Overview of the main changes since the previous report update

Author

Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen Visit Website

The report was previously updated in June 2025.

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, aiming towards what the new Prime Minister Bart de Wever (N-VA) has described as Belgium’s ‘strictest migration policy yet’.[1] Despite serious concerns voiced by several civil society organisations and some prominent actors in the field of asylum and migration[2], the new Minister for Asylum and Migration Anneleen Van Bossuyt has issued several modifications to the asylum procedure, reception conditions and the rules regarding family reunification, which are extensively discussed in this year’s update of the AIDA-report.

International protection

Asylum procedure

• Key asylum statistics: In 2025, a total of 34,439 persons applied for international protection in Belgium, an average of 2,870 applications per month – a decrease of 13% compared to 2024. 33,209 applications were registered on the Belgian territory (at the registration centre in Brussels), 682 at the border and 548 in detention facilities. Out of the total number, 6,865 were subsequent applications (20% of the total number of applications and an increase of 6% compared to 2024). 2,629 applicants were beneficiary of international protection in another EU-Member State (so-called “M-status-applicants”), a decrease of 45.5% compared to 2024. 1,673 applications were presented by applicants who declared to be unaccompanied minors on the moment of application, a decrease of 35.5% compared to 2024 (see Age assessment of unaccompanied children). Throughout 2025, the CGRS granted refugee status to 8,369 persons and subsidiary protection status to 618 persons, making for a protection rate of 28.5%, significantly lower than the previous years (47.2% in 2024 and 43,5% in 2023). If only in-merit decisions are considered, the protection rate was 44% (compared to 62% in 2024). Refugee status was mostly granted to Afghans (1,437), Palestinians (1,270), Eritreans (1,216), Turks (670) and Somalians (376). Subsidiary protection status was mostly granted to Yemenis (292), Eritreans (125) and Sudanese (32). A total of 19,006 persons were refused international protection. This includes decisions refusing refugee status and subsidiary protection status (10,541), decisions declaring an application manifestly unfounded (634), 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) (7,458) , decisions of exclusion of international protection (109) and decisions by which a protection status was ended or revoked (264) (see Statistics). This last number was significantly higher than last year (+247%) following an action by the CGRS to remove the backlog in files in which the validity of the protection status needed to be revised because of reasons related to public order, which resulted in a high number of withdrawal and cessation decisions. (see Withdrawal of protection status). In the context of the Dublin procedure, a total of 12,175 take charge and take back-requests were sent to other states, 8,390 of which were accepted. For context, several requests can be sent to different Member States regarding the same person. A total of 1,043 persons were effectively transferred from Belgium to other Member States in 2025. There were 3,866 incoming take charge and take back requests, of which the Belgian authorities accepted 2,301. 586 persons were transferred to Belgium in the Dublin procedure (see Dublin).

• Backlog and processing times at asylum instances: The backlog of cases at the Immigration Office further increased from 12,888 pending applications in December 2024 to 14,734 on 31 December 2025. Waiting times for the first interview at the Immigration Office sometimes amount to several months. The backlog of cases at the CGRS decreased slightly, with a workload that evolved from 26,119 pending cases in December 2024 to 24,406 pending cases at the end of 2025. Since the normal workload is considered to be 6,500 files, the actual backlog is considered to be 17,906 files. The average processing time at the CGRS was 372 days between the transfer of the file to the CGRS and the decision by the CGRS; the median processing time was 286 days.[3] On the level of the CALL, the overall backlog of pending appeals increased significantly for a third year in a row, from 4,700 in December 2023 to 8,232 in December 2024 to 13,004 pending cases on 28 February 2026. This backlog consists of 5,603 appeals in the full jurisdiction procedure (applied for contestations of decisions of the CGRS) and 7,401 appeals in the annulment procedure (applied for contestation of all other decisions taken in application of migration legislation, including decisions by the Immigration Office in the context of the Dublin-procedure). The average processing time at the CALL was 134.1 days for appeals introduced in 2025 and for which a decision was taken in 2025.

• Suspension of the resettlement program: In March 2025, the Minister for Asylum and Migration announced that she would suspend the resettlement programme until there is a decrease of migrants arriving in Belgium irregularly. Consequently, in 2025, Belgium only resettled 44 persons who were identified beforehand but did not identify any new refugees for resettlement (see Legal access to the territory).
• New law expands definition of ‘subsequent application’: A new law of 14 July 2025 has broadened the scope of the definition of ‘subsequent application’ to applications made by applicants having received a final negative or positive decision on a previous application for international protection in another EU member state.  This has important procedural consequences for the applicants involved, such as the possibility to limit their reception rights and lack of access to the labour market during the admissibility phase of the procedure applicable to 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.[4] 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 to this group, will be continued, stating that the Aliens Act provides for another legal basis to continue treating these applications as “subsequent applications” and refusing reception to the applicants involved.[5] Several NGO’s lodged an appeal at the Council of State requestion for the suspension in extreme urgency of this instruction, arguing that the legal basis the Minister refers to is exactly the one that had been questioned by the Constitutional Court. On 27 March 2026, the Council of State suspended the 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] (see Subsequent Applications).

• Safe countries of origin: On the basis of the Royal Decree of 3 December 2025, applicable as of 15 December 2025, the following countries are considered safe countries of origin: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of North-Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Morocco. India and Moldavia were removed from the list, whereas Morocco was added despite the advice of the CGRS that did not list Morocco as a safe country of origin (see Safe country of origin).
• Frontex officers deployed in border controls and forced return operations: As of September 2025, Frontex officers are deployed in Brussels Airport, specifically in the context of return operations.[10] This is allowed by the Law of 16 May 2024, that allows European border guards of Frontex to operate within the Belgian territory under the authority of Belgian police (see Forced return procedure).
• EUAA experts support case processing at the CGRS: In the context of the “Belgian Operational Plan” for 2025-2026, several EUAA experts have been deployed to support CGRS activities in 2025 and will continue to do so in 2026, amongst which several interpreters and case workers. Concerns related to the use of languages during the interviews and the impartiality of Greek EUAA experts treating admissibility cases from beneficiaries of international protection in Greece have been raised by lawyers’ associations at both the CGRS and the EUAA and has led the CGRS to gradually adjust the practice throughout the year. The EUAA operational support will be continued in 2026. (see Interpretation).
• Increased obstacles in access to legal aid for asylum applicants: NGOs observe and lawyers highlight an increasingly difficult access to free legal aid for asylum applicants staying outside of the reception network, due to important administrative burdens. Moreover, in 2025, payments of legal aid remunerations by the government were delayed. Since many migration lawyers are reliant on legal aid remunerations, this led to financial difficulties for some. (see Second-line legal assistance).
• Returns Afghanistan: The Belgian minister of Asylum and Migration has led efforts to coordinate European action related to the return of Afghans, leading to an exploratory mission to Afghanistan in January 2026, to which the Belgian Director General of the Immigration Office participated. A follow-up visit by a Taliban representative to Belgium is rumoured to be organised to discuss further practical arrangements. The initiative has been met with criticism and concern by NGO’s[11] (see Differential treatment).

Reception conditions

• Continued shortage of places and systematic refusal of single men: 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, etc.). 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 2025, 7,015 single male applicants were denied their right to reception.[12] They have to register on a waiting list of Fedasil. On 1 March 2026, 1,345 single men were registered on this waiting list.[13] The average waiting time on the waiting list amounted to 59 days in 2025.[14] 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).
• Research highlights poor quality of reception centres: Conducting a five year study in the several reception centres, Odisee University College found that the rights of children cannot be guaranteed in the Fedasil reception network due to poor quality of available infrastructure.[15] These findings were confirmed by the Flemish Children’s Rights Commissioner who received multiple complaints from families in reception centres about their living conditions.[16] According to Fedasil, “the Agency’s core operations must be restored on a sustainable basis, as the crisis of recent years and the constant strain on the care network have taken their toll. Minimum standards are under pressure, and this is affecting the well-being of residents and staff”.[17] (See Conditions in reception facilities)
• Decrease of reception places and budget cuts: The federal government agreement envisions a decrease in the number of reception places as soon as the number of applications for international protection decreases structurally. In 2025, 997 new collective reception places were created, while 2,231 temporary reception places were closed, resulting in a net decrease of 1,234 places. At the end of 2025, the total reception capacity stood at 34,771 places, compared with 36,211 places at the beginning of the year, representing an overall decrease of 1,440 places. This reduction of places is also reflected in the Fedasil budget which was reduced from €848 million in 2025 to €749 million in 2026.[18] By 2029, the government plans to reduce the Fedasil budget even further to €261 million.[19] Given the current shortage of places and the overall poor quality of the reception network, it is unclear how Fedasil will be able to function properly with a drastically reduced budget. The Minister declared to be working on a plan with Fedasil to ensure the quality of reception and respect for children’s rights, within the terms of the coalition agreement and without forcing anyone onto the streets through a hasty reduction in capacity. This would be made possible by a lower influx of applicants as a result of recent policy measures.[20] Commenting on these budget plans, the Court of Auditors remarked that “the number of applications for international protection is heavily dependent on the international context. […] The international context therefore constitutes a factor that is difficult to assess and which will partly determine the extent to which Fedasil will be able to fulfil its future obligations with the resources provided”.[21] The 2025—2030 management plan of Fedasil links previous hasty and ill-considered closures of reception places to “an unacceptable physical and mental workload for its employees and reception partners”. The Agency indicates that an increased number of long-term absent employees and high turnover are clear signals that the current reception shortage is taking a severe toll.[22]
• Refusal of reception to M-status applicants: In August 2025, a new law entered into force that allowed Fedasil to refuse reception conditions to applicants who already obtained international protection in another EU member state (“M-status applicants”).[23] Between the beginning of August 2025 and the end of February 2026, Fedasil refused reception conditions to 438 applicants with an M-status.[24] Several affected applicants introduced individual proceedings at the Brussels Labour Court to obtain a reception place. The Labour Court condemned Fedasil, forcing the Agency to provide reception conditions as soon as possible. Initially, the Minister for Asylum & Migration instructed Fedasil to ignore these judgements. However, after increasing political pressure she instructed Fedasil to respect these judgements. In February 2026, the Constitutional Court suspended the article that allowed Fedasil to refuse reception conditions to M-status applicants. Despite this ruling, the Minister stated that Belgian law contained other legal grounds allowing Fedasil to continue to refuse reception conditions to M-status applicants. According to her, M-status holders can be registered as subsequent applicants allowing Fedasil to refuse them reception conditions based on this registration. As a result, she instructed Fedasil to continue to refuse reception conditions to M-status applicants. Several ngo’s introduced a suspensive appeal at the Council of State asking the court to suspend the instruction in an urgent procedure. At the end of March, the Council of State suspended the Ministerial instruction ruling that the Minister should have consulted the legislative section of the Council of State on the legal basis of the instruction before implementing it. After this ruling, the Minister maintained her position that Belgian law contains legal grounds allowing Fedasil to continue to refuse reception conditions using individually motivated decisions. At the time of writing (April 2026) it is unclear how Fedasil motivates these decisions. (see Reception Rights: Subsequent applications)
• Removal of social support for applicants: In August 2025, a new law entered into force removing the possibility for applicants to request access to social support. In the past, applicants could request a ‘withdrawal’ of their code 207. If granted, this lifted the legal responsibility of Fedasil to provide material reception conditions, and the applicant could go to a Centre for Social Welfare Support to request social support. Next to that, Fedasil could also decide not to designate a code 207 from the beginning of the procedure for international protection. This in turn allowed the applicant concerned to request social support at a Centre for Social Welfare Support. The government perceived this system of ‘niet-toewijzing’ and ‘opheffing’ as a pull factor towards Belgium, so they decided to remove it from the Reception Act. Commenting on the draft law, the Council of State warned that this removal could potentially result in a violation of the right to human dignity and of the standstill principle in the Belgian constitution.[25] Some applicants who could no longer use this system of ‘niet-toewijzing’ and ‘opheffing’ introduced a suspensive appeal at the Constitutional Court. On 26 February 2026, the Constitutional Court suspended the removal of this system from the Reception Act.[26] The Court indicated that the applicants concerned ran a risk of immediate and irreparable damage. The Court has yet to issue a final ruling on the merits of the case. However, it has already made some preliminary observations. It noted that Belgian authorities have been stripped of their ability to provide material assistance to asylum seekers in any form other than in-kind support at reception centres. In the Court’s initial view, this restriction appears to put Belgium at serious risk of violating EU law. This is because applicants for international protection could be left without dignified living conditions if, for whatever reason, the in-kind assistance cannot be delivered to them.[27]

Detention of asylum applicants

• Re-evaluation on prohibition of child detention: Only two years after the prohibition of child detention was enshrined in law, the new minister for Asylum and Migration announced in March 2025 that this measure might be revised during the new legislative period. [28] An evaluation of the return of families detained in return houses is scheduled for September 2026. [29] (see Detention of vulnerable applicants).
• Arrests of subsequent asylum applicants at the Immigration Office premises: In 2025, civil society organisations and lawyers have observed an increasing number of arrests at the premises of the Immigration Office in the context of appointments related to a subsequent asylum application. The applicants are brought to immigration detention centres where their subsequent application is further examined. As the annual report of the Immigration Office is not published yet at the time of writing (April 2026) it cannot be verified if this increase is confirmed by official numbers. The same practice has been observed for several years with regard to applicants subject to a Dublin transfer decision. Some courts have found that such practices constitute an unfair strategy intended to mislead the asylum seeker and, as a violation of Article 5 of the ECHR, should result in their release. Some other courts consider that the practise is lawful^[30] (see Detention on the territory).
• Precarious conditions in administrative detention centres: The conditions in the administrative detention centres remained precarious and seriously impacted the health of residents. In 2024, 164 detainees initiated a hunger strike.[31] In October 2025, a man took his own life while being detained in the centre 127bis. Although his lawyer had indicated he was in a very fragile mental state, he did not receive the necessary medication. [32] (see Detention – Health care and special needs) 

Content of international protection

• Ongoing issues with the withdrawal/refusal of Belgian nationality to children born out of Palestinian parents. In the context of legal discussion on the nationality of children born out of Palestinian parents, the Immigration Office has sent instructions in more than 170 files to municipalities and public prosecutors, asking to withdraw the Belgian nationality to children born out of Palestinian parents. Despite interference of the Ombudsman and rulings of national courts who opposed this practice, indicating that the Immigration Office however has no competence in nationality matters, the problem is still ongoing in 2025, impacting legal certainty, family life, and the best interest of the child (see Naturalisation).
• Increased price for obtaining Belgian nationality: A law change of July 2025 foresees a rise in price for the registration of Belgian nationality from 150 euro to 1000 euro (in 2026: 1,030 euro). Concerns have been raised about the effective access to Belgian – and thus European – citizenship. In January 2026, several civil society organisations have introduced an appeal against this legislative change at the Constitutional Court (see Declaration of nationality).
• New law on family reunification entered into force and was partly suspended: A new law on family reunification that entered into force on 18 August 2025 introduced some important changes to the legal framework on family reunification, among which: (1) two years waiting period for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and temporary protection to apply for family reunification, (2) impossibility to do family reunification with minor children that are beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, (3) no right to family reunification where the family did not exist before arrival in Belgium (subsidiary protection), (4) shortened grace period (1 year to 6 months), (5) introduction of the possibility to apply for family reunification from the territory (instead of the responsible embassy) for “accompanying” family members, meaning family members who themselves received a negative decision in a protection procedure but already find themselves on the territory. On 26 February 2026, the Constitutional Court however suspended some of these measures and referred questions to the European court of Justice (see for a more detailed overview of the changes and suspended Family reunification).
• Plans on limitations to social welfare to newcomers: The federal government plans to introduce several measures in that will limit access to social welfare to persons with a protection status and will highly likely enter into force in 2026. Among these measures are a five-year waiting period before a newcomer can access social assistance and the linking of the right to social benefits to integration parameters (see Social Welfare).

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: In 2025, 8,756 persons received temporary reception in Belgium, 98.94% were Ukrainian nationals.[33] This led, by the end of 2025, to a total of around 100,000 persons having received temporary protection status since the outbreak of the war, with 70,636 beneficiaries still registered in Belgium (with a residence card) in December 2025.[34] In 2025, 3,286 decisions refusing temporary protection were issued, an increase of 272% compared to 2024.[35] 87 non-accompanied minors with Ukrainian nationality where registered in 2025. An estimated 15% or less of applicants indicates a reception need upon arrival.[36]

Temporary protection procedure

• Extension of and transition out of Temporary protection: Temporary protection has been extended until 4 March 2027, with no transition measures being in place so far in Belgium.[37]
• Changed location of registration centre: Since 1 August 2025, registration of applications for temporary protection takes place at Rue Belliard 68 in Brussels. This is the same location as applicants for international protection, although both groups are organized in a different line.[38]
• Applications for international protection remain frozen: This is the case for Ukrainians both with and without Temporary Protection, as well as for non-Ukrainians with temporary protection.[39]
• Increased burden of proof of residence in Ukraine: A passport and the accompanying stamps of entry and exit is not considered sufficient proof for residence in Ukraine before 24 February.[40] To obtain Temporary protection, persons have to provide an official attestation of the Ukrainian border authority and (objective) additional documents preferably issued by official instances in Ukraine proving residence. The high burden of proof, coupled with a dire lack of information from the Immigration Office on the documents to be provided, has led to a steep increase of negative decisions with negative decisions consistently surpassing 200 a month since June 2025, reaching a peak of more than 500 negative decisions in November 2025.[41]
• Negative decisions for beneficiaries of TP in another Member State: Since July 2025, the refusal ground used to refuse persons with a residence permit in another member state, was extended equally to persons with temporary protection in another member state.[42] This follows the Council Implementation Decision of July 2025[43], namely consideration no. 4 which states that the rights under TP can only be enjoyed in one member state at a time. This has however led to situations in which temporary protection is given to only part of the family. The applicant needs to provide an official confirmation by the authorities of that member state that the person no longer enjoys temporary protection. Obtaining such proof is however often difficult as there are no standardized procedures or documents. This burden of proof moreover rests entirely on the applicant.
• Difficulties to obtain a residence permit for children born outside of Belgium after the outbreak of the war: Children born after the war outside of Belgium are facing increased difficulties of obtaining a residence permit. They do not receive temporary protection, as they are not considered to fall under the scope of the Directive. When born in Belgium, they derive status from their parent(s). However, children born after the war outside of Belgium have to rely on family reunification, which comes with conditions which cannot always be met. This is especially the case for parents who obtained TP before the change of the rules on family reunification on 18 August 2025, as they must provide proof of a sufficient and stable income.[44] As a consequence, many such children remain in irregular stay for prolonged periods of time.

Content of temporary protection

• New law on family reunification imposes stricter rules for family reunification with a beneficiary of temporary protection: A new law on family reunification that entered into force on 18 August 2025 introduced important changes to the legal framework on family reunification, including a 2 years waiting period for family reunification with a beneficiary of temporary protection who has obtained their status after 18 August 2025, and only insofar the family already existed before arrival in Belgium.
• Continued issues with reception for applicants of temporary protection upon arrival: Not everyone expressing a reception need upon registration for temporary protection, receives reception.[45] Access to reception is dependent on vulnerability criteria such as minors, families with minor children, single or pregnant mothers, persons with medical needs and elderly persons.[46] The main emergency reception centre requires the person to already have a temporary protection certificate, while in practice persons do not always receive a decision on the same day of their registration.

[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. The government agreement includes measures such as modernising and stepping up the deterrence campaigns targeting asylum seekers and accessing their telephones for identification and verification, putting an end to emergency accommodation and small-scale local reception initiatives, prioritising subsidiary protection over refugee status, temporarily halt resettlement,  optimising the execution of return decisions, limiting family reunifications, making 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.

[2] 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.

[3] CGRS, Processing time for your application for international protection, available in English, French and Dutch here.

[4] 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.

[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] EMN, Frontex officers begin operations at Brussels Airport, 8 September 2025, available in English here.

[11] EMN Belgium, Anneleen Van Bossuyt confirms Belgium’s participation in exploratory administrative mission to Afghanistan, 24 January 2026, available in English here.

[12] Information provided by Fedasil, April 2026.

[13] Fedasil, Reception network for asylum seekers in Belgium, 1 March 2026, available in Dutch here.

[14] Information provided by Fedasil, April 2026.

[15] Odisee University College, Children’s Rights and Safety: basics for the reception policy – lessons from five years of research on children in reception centres, 2025, available in Dutch here.

[16] Flemish Children’s Rights Commissioner, Children’s Rights on the Threshold – Yearly Report 2024-2025, 20 November 2025, available in Dutch here, p. 67 – 69.

[17] Fedasil, Integrated managementplan 2025-2030, 12 February 2026, available in Dutch here and in French here, p. 4.

[18] Federal Chamber of Representatives, General Expenditure Budget Statement for the financial year 2026 – Accounts of the budgets of public administrative bodies under ministerial control, 28 January 2026, available in French and Dutch here, p. 197.

[19] Federal Chamber of Representatives, General Expenditure Budget for the financial year 2026, 28 January 2026, available in French and Dutch here, p. 21.

[20] Anneleen Van Bossuyt, Federal Chamber of Representatives DOC 56 1280/019, 10 March 2026, available in French and Dutch here, p. 86.

[21] Chamber of Representatives, Draft law containing the Budget of Expenditure for the financial year 2026 – Comments and observations from the Court of Auditors DOC 56 1279/003, 19 February 2026, available in Dutch and French here, p. 63.

[22] Fedasil, Integrated managementplan 2025-2030, 12 February 2026, available in Dutch here, p. 7.

[23] The law adds article 4, §1, 5° to the Reception Act of 2007. It is a ground for refusing access to reception conditions, based on the fact that someone already received protection in another EU member state.

[24] Information provided by Fedasil, April 2026.

[25] Federal Chamber of Representatives, Draft law amending the Act of 12 January 2007 on the reception of asylum seekers and certain other categories of foreign nationals DOC 56 0914/001, 5 June 2025, available in French and Dutch here, p. 14 – 15. The Council of State found that “such a restriction will not in itself cause any problems, provided that the number of reception places remains sufficient to guarantee the persons concerned the assistance to which they are entitled. If this were not the case, the very possibility of receiving any form of assistance – whether material or financial – be fundamentally undermined if the proposed legislative measures, in combination with other measures, were to have the object and effect of restricting asylum seekers’ legal possibilities of obtaining material assistance within the meaning of the Act of 12 January 2007 or equivalent assistance. The question arises as to whether such an impairment is compatible both with Articles 17 and 18 of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 ‘laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection’ and with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights”

[26] EMN Belgium, Belgian Constitutional Court temporarily suspends stricter reception and family reunification rules, 26 February 2026, available in English here.

[27] Belgian Constitutional Court, 23/2026, 26 February 2026, available in Dutch here, B.24.1 – B.26.

[28] 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.”

[29] General Policy Note on Asylum and Migration, 22 January 2026, p. 21, available in French and Dutch here.

[30] Move coalition, Newsletter Detention 2-2025, May 2025, available in French here and in Dutch here, p. 3-4; and Newsletter Detention 3-2025, September 2025, available in French here and in Dutch here; Newsletter Detention 1-2026, February 2026, available in French here and in Dutch here.

[31] De Standaard, Sharp rise in the number of hunger strikers in closed deportation centers: ‘Often the only way to express despair’, 20 January 2026, available in Dutch here; RTBF, Asylum and Migration: A Report by the Move Coalition Highlights the Difficult Conditions in Detention Centers, 21 January 2026, available in French here.

[32] RTBF, Asylum and Migration: A Palestinian man dies at the 127bis detention center, likely by suicide, 7 October 2025,available in French here ; Brussels Time, Gaza refugee dies by suicide in Belgian detention centre, 8 October 2025, available in English here.

[33] Immigration Office, Temporary protection monthly statistics 2025 December, available in Dutch and French here (see table 1.1 & 1.2).

[34] Immigration Office, Information provided in March 2026, number of persons registered in the Alien register on 31 December 2025.

[35] There is no number available on total amount of applications, meaning number of negative decisions cannot be corrected relative to the total amount of applications. Immigration Office, ‘Temporary protection monthly statistics 2025 December’, available in Dutch and French here (see table 1.5 and 2)

[36] Parliamentary Question [Flemish Parliament] no. 53, 5 December 2024. See also Myria, ‘contact meeting’, 29 January 2025, p.58, available in French and Dutch here.

[37] Council implementing Decision (EU) 2025/1460, extending the temporary protection introduced by Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382, 15 July 2025, available here.

[38] See Helpukraine, Adress change registration centre Brussels, 4 August 2025, available in English here.

[39] CGRA, Ukraine – state of affairs regarding applications for protection in Belgium, available in English here.

[40] See CALL nr. 330 702, 6 August 2025, p. 8, available in Dutch here.

[41] Immigration Office, Temporary Protection monthly statistics, November 2025, available in English here.

[42] Negative decisions [internal documents] communicated to the Infoline of Vluchtelingenwerk from July 2025 onwards, see also: Myria, ‘Contact meeting’, 17 September 2025, in which the Immigration Office confirmed this practice, p.21, available in French and Dutch here.

[43] Council implementing decision (EU) 2025/1460 extending the temporary protection, available here.

[44] Former article 10bis §2 Aliens Act, covered under the transitional measures provided by the Law of 18 July 2025 amending the law of 15 December 1980 (Aliens Act), Article 24 §3 1°.

[45] As confirmed by Fedasil, March 2026.

[46] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2026.