer new reception places through the ‘housing tool’. This means that there will be no increase in available places possible. This measure was taken along with other measures as part of the phasing out of public subsidized reception places towards March 2026.[103]

As part of the plan to increasingly direct people towards the private housing market, only the reception centre in Ghent is still operational until approximately March 2026.The reception centre in Mechelen has closed in December 2024, while the reception centre in Antwerp completely closed in March 2025. At the beginning of March however, it was signalled that some 128 beneficiaries had not managed to obtain a place on the private market, leading to the setting up of a “city-camping”, as well as concerns for persons ending up on the street.[104]

• Asylum applications by Ukranians remain frozen: 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.[105] 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, there is in specific cases the possibility for a ‘derived status’ (flexible family reunification) with a beneficiary.
• Changes in the law regarding the right to family reunification with TP beneficiaries: a new law of 13 March 2024 modifying certain rules related to family reunification resulted in stricter conditions to obtain a derived status. Before, there was the possibility of specific categories of family members of TP beneficiaries to apply for this derived status on the sole condition that they could prove their family ties. Generally speaking, this derived status is still a more favourable framework than the one of regular family reunification. Specifically, where the implementation decision does not provide for a right to temporary protection of family members of third country nationals with a permanent residence permit who cannot return in a safe and durable manner, this derived status envisions to also include the family members of this category of persons.[106] Since the implementation of the new law, additionally, the derived status is made conditional on the fact that the family was already existent at the time of the outbreak of the war and that the separation was caused because of the war.[107] Family members not meeting this criteria may still be eligible for regular family reunification.

[1] Belgian Federal government agreement 2025-2029, 31 January 2025, available in Dutch here and in French here. See also Belgian News Agency (Belga), ‘These are the main points in Belgium’s new government agreement’, 1 February 2025, available in English here.

[2] Le Soir, ‘La nouvelle ministre Anneleen Van Bossuyt promet d’« aller vers une migration davantage contrôlée’, 2 February 2025, available in French at https://www.lesoir.be/652582/article/2025-02-02/la-nouvelle-ministre-anneleen-van-bossuyt-promet-d-aller-vers-une-migration; Schengen.news, ‘Belgium Set to Introduce Some of the Toughest Anti-Immigration Measures’, 18 February 2025, available in English here; RTBF, ‘Voici les principales mesures décidées par le nouveau gouvernement de Bart De Wever’, available in French here.

[3] A first deterrence campaign was already effectively launched in March 2025. Via Youtube and Whatsapp, deterrent messages are shared with potential asylum seekers. The campaign mainly targets asylum seekers from Cameroon and Guinea who are currently in Greece and Bulgaria, and contain information and images of the saturated reception network and people without reception sleeping rough. Belga, ‘Belgium launches social media campaigns to deter asylum seekers’, 20 March 2025, available in English here.

[4] The discontinuation of the Belgian resettlement program was effectively announced in March 2025: The Brussels Times, ‘Belgium discontinues resettlement programme, only legal route into country’, 26 March 2025, available in English here.

[5] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, ‘Arizona-government choses exclusion instead of solutions’, 31 January 2025, available in Dutch here; Pascal Debruyne, ‘This is what the strictest asylum- and migration policy ever looks like – Policy proposals will seriously impact the lives of many newcomers’, MO Magazine 3 February 2025, available in Dutch here; La Libre, ‘A box of Pandora: former Commissioner of CGRS afraid with regards to Arizona migration plans’, 13 March 2025, available in French here; De Standaard, ‘Commissary for Refugees no longer independent: minister can co-decide on protection of asylum seekers’, 13 March 2025, available in Dutch here; La Libre, ‘Unprecedented, unheard of and unconstitutional: does the federal government want to influence decision-making of judges?’, 26 February 2025, available in French here; La Libre, ‘Asylum reform envisaged by the government worries the sector: “One of the fundamental pillars of the rule of law is seriously threatened””, 24 March 2025, available in French here.

[6] Excluding the number of persons for whom a further assessment at the border was decided or whose subsequent application was declared admissible, the number of persons whose application was declared inadmissible, the number of persons whose status was ended or revoked and the number of persons whose procedure was ended before a decision was made (e.g. renunciation, technical closure, …).

[7] Immigration Office, ‘Application of Regulation n° 604/2013’, December 2024, available in French here.

[8] Immigration Office, ‘Applications for international protection: monthly statistics December 2024, available in French here, p. 13 and ‘Applications for International protection: monthly statistics December 2023, available in French here, p. 13.

[9] CGRS, ‘Asylum statistics: Survey 2024’, 16 January 2024, available here and ‘Asylum Statistics: Survey 2023’,12 January 2023 available here.

[10] CGRS, ‘Asylum statistics: Survey 2024’, 16 January 2025, available here: ‘It is clear that in addition to internal efficiency measures, additional staff is needed to clear the backlog given the high influx’.

[11] CALL, ‘Year report 2024’, available in Dutch here and in French here, p. 20.

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

[13] Doctors of the world, ‘Return bill: Médecins du Monde opposes forced medical examinations for people without a residence permit and seeking asylum’, available in French and Dutch here; MSF, ‘Forced medical examinations: MSF is concerned about the new bill which opens the door to ill-treatment’, available in French and Dutch here.

[14] VRT, ‘Minister Van Bossuyt (N-VA) stops resettlement, the only legal way to come to Belgium’, 26 March 2025, available in Dutch here.

[15] Immigration Office, ‘Registration Centre for International Protection: New Location!’, 23 October 2024, available in English here.

[16] Federal Chamber of representatives, Commission of Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Administrative matters, CRIV 56 COM 046, 27 November 2024, p. 2-4, available here.

[17] Federal Chamber of representatives, Commission of Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Administrative matters, CRIV 56 COM 068, 15 January 2025, p. 3, available here.

[18] Immigration Office, ‘Myria: Contact Meeting International Protection’, 21 September 2022, p. 9, available here.

[19] Immigration Office, ‘Making an application for international protection’, consulted on 22/01/2025, available here.

[20] Federal Chamber of representatives, Commission of Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Administrative matters, CRIV 56 COM 068, 15 January 2025, p. 3, available here.

[21] CGRS, ‘CGRS Project ‘Vulnerability and asylum: applicants for international protection’’, available in English here.

[22] CALL, ‘Adapted convocation letters and a court room tailormade for minors’, 2 December 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[23] Myria, Contact meeting 4 December 2024, p. 22-23, available in French and Dutch here

[24] Royal Decree of 12 May 2024, available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/mrxjn377.

[25] Council of State, Decision n° 262.637 of 18 March 2025, available in French here; Council of State, Decision n° 262.638 of 18 March 2025, available in French here.

[26] Question of compatibility of Articles 57/1, § 3 (1), 57/5ter, § 1e, 57/6/7, § 4 (1) and 57/24 (1) with Article 22 Belgian Constitution, red alone or in combination with Article 6.3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

[27] CGRS, ‘Resuming Case Processing of Russian Nationals’, 1 February 2024, available here.

[28] CGRS, ‘Myria: Contact Meeting International Protection’, 24 January 2024, p. 15, available here.

[29] CGRS, ‘Myria: Contact Meeting International Protection’, 18 October 2023, p. 18, available in French and Dutch here.

[30] CGRS, ‘Myria: Contact Meeting International Protection’, 16 October 2024, p. 16, available in French and Dutch here.

[31] CGRS, ‘Processing of cases of applicants from Lebanon’, 2 October 2024, available here.

[32] CGRS, ‘Temporary suspension of processing files of Syrian applicants’, 9 December 2024, available here.

[33] CGRS, ‘CGRS resumes the processing of all Palestinian cases’, 19 December 2023, available here.

[34] CGRS, ‘Asylum statistics december 2024, 16 January 2025, p. 6 available here and ‘Asylum statistics december 2023’, p. 5, 12 January 2024 available here.

[35] Brussels Court of Appeal, ‘2024/KR/21’, 7 October 2024.

[36] Article 57/6, al. 4 Aliens Act; CGRS, Processing time for Palestinian cases, 21 May 2024, available in English here.

[37] ECtHR, Decision n° 47836/21 of 6 March 2025, available in French here.

[38] VRT NWS, ‘Waiting list for guardians for non-accompanied minors has dissaperead’, 20 November 2024, available in Dutch here.

[39] Fedasil, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 29 January 2025, available in French and Dutch here, 50-51.

[40] Fedasil, ‘Reception of asylum seekers: key figures of 2024’, 22 January 2025, available in English here.

[41] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2025.

[42] Constitutional Court, Council of State and Court of Cassation, ‘Common Memorandum’, July 2024, available in French here and in Dutch here, 7-8.

[43] Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, ‘H46-6 Camara c. Belgique (Requête n° 49255/22)’, 19 September 2024, available in French here.

[44] Amnesty International, ‘Belgium: Unhoused and unheard – how Belgium’s persistent failure to provide reception violates asylum seekers’ rights’, 2 April 2025, available here.

[45] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2025.

[46] De Tijd, ‘Fedasil-director Pieter Spinnenwijn: “We cannot make the same mistake of massively closing asylum centres”, 26 February 2025, available in Dutch here.

[47] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2025.

[48] VRT, ‘Nicole De Moor (CD&V) wants to end asylum applications by persons who are recognized as refugee elsewhere’, 27 November 2024, available in Dutch here.

[49] CJEU, judgment of 19 December 2024 in joined cases C-123/23 and C-202/23 Khan Yunis and Baabda, available here.

[50] Council of State, ‘The Council of State suspends the limitation of reception for certain applicants’, 27 December 2024, available in French here.

[51] VRT, ‘Council of State suspends reception stop of Secretary of State Nicole de Moor of persons who are recognized as refugee elsewhere’, 27 December 2024, available in Dutch here.

[52] Labour Court Brussels, judgment nr. 2025/CB/2 of 13 March 2025, available in French here.

[53] Article 6, §1 Reception Act.

[54] Law of 25 May 2024 modifying the law of 12 January 2007 regarding the reception of asylum applicants and other categories of aliens, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[55] Royal Decree of 16 April 2024 on the allocation of material assistance to asylum applicants receiving professional income and other categories of income (“KB Cumul”), available in French and in Dutch. This new Royal Decree replaces the previous Royal Decree of 12 January 2011.

[56] Article 35/3 Reception Act; article 12 KB Cumul.

[57] Compared to 736 declarations and € 334,000 of contributions in 2023.

[58] VRT, ‘Van Bossuyt ends subsidy for new Local Reception Initiatives (LRI), 17 March 2025, available in Dutch here.

[59] Court of Appeal Brussels, 2024/QR/3, 23 January 2024, available in French here.

[60] At that point, up to 2,9 million euros of penalties was due by Fedasil; see Court of Appeal Brussels, 2024/QR/3, 23 January 2024, available in French here.

[61] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, ‘Government omission forces NGO’s to seize bank accounts of Fedasil’, 2 February 2024, available in Dutch here; Ciré, ‘Court authorizes NGO’s to seize Fedasil’s bank accounts’, 2 February 2024, available in French https://www.cire.be/la-justice-autorise-des-ong-a-saisir-les-comptes-de-fedasil/ and Le Soir, ‘Three million seized on bank account of Fedasil on behalf of several NGO’s’, 2 February 2024, available in French here.

[62] Court of Appeal Brussels, 2024/AR/423, 11 June 2024, available in French here.

[63] Council of State, 261.887, 27 December 2024, available in French here.

[64] Labour Court Brussels, judgment nr. 2025/CB/2 of 13 March 2025, available in French here.

[65] Article 74/9, §1 Aliens Act.

[66] De Standaard, ‘Minister of Asylum and Migration Anneleen Van Bossuyt – We might have to revise the prohibition on detention of families with children’, 18 March 2025, available in Dutch here: “Return is more easy to organise from a closed centre. Today, we cannot hold families with children in those closed centres. However, if we see in two years that this results in a lack of increase of departures and we see difficulties with returns of families with children, we might have to revise this.”

[67] Chamber of representatives, Act on proactive return policy, 12 May 2024, available in Dutch and French here.

[68] Immigration Office, Annual Rapport 2023, available in French here (p. 63) and in Dutch here (p. 61).

[69] Article 74/27 Aliens Act.

[70] Article 74/28 Aliens Act.

[71] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2025.

[72] For example: Orbit vzw, project “De nieuwe buren: citizens for housing of recognized refugees”, https://denieuweburen.be/; Thope vzw, a volunteer group with focus on finding housing for recognized refugees: https://www.thopevzw.be/.

[73] VRT, ‘Recognised Refugees protest in Ghent after months of homelessness: “How can we integrate without a roof over our heads?”, 19 February 2025, available in Dutch here; MO*, “First make sure recognised refugees are housed, the rest will follow – Plea for a housing-first approach” by Julien Aernoudt (ORBIT vzw), 3 October 2024, available in Dutch here.

[74] ECSR, European Federation of National Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v. Belgium, Complaint No. 203/2021, 19 March 2025, available in English here. More information on www.woonzaak.be/uitspraak/.

[75] Website of Flanders regional administration: conditions for social renting. Available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/49cVDbC.

[76] Flemish government agreement 2024-2029, available in Dutch at: https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/69476

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

[78] Federal Ombudsman, ‘Advice 2024/4 and 2024/05 to the Immigration Office and the Minister of Justice’, 9 January 2025, available here, 2.

[79] Law of 10 March 2024 modifying the Aliens Act concerning the right to family reunification, available in Dutch here and in French here. For an overview of all the changes by this act, see AGII, ‘Several modification family reunification’, available in Dutch here; and Myria, ‘Modifications following the new law on family reunification’, 10 September 2024, available in French here.

[80] Council of State 23 December 22, nr. 255.380. More information available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3nMsGkK.

[81] Myria, ‘Family reunification, still many obstacles’, 13 September 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[82] Myria, ‘Family reunification, still many obstacles’, 13 September 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here; more in detail: Myria, ‘Lack of assisting services while the family reunification procedure is complex’ in Myria, Year report migration 2023 – Right to a family life, available in French here and Dutch here, p. 20.

[83] CJUE, 18 avril 2023, Afrin, C-1/23. Available in French at: https://tinyurl.com/2u8mxeuw.

[84] Immigration Office, ‘Visa D application (Family reunification)’, available in English here (last consulted on 3 April 2025).

[85] Myria, ‘Note: One year Afrin in Belgian practice’, 26 October 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[86] Myria, ‘Family reunification, still many obstacles’, 13 September 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[87] GVA, ‘200 students on waiting list for OKAN-class in Antwerp: “Every week, 10 extra students are added’, 10 May 2024, available in Dutch here; Nieuwsblad, ‘Shortage of OKAN-classes in Lier, guardian calls to action: “Education is a right that is currently not respected”’, 13 March 2024, available in Dutch here.

[88] IBZ, Temporary protection monthly statistics 2024 December, available in Dutch and French here (see table 1.1).

[89] Calculations made based on numbers provided by the Immigration Office: IBZ, Temporary protection monthly statistics 2024 December, available in Dutch and French here (see Table 1.4).

[90] IBZ, Temporary Protection Monthly statistics, December 2024, available in Dutch and French here.

[91] IBZ email, information provided on 5 April 2025.

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

[93] Based on several observations done by the author of this report and its partner organisations. However, the DVZ contests this and argues no quotas were applied.

[94] These two weeks are a rough estimation based on visits to the registration center from Caritas and Vluchtelingenwerk during the course of the year, with the most recent observations dating from January 2025 The Migration office has communicated in December 2024 that persons were invited to come back the next day, see; Myria, contact meeting, 4 December 2024, available in French and Dutch here.

[95] Communication Flemish Task Force Ukraine (VLOT), 29 February 2024.

[96] IBZ, Procedure, available at: https://bit.ly/3IDfIMQ.

[97] IBZ in response to enquiry Vluchtelingenwerk and Myria on new law on family reunification, 22 January 2025

[98] Response from the Flemish Vice minister-President of interior affairs to Parliamentary Questions, available in Dutch here, 5 December 2024; see also Myria, contact meeting, 29 January 2025, available in French and Dutch here, 58.

[99] Myria, contact meeting, 18 October 2023, available in Dutch and French here.

[100] Myria, Contact meeting, 29 January 2025, available in Dutch and French here, 57.

[101] Communication Flemish Task Force Ukraine (VLOT), 29 February 2024.

[102] Observations of the author of the report based on calls received through the Infoline for Ukranian refugees: https://vluchtelingenwerk.be/infolijn.

[103] Decision of the Flemish government on the subsidies for Temporary protection beneficiaries of 8 April 2022, Last amended on 6 December 2024, available in Dutch here.

[104] See; Gazet van Antwerpen [newspaper], 128 Ukrainian refugees still looking for a house, emergency centre makes way for city camping, 5 March 2025, available in Dutch here, and; VRT New [news] Three families in Antwerp Emergency centre receive eviction order from justice, available in Dutch here.

[105] 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.

[106] IBZ, Clarification on the interpretation of Article 57/34/1 Aliens Act, 22 January 2025.

[107] Aliens Act, Article 57/34/1.