Criteria and restrictions to access reception conditions

Author

Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen Visit Website

Right to shelter and assignment to a centre

According to the Reception Act,[1] every asylum applicant has the right to material reception conditions ensuring a dignified standard of living from the moment of making an asylum application.[2]

There is no limit to this right connected to the nationality of the asylum applicants in the Reception Act. Asylum applicants from safe countries of origin will have a reception place assigned to them. EU citizens applying for asylum and their family members are entitled to reception as well, although in practice they are not accommodated by Fedasil (see Differential Treatment of Specific Nationalities in Reception). This means that they need to secure housing with their own means. EU citizens applying for asylum can challenge the formal refusal decision of Fedasil (known as ‘non-designation of a code 207’) before the Labour Court.

No material reception conditions, with the exception of medical care, are due to a person with sufficient financial resources. Expenses that have been provided in the context of reception can also be recovered in such cases.[3] Since 1 July 2024, new legislation entered into force that changed the contribution obligations of residents of the reception network, broadened Fedasil’s competences to check their income and to claim the contribution directly from the resident (see Reduction or withdrawal of reception due to a professional income).[4]

The Aliens Act provides that ‘registration’ and ‘lodging’ of the asylum application are two different steps in the asylum procedure.[5] The Reception Act, however, now clearly provides that an asylum applicant has the right to shelter from the moment they make the asylum application, and not only from the moment the asylum application is registered,[6] in line with the recast Reception Conditions Directive.

Applicants who receive direct access to the reception network on the day of registering their asylum application at the Immigration Office (mostly families, unaccompanied minors and applicants with a specific vulnerability) receive the address of a centre in the ‘first phase’ of the reception network after having finished the registration procedure and are expected to find their way to this reception centre. The next day, they visit the ‘arrival centre’ of Fedasil (‘Petit Château’ or ‘Klein Kasteeltje’) for an intake procedure. Applicants for international protection who, due to the ongoing reception crisis (see further), do not receive direct access to the reception network on the day of their asylum application (in practice, almost all single male applicants) are informed by the personnel of the Immigration Office of the fact that they need to register on a waiting list of Fedasil. The average waiting time of persons registered on this waiting list was 112 days in 2024. Once they are eligible for a reception place, they receive an invitation via e-mail to come to the ‘arrival centre’ for the intake procedure.

During the intake procedure, applicants undergo a medical screening and can get vaccinated (optional) and must undergo a tuberculosis test (compulsory). Fedasil assesses any specific reception needs that might arise (e.g. medical needs). Afterwards, applicants are first accommodated in one of the 12 first-phase reception centres (with a total capacity of 3,309 places).[7] Once a place in a second phase reception structure becomes available, the person is moved to the new reception place. Due to the reception crisis, the average stay in a first phase reception places rose to 49 days in 2024.[8]

Asylum applicants who stay at private addresses and indicate they do not need material assistance will only be entitled to medical care (to be requested to Fedasil via an online ‘requisitorium’; see Health care). Their right to have the assistance of a pro bono lawyer may also be affected if they live with someone who has sufficient means. When the need arises, these applicants can always opt for material aid again if their asylum procedure is pending.

Constraints in accessing accommodation

2020: limitation of reception for persons with an expired Dublin decision and an online registration form for the international protection procedure

In January 2020, the government issued new instructions on the ‘Modalities relating to the right to material assistance of applicants for international protection with an Annex 26quater or a protection status in another Member State’.[9] This instruction limited the material assistance to only medical assistance for persons restarting their asylum procedure in Belgium after the expiry of the Dublin transfer period (see Right to reception: Dublin procedure) and for applicants who have already been granted international protection in another EU Member State (see Right to reception: Applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State).

This new policy was adopted due to the overcrowding of the reception system and the increase of applications for international protection made by these two categories of applicants. After several national, Flemish and French-speaking NGOs had introduced an appeal to the Council of State aiming for the suspension and the annulment of the Fedasil instructions, Fedasil withdrew the instructions of 3 January 2020 in September 2020, right before the hearing before the Council of State was scheduled.[10]

2020: COVID-19 pandemic and online registration system

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and in view of respecting the security measures imposed by the government, an online registration system for applications for international protection was introduced by the Immigration Office (see Registration of the asylum application), due to which some applicants for international protection had to wait multiple weeks before they were able to make their application. Since applicants for international protection are only entitled to material assistance from the moment they make their application for international protection, applicants had no access to the reception system during this waiting period.[11]On 5 October 2020, the Brussels court of first instance ruled that completing the online registration was equal to ‘the formal making of a request for international protection’ and should give the immediate right to reception conditions.[12] The Belgian state was given 30 days to change the registration system to ensure the immediate access of applicants to the reception system. As a result, the Immigration Office suspended the online registration system and resumed the previous system of physical, spontaneous registrations on 3 November 2020.

 2021 – 2025: reception crisis: systematic denial of reception for male applicants for international protection

Since September 2021, the reception network is under enormous pressure and Fedasil is unable to provide all applicants with a reception place. Consequentially, priority is given to those applicants considered ‘vulnerable’ (families, children, single women, etc.). Unless they present an exceptional (medical) vulnerability[13], single male applicants are almost systematically not considered as vulnerable and are thus denied access to a reception place. In 2023 Fedasil failed to provide accommodation to 8,816 single male applicants with a right to reception.[14] In 2024 Fedasil did not provide accommodation to 10,191 single male applicants with a right to reception.[15]

Since May 2022 and until the time of writing (March 2025), single male applicants for international protection are systematically deprived of their right to reception. After registering their application for international protection, single men with a need for accommodation are not given an individually motivated decision that refuses them a reception place.[16] They are merely informed about the shortage of places and instructed to register themselves on a waiting list of Fedasil.[17] At the end of 2024, around 3,000 isolated men were on the waiting list.[18] In 2024 the average waiting time on the waiting list for reception was 112 days.[19] During the waiting period, the applicants are left to fend for themselves, many living in extremely precarious conditions (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).

Although the reception crisis mostly impacts single men applying for asylum in Belgium, families and unaccompanied minors have also suffered important consequences because of the severe shortage of places. In October and November 2022, there were some days on which Fedasil could not provide shelter to families with children and unaccompanied minors.[20] Since the winter of 2022, the reception of this group has been guaranteed. In the summer of 2023, the reception crisis reached a point where there were not enough places for families in the reception network. Since then, families are often housed in emergency reception (including youth centres and hotels) for a few weeks in a first phase, before being moved to a more permanent reception centre (see Types of accommodation). The quality of reception conditions in these emergency reception facilities is limited (see Conditions in reception facilities).

In September 2022, 51 civil society organisations published a ‘roadmap’ proposing several measures to solve the reception crisis.[21] The secretary of state stated that certain of the proposed measures, such as providing emergency shelter in hotels, activating the federal phase of the national disaster plan or the mandatory distribution plan will not be considered.[22] In September 2023 she repeated that this distribution plan or other possible solutions like a temporary residence permit for Afghans are not taken into consideration.[23]

On 29 August 2023, the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration officially announced a temporary suspension of reception for all single male applicants.[24] The reason for this suspension was the limited number of available places in the reception network for families and children and the need to prevent this group of vulnerable applicants from ending up on the streets. Only in exceptional cases can single men receive a reception place.[25] Upon appeal by several NGO’s, this measure was considered as unlawful by the Council of State, the highest administrative court in Belgium (see Legal proceedings).[26] However, after the judgement, the Secretary of State announced being unable to respect the ruling and that the suspension of access to reception for single men would continue.[27] This means that the waiting list is in theory frozen and single men are no longer offered a reception place. In practice, Fedasil continues to invite single men, but at a very slow pace, which entails that the number of persons registered on the waiting list does not diminish, the number of applicants with reception needs arriving each day being far higher than the amount of people provided access to a reception place. Consequently, the number of people waiting for a place and the average waiting time continues to fluctuate around 3,000 persons.

The reception crisis also impacted access to the asylum procedure in 2022 and 2023 (see Registration of the asylum application).

Consequences on the applicants’ livelihoods

Applicants without access to the reception network often endure months of homelessness. Many sleep on the streets, relying on sleeping bags, mattresses, and blankets provided by humanitarian organisations and concerned citizens, who also distribute food and warm drinks. Between 2022 and 2025, several informal tent camps and squats emerged in Brussels, with a particularly high-profile wave of squats in 2023 that attracted significant media attention.[28]

To address the reception crisis, in 2022 the federal government allocated funding for 2,000 additional places within the Brussels Region’s homeless shelter network, a measure commonly known as ‘the Brussels Deal’.[29] The government claims that applicants unable to secure Fedasil accommodation should be able to find shelter within this system. However, in practice, this measure does not provide a solution for all applicants in need of reception. Apart from issues with the accessibility of these places – persons should register for this homelessness accommodation themselves through systems that contain high thresholds for them, such as calling a registration hotline in a language they do not master or registering online while not all of the applicants can easily use such online systems – there is still a large shortage of places for all destitute asylum applicants. The places are open to everyone in need of accommodation, applicants for international protection are not given priority. Throughout 2023 and 2024, the shelter network operated at full capacity, requiring the implementation of a waiting list for this network as well. Because multiple humanitarian organisations manage the shelters, waiting times vary, as does the length of stay, which can range from a single night to several weeks. For example, ngo Belrefugees provides accommodation for 28 days and had an average waiting time of four to six weeks. Throughout 2024 between 1,500 and 1,900 people were registered on the Belrefugees waiting list.[30] Samusocial on the other hand provides accommodation for one night which is only accessible through an online platform or a telephone hotline. Samusocial states that only one third of the single men requesting a place to sleep receives a positive answer.[31] Regardless of the organisation providing shelter, once the maximum stay is reached, individuals must leave the network and re-register on the waiting list to access the homeless shelter network again. The ngo Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, in the context of its field work providing legal information to applicants having been denied reception, very regularly encounters applicants who have tried to applied for homelessness accommodation for days or even weeks, without success.[32] Consequently, applicants denied Fedasil accommodation face a high risk of destitution unless they can secure housing on their own. In December 2024, all the organisations managing these shelters issued a press release condemning this situation.[33] They highlighted their growing struggle to provide housing solutions, even for families with children. Since May 2023, they have also published four dashboards detailing the reception crisis’s impact on humanitarian organisations in Brussels as well as the impact on destitute applicants.[34]

Medical organisations have denounced the dire medical situation for destitute asylum applicants on multiple occasions. Although Fedasil remains responsible for the reimbursement of medical costs, the group of applicants deprived of reception in the context of the reception crisis encountered many difficulties accessing medical aid through the online ‘requisitorium’ (see Health care). Language barriers, lack of access to internet and urgent and complex medical needs because of precarious living situations, were some of the reasons why this group had difficulties accessing medical aid via this system.

To make medical care more accessible for applicants for international protection outside of the Fedasil reception network, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) Belgium opened a medical unit at the registration centre (Pacheco) in October 2022. This Refugee Medical Point (RMP) was taken over by Croix-Rouge in January 2023 and moved to the ‘Jules Bordet Hospital’ in July of 2024.[35] In 2024 the Refugee Medical Point was unable to help everyone in need. On average 150 persons per months were not given immediate medical care in the RMP because of a high demand. Of all the visitors to the RMP, 95% were applicants for international protection without Fedasil accommodation.[36] Humanitarian organisations providing medical care, such as the medical services at the Humanitarian HUB ran by MSF and Doctors of the World (MdM), registered an increase in the ratio of applicants for international protection on their entire visitors’ population.[37] These services indicate that many of the health problems treated among applicants for international protection are directly related to their dire living situations and the lack of access to preventive and curative health care: skin diseases, digestive issues and dental problems, joint problems and mental health problems.[38] They also treat several contagious diseases that would usually be prevented or cured when people would undergo a medical examination on the moment of entering the Fedasil reception network, such as diphtheria, scabies, tuberculosis and measles.[39] MSF teams also observed a marked deterioration in the mental health of applicants for international protection living on the streets. Main diagnoses identified are: psychotic disorders, post-traumatic stress and depression. These disorders are exacerbated by the insecurity and uncertainty associated with the lack of housing. In some cases, this can lead to suicidal thoughts or suicide attempts.

Access to legal assistance and information

The reception crisis has severely hindered access to legal assistance for applicants sleeping rough. After the registration of their application, single men are automatically left on the streets without any information about their rights – including the right to legal assistance – nor any practical indications on accessing the legal assistance they are entitled to. As a result, they are unable to challenge the violation of their right to a reception place. Most applicants lack information on the course of the asylum procedure. This can result in missing their first interview, potentially leading to the closure of their procedure. Many go to their interviews uninformed and unprepared. Although the presence of a lawyer is allowed during interviews of the CGRS, many do not have a lawyer by the time they are invited for this interview and they go without the legal assistance they are entitled to.

Several NGO’s try to mitigate this issue by providing legal information and ensuring access to lawyers to victims of the reception crisis. SISA, the social and administrative information service of the NGO BelRefugees, has been providing legal information and assistance to migrants living in precarious situations for a long time and continues to do so in the context of the reception crisis. Whereas SISA is accessible for all persons living in precarious situations and having questions about migration, the share of applicants of international protection among the total amount of visitors was on average 83% in 2024.[40] In April 2022, a legal helpdesk was set up by the NGO Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, a consortium of law firms and the Bureau of legal aid of Brussels (Barreau de Bruxelles). In this ‘first line’ helpdesk, volunteers provide information about the asylum procedure to applicants without access to a reception place, help them with registering on Fedasil’s waiting list and finding their way to emergency accommodation and other humanitarian services. Through this helpdesk, a ‘second line’ lawyer is appointed for further legal support in their asylum procedure. To this purpose, a collaboration has been set up with different bureaus of legal aid in Gent, Antwerp, Leuven, Limburg and Brussels, so as to ensure the swift designation of a lawyer. Between April 2022 and March 2025, 10,499 individual applicants came to the legal helpdesk.[41]

In September 2023, Fedasil has reopened their Info Point, an information centre where applicants for international protection, migrants in transit and undocumented persons can get information about the asylum procedure, medical aid, legal advice etc.[42] Although the Info Point does not serve as a point of access to reception for those excluded in the context of the reception crisis, it can provide this group with information and help them, for example, to fill out the medical requisitorium that allows them to get medical costs reimbursed (see Health care). In its first year, the Infopunt received nearly 11,500 visitors, the vast majority of whom were isolated men. Palestinians made up 36% of the total. More than 8,000 visitors were asylum seekers seeking information about accommodation.[43]

Legal proceedings

In the past two years, multiple legal procedures have been initiated to force the Belgian government to respect the international and national obligation to provide reception to people asking for international protection. In individual procedures initiated by lawyers of applicants being denied reception, Fedasil has been condemned at least 10,407 times by Labour Courts for violation of the right to reception.[44] Similarly, the European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) has indicated more than 2,284 interim measures to the Belgian state, ordering to provide shelter to the persons involved.[45] A consortium of NGO’s has also initiated several collective procedures, asking Belgian courts to condemn the violation of the right to reception and the right to asylum.[46]

• Individual legal proceedings

From the early stage of the reception crisis, lawyers started legal procedures to challenge the violation of the right to reception of their clients, often through ‘unilateral request’ (non-contradictory procedure in extreme urgency) lodged before the presidents of the Labour courts. In many of these cases, courts confirmed the right to reception to the applicants, ordering Fedasil (and later also the Belgian State, being declared responsible in solidum) to give them immediate access to a reception place, on penalty of a fine of € 100 to € 250 per working day it fails to respect the court decision. As of January 2025, Fedasil has been condemned by Belgian labour courts 10,407 times since the start of the reception crisis.[47] The total amount of fines that are due is estimated to be above 100 million euros.

Some Labour courts included additional elements in their convictions, adding to the legal pressure on Fedasil. In a ruling of 13 June 2022, the Brussels Labour Court communicated an individual case against Fedasil to the public prosecutor’s office.[48] In its communication the Court explained that Fedasil appears to have a deliberate, concerted and persistent practice of not granting the right to reception to applicants for international protection who are clearly entitled to it. The Court asked the public prosecutor to start an investigation on the claim that there ‘seems to have been put in place a system by persons holding public authority with a view to not granting the right to reception guaranteed by the Reception Law’. This could be a possible violation of Belgian penal law, prohibiting measures contrary to the law concerted by a public authority. On 24 June 2022, the public prosecutor closed the investigation, indicating that there was no violation.[49] In a ruling of 28 March 2023, the Brussels Labour Court fined Fedasil for € 2,500 to be paid as a ‘civil penalty’, because of ‘clear procedural abuse’.[50] The court ruled that Fedasil showcased a deliberate and manifest violation of the Reception Law, hereby not executing its legal mission. In this case, Fedasil fails to provide adequate legal justification for the violation of the Reception Law. Continuing, the Court states that an aggravating circumstance is disruption of the public service of justice: ‘this disruption is very significant in view of the number of cases and the urgency with which they have to be dealt with, profoundly affecting the functioning of the French-speaking labour court of Brussels, to the detriment of this court and, ultimately, of all its litigants’. Both the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation upheld this conviction, imposing the maximum civil fine of € 2,500 on Fedasil. [51]

The wide amount of case proceedings and convictions against Fedasil has so far had a limited impact in practice, with less results registered in the latter phases of the reception crisis. While at the beginning of the reception crisis, applicants who received a positive court decision were given an appointment for accommodation within a week, the waiting time for persons having received a positive court order soon started increasing, to reach several months. As a result, applicants started introducing requests for interim measures at the European Court of Human Rights.[52] The first interim measure was granted on 31 October 2022.[53] On 23 December 2024, the ECtHR had granted 2,282 interim measures in this context.[54] Although the interim measures were effective in the beginning, leading to an invitation to access the reception network within a short period, the waiting time increased for this group of applicants as well.

In July 2023, Fedasil announced it would no longer give priority to persons having received a positive court order: every applicant in need of reception is requested to register on a waiting list, after which they will be invited in a chronological order based on the date on which they have asked for asylum.[55] This policy was confirmed in December 2024: “once registered on the waiting list, the date of the application for international protection is the main criterion for admission to the reception network”.[56] The practice renders the available legal remedies at the domestic and European level virtually ineffective. The Camara v. Belgium case resulted in a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the ECtHR found that Belgium violates Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and observed ‘a systemic failure on the part of the Belgian authorities to enforce final court decisions relating to the reception of applicants for international protection’. [57] The failure of the Belgian government to comply with the rule of law has been largely criticised on both the national and international level (see International reaction).

Several lawyers have tried to force Fedasil and the Belgian state to respect the court decisions by claiming the penalties imposed by the courts in case of non-respect of the court decisions. However, Fedasil has until now refused to pay. This decision was confirmed on several occasions by the previous Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration and Fedasil.[58] The new minister for Asylum and Migration has repeated that under the new government, Fedasil will not pay these penalties either.[59] Lawyers have thus taken further legal steps in order to force the payment of the penalties by Fedasil and the Belgian state by the confiscation and public sale of goods of Fedasil and of the cabinets of the Secretary of State and the prime minister.[60] However, the possibilities of confiscating public goods are strongly limited by Belgian law in order to not hinder the functioning of these services, making the enforcement of the judicial convictions very difficult in practice.

• Collective legal proceedings

In a decision of 19 January 2022 in a case brought on the initiative of several NGOs,[61] the court of first instance of Brussels condemned the Belgian State and Fedasil for not ensuring access to the asylum procedure and to reception conditions and ordered both parties to ensure the respect of these fundamental rights, imposing a € 5,000 penalty payment for the respective parties for each day during the following 6 months on which at least one person did not receive access to the asylum procedure (penalty for the Belgian State) or to the reception system (penalty for Fedasil).[62] Although the situation had improved slightly since the opening of new places in December 2021 and the opening of an emergency night shelter in January 2022,[63] the court deemed the state of the reception system too unstable to guarantee access to the asylum procedure and to reception conditions for all applicants in the near future. The court also explicitly stated that the waiting list used by Fedasil is unlawful.

After this judgement, single men were still being denied access to the reception network, and the waiting list was still used. As a result, the NGO’s filed a new appeal at the court of first instance, requesting an increase of the penalty payment from € 5,000 to € 10,000 for each day that the judgement would not be respected. In a judgement of 25 March 2023, the Court condemned Fedasil again, thereby increasing the penalty payment to €10.000. The court repeated that Fedasil is bound by the European Reception Conditions Directive to provide accommodation to all first-time applicants for international protection, regardless of external factors influencing the availability of places. It specifically stated that it is unlawful to automatically exclude applicants for international protection with a Eurodac hit or with a protection status in another EU Member State. Fedasil introduced an appeal against this judgement of 25 March at the Court of Appeal. This led to a new judgement on 13 October 2022. The Court of Appeal discarded Fedasil’s arguments and upheld the judgement of the 25 March. It also lifted the period of 6 months during which the penalty fees could be claimed. It argued that Fedasil did not provide a concrete action plan to solve the reception crisis. The court went further and stated that Fedasil ‘deliberately and manifestly disregards the judgement of the 19 January 2022’. Therefore, the penalty fees could be claimed for every working day that Fedasil did not respect the judgment of 24 January 2022, until the date of the in-merit decision on the case from the Court of First instance.

On 29 June 2023, the Court of First Instance of Brussels (French-speaking) condemned the Belgian State and Fedasil on the merits for their persistent misconduct in violating the right to asylum and the right to reception, as well as for not respecting judicial decisions.[64] The Belgian state violated the right to asylum by restricting access to asylum procedure. The court held that the right to apply for asylum may not be unlawfully prevented or delayed. The fact that the Belgian state is doing its best to organise the situation and does not intend to prevent the exercise of this right is irrelevant in this regard. The court finds that the Belgian state was in violation of the abovementioned obligations.

With regards to Fedasil, the Court found that the Federal Agency violated the right to reception. According to the court, it is not in doubt that the right to reception has been violated since the summer of 2021. The fact that there is a waiting list for reception sufficiently demonstrates this violation, according to the court. The Belgian state and Fedasil argued that there is force majeure that makes guaranteeing the right to shelter impossible. The court concludes that there is no force majeure. Therefore, saturation of the shelter network does not relieve the state of its obligations.

According to the court, it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the defending parties do not respect judicial decisions. This attitude endangers the foundations of the rule of law. Consequently, the Belgian state and Fedasil violate Article 1382 of the Civil Code.

Despite these judgements, Fedasil has continued to violate the right to reception up until the time of writing.[65] This has been confirmed by Fedasil in several official communications.[66] Fedasil has not yet paid the penalty fees that are due, hereby violating legal judgements.[67] The 10 NGOs have tried to demand the payment of the penalty fees, so far without success. Legal procedures on the payment of these penalties are currently pending. In January 2024, the Court of Appeal of Brussels authorised the NGO’s to proceed to the seizure of certain specific bank accounts of Fedasil, under certain conditions specified by the Court.[68] The NGO’s announced that the amounts that would be seized following this authorisation – which could amount up to 2,9 million euros of penalties due by Fedasil – would be entirely used for the direct support of victims of the reception crisis.[69] Fedasil appealed this decision, arguing that as a public service provider it is immune to seizure of goods. On 11 June 2024, the Brussels Court of Appeal rejected the appeal by Fedasil appeal. The Court stated that: “It is inconceivable that Fedasil, as a legal entity of public order, which should be setting an example to those who are supposed to respect and execute judicial decisions handed down against it, should hide behind the unseizability, as a general rule, of its bank assets in order to escape execution of the main sentence which it is not voluntarily respecting, which is why the judge had to attach a sufficiently high fine to force Fedasil to respect the judicial decisions handed down against it (own translation from French)”.[70] It concluded that the seizure of the Fedasil bank accounts is necessary to guarantee the continuity of the public service provided by Fedasil.[71]

Since the Brussels Court of Appeal upheld the principle of seizure, the NGOs proceeded with seizing a specific bank account of Fedasil. Fedasil appealed this seizure, arguing that the account is essential for the reception agency’s operations. As the time of writing (March 2025), no judgment has been issued on the appeal.

(Inter)national reaction

 On 13 December 2022, the former Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe Dunja Mijatovic sent a letter to the Belgian secretary of state for asylum and migration expressing her concern about the deteriorating reception crisis in Belgium.[72] In August 2023, the Commissioner repeated that ‘the lack of accommodation has serious consequences for the human rights of people applying for asylum in Belgium, including from the perspective of their right to health.’[73]

On 30 March 2023, four UN Special Rapporteurs (the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context; and the Special Rapporteur on the right to drinking water and sanitation) sent a letter to the Belgian Government to underline their deep concern regarding the deterioration of the reception conditions.[74]

In September 2023, several Belgian human rights institutions addressed an open letter to the rapporteurs and representatives of various European institutions and the United Nations, voicing their concern on the ongoing infringement of both human rights and the rule of law and calling the European institutions and UN to examine the situation in Belgium.[75] Despite insistence of the human rights institutions, their letter received very little response.

In October 2023, Amnesty International published a statement urging the Belgian authorities to take all possible measures in order to adequately respect, protect and fulfil the rights of asylum applicants and to comply with the court rulings ordering Belgium to provide adequate accommodation.[76] In December 2023, Amnesty International launched an international campaign, calling on the Belgian Government to provide adequate shelter to asylum applicants and to respect international human rights obligations.[77]

In November 2023, UNHCR published a statement expressing their concern on the reception crisis. The Agency stated that “through collective and coordinated action by all actors, immediate and long-term solutions are at hand to better protect people fleeing war, violence and persecution”.[78]

Before the federal elections of June 2024, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation and the Council of state published an unprecedented collective memorandum. The three supreme courts expressed their serious concern on the state of the rule of law in the context of the reception crisis: ‘Such a situation is a serious erosion of the rule of law, in a context where numerous citizens are increasingly questioning the legitimacy of our institutions. The three Supreme Courts express their strong concern and urge future political leaders to respect all judicial decisions and, consequently, all litigants’.[79]

In September 2024, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe published its findings after reviewing Belgium’s compliance with the Camara v. Belgium judgment issued on 31 October 2022.[80] The Committee noted the efforts of the Belgian government to increase reception capacity. However, they added that ‘given the inadequacy of these measures in view of the continuing crisis, its humanitarian nature and its impact on the European Court and Brussels courts, [we] call on the authorities to act as soon as possible, in light of the recommendations made by competent international and national organisations; in particular, [we] call on them to increase their efforts as in 2015, to use all the means at their disposal, including through greater collaboration between all levels of power, and to adopt a sufficient budget and a timetable specifying the next steps with a view to achieving compliance with their commitment’. Therefore, the Committee called on the Belgian authorities to ‘increase the capacity of their reception network significantly and sustainably, as quickly as possible, in order to resolve the current crisis, eradicate the problem of non-enforcement of court decisions at source, and be able to cope with the future influx of applicants inherent in any asylum system’. In response to this communication the Federal Migration Centra (Myria) and the Federal Institute for Human Rights stated that the federal government had not taken ‘adequate measures to solve the lack of reception places for asylum seekers’.[81] The then secretary of state Nicole de Moor replied to these publications that ‘the solution, cannot be to create thousands more shelters. That is simply not possible. […] I have always opposed proposals to give financial support to asylum seekers during the procedure. I will continue to do so’.[82] This position is confirmed in the coalition agreement of the current government.[83]

In April 2025 Amnesty International published a research report ‘Belgium: Unhoused and unheard – How Belgium’s persistent failure to provide reception violates asylum seekers’ rights’. Amnesty describes the publication as ‘a call to action and a damning indictment of how the Belgian authorities continue to enact policies that violate asylum seekers’ rights, perpetuate racial discrimination, and create misery and destitution, all while undermining the rule of law’.[84]

Reception support

In December 2021, the EUAA and Belgium signed their first operating plan, focusing on increasing reception capacity and improving reception quality, in the short and medium term.[85] An amendment was signed in May 2022 following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and subsequent displacement,[86] followed by second amendment was signed in November 2022 extending the operational support throughout 2023,[87] and a third amendment in December 2023 extending support into 2024.[88] In December 2024, the EUAA and Belgium agreed on an operational plan for 2025-2026, with support with regard to asylum procedures and reception.[89]

Throughout 2024, the EUAA deployed 60 experts in Belgium,[90] mostly external experts (53). The majority of them were junior asylum information provision experts (10), along with junior reception child protection experts (9) and roving team members (6).[91]

As of 11 December 2024, a total of 37 EUAA experts were deployed in Belgium, out of which 5 were junior asylum information provision experts, 4 intermediate asylum and/or reception statistics experts, 4 intermediate reception information system business analysis experts and 4 junior reception child protection experts.[92]

In 2024, the EUAA delivered 52 training sessions to a total of 311 local staff members.[93]

Right to reception: subsequent applications

The Reception Act provides the possibility for Fedasil to refuse reception to asylum applicants who lodge a second or further subsequent asylum application, until their asylum application is deemed admissible by the CGRS.[94] Between the moment of the subsequent application and the admissibility decision by the CGRS, asylum applicants who are refused reception nevertheless have the right to medical assistance from Fedasil and to free legal representation. Once the CGRS has deemed the application admissible, the right to access reception is reactivated. Asylum applicants must then present themselves to the Dispatching service at Fedasil’s arrival centre to be allocated a reception place.

If the asylum applicant has not obtained reception from Fedasil during the first stage of the procedure and the CGRS declares the subsequent asylum application inadmissible, they will not be entitled to reception during the appeal with the CALL.

If, after a final negative decision in the asylum procedure, a request for a prolongation of reception (see End of the right to reception) was pending or granted and the person lodges a second or further subsequent asylum application, the Dispatching service of Fedasil will take a new decision regarding access to reception conditions in the new procedure. If it decides to refuse reception, the previously pending or granted prolongation is withdrawn. The right to reception is thus linked to the most recent asylum procedure.[95]

Article 4 of the Reception Act is aligned with the recast Reception Conditions Directive and explicitly states that decisions which limit or withdraw the right to reception should be in line with the principle of proportionality, individually motivated and based on the individual situation of the person concerned, especially in the case vulnerable persons. Health care and a dignified standard of living should be always ensured. According to the Constitutional Court, the decision to refuse reception in such cases can only be taken in cases of abuse of the asylum procedure, e.g. when the person applies for asylum for the sole purpose of extending the right to reception.[96] In practice, however, Fedasil almost systematically refuses to assign a reception place to subsequent applicants until their asylum application is declared admissible by the CGRS, mostly through standardised refusal decisions. On multiple occasions, labour tribunals have ordered Fedasil to motivate such decisions individually and consider all case elements.[97] In certain cases, subsequent applicants obtained reception after challenging such decisions before the courts. This means that the access to the right to reception in these cases often depends on whether the applicant is supported by an experienced lawyer. The Federal Mediator has received many complaints about this issue in the last years, including from families with minor children, having been refused reception after lodging a subsequent application for international protection. In several cases, Fedasil has reviewed its decision after intervention by the Federal Mediator and has granted the applicants reception.[98]

Right to reception: Dublin procedure

Applicants registered as asylum applicants in another Member State

Right to reception until the moment of the effective transfer

During the examination of the Dublin procedure by the Immigration Office, asylum applicants are entitled to a reception place. Social assistants in the general reception centres are required to provide them with information on this procedure and its potential impact on the asylum procedure and reception conditions. Social assistants might also, with the consent of the applicant, inform their lawyer or the Immigration Office directly of any vulnerability or other element that might be relevant in the context of the Dublin procedure.[99] If a negative Dublin decision (‘annex 26quater’: refusal of residence with an order to leave the territory) is issued, the right to material assistance used to be terminated as soon as the deadline for leaving the territory has expired or as soon as the travel documents are delivered (in case the asylum applicant confirms their willingness to collaborate with the transfer but cannot obtain the necessary travel documents within the delay to leave the territory for reasons beyond their own will).[100] Fedasil considered this practice in line with the Cimade and Gisti judgement of the CJEU.[101] The Labour Courts of Brussels and Antwerp have overruled these instructions in individual cases, as they rely on a strict interpretation of the Cimade judgment, by ordering Fedasil to provide shelter until the Belgian state effectively executes the transfer decision itself, unless it gives clear instructions as to when and where the asylum applicant has to present themselves for this.[102]

Consequently, asylum applicants subject to a negative Dublin decision who are, on the moment of receiving this decision, residing in the reception network are invited to relocate to an ‘open return place’ or ‘Dublin place’. These places are mostly embedded in general centres of the Fedasil reception network. They have 5 working days from the date of the notification of the designation to go the newly designated Dublin place. If they do not wish to go this centre, their right to reception will be suspended (see ‘Return track’ and assignment to an open return centre).[103] In that case, their right to material assistance is limited to urgent medical care. Exceptions to the designation of a Dublin-place can be requested in case of medical counter-indications, pregnancy or recent birth.[104]

In the context of a Dublin-place, the applicant is subject to a trajectory of accompaniment with their voluntary return, called ‘ICAM’ (individual case management), consisting of a series of interviews.[105] (see Return track and assignment to an open return centre). If the applicant refuses collaboration with the return, they are informed of the fact that the Immigration Office can at any moment proceed with a forced return procedure. If the Immigration Office proceeds to an intervention in the centre in view of a forced return, the management of the centre should be present. In such situations, the person is arrested and transferred to an administrative detention centre operated by the Immigration Office in view of their forced return (see Detention on the territory).

In the summer of 2022, the Immigration Office opened a first ‘open return centre’ in Zaventem.[106] The aim of this centre is to fast track the Dublin procedure for a specific target group and to provide them with specific information and counselling. Applicants can be directly designated to this reception centre by Fedasil, even before they have received a negative Dublin decision. They are interviewed after 2-3 working days and will on that occasion be informed about the Dublin procedure and the possibility of a voluntary return to the responsible Member State. After this interview, the Belgian Dublin Unit will proceed with the regular Dublin procedure. Once the responsible Member State has agreed to take back the applicant, the Immigration Office will deliver an annex 26quater (return decision in the context of the Dublin-procedure) and will proceed with the voluntary return of the applicant. If the applicant does not collaborate with this voluntary return, the Immigration Office can detain the applicant and organise a forced return. In 2024, a total of 1,297 persons was accommodated in the Dublin Centre of Zaventem, with an average stay of 42,4 days. 222 voluntary returns were organised from the centre.[107]

After the maximum period allowed by the Dublin Regulation to transfer the asylum applicant to the responsible Member State has passed (6 months in principle, possibly extended to maximum 18 months), Belgium becomes responsible for the application by default and a reception place is re-assigned when the person presents themselves to the Immigration Office and their first asylum application is re-opened (see Dublin).

Reception crisis: no access to reception for male applicants for international protection with a ‘Dublin-hit’

In the context of the reception crisis that started in October 2021 and is ongoing at the time of writing (March 2025), the reception rights of applicants with a ‘Dublin-hit’ were restricted. Since 24 January 2022, applicants for whom, at the moment of registering their asylum application, a EURODAC hit indicated they had already applied for or received international protection in another country, were being denied access to the reception network and told to send an e-mail to Fedasil in order to be put on a waiting list.[108] Since March of 2022, all single men – regardless of a ‘Dublin-hit’ – are excluded from the reception network (see Constraints to the right to shelter). Although Labour tribunals have issued thousands of decisions condemning Fedasil to provide applicants with reception, the rulings have not always been positive for applicants in the Dublin procedure. According to the tribunals, these applicants could have accessed reception conditions in the responsible EU Member State. Therefore, leaving this state for Belgium is a ‘self-inflicted’ situation of precariousness. This refusal of reception by Fedasil and the Labour tribunals seems to contrast with the Cimade and Gisti judgement from the CJEU, which ruled that applicants in a Dublin procedure have a right to shelter until the moment of their effective transfer. At the time of writing (March 2025), applicants in the Dublin procedure still faced these difficulties (see Constraints to the right to shelter).

Dublin Returnees

Depending on the situation of their procedure in Belgium at the moment they left Belgium, asylum applicants sent back to Belgium following a Dublin procedure in another country can be considered subsequent applicants (see Situation of Dublin Returnees). In such a case, they mostly only get shelter after their asylum application is taken into consideration by the CGRS (see Right to reception: subsequent applications). Applicants who are not considered subsequent applicants suffer the consequences of the ongoing reception crisis, in the context of which they are often deprived of shelter for several months before receiving access to the reception network (see Criteria and Restrictions to Access Reception Conditions).

Right to reception: Applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State

Although applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State have a general right to material assistance and no legal provision in the Reception Act allows for the limitation of this right, the right to reception of applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State has been restricted in the past. In January 2020, beneficiaries of protection in another EU Member State were no longer provided accommodation on the basis of a Fedasil instruction (see Constraints to the right to shelter). . After several NGOs introduced an appeal to the Council of State aiming for the suspension and the annulment of these instructions, Fedasil withdrew them in September 2020, right before the hearing before the Council of State was scheduled, after which applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State regained their full right to material assistance, including reception, during their asylum procedure.[109] In the context of the reception crisis that started in October 2021, the reception rights of applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State are again limited. Between 24 January 2022 and March 2022, Fedasil denied access to reception to applicants for who, at the moment of registering their asylum application, a EURODAC hit indicates that they have already applied for or received international protection in another country.[110] Since March 2022, single male applicants for international protection – regardless of protection status in another Member State – are systematically excluded from the reception network (see Constraints to the right to shelter).

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.[111] In practice, this mostly concerns Syrian and Palestinian applicants who have already been granted international protection in Bulgaria and Greece. To tackle this issue, the Secretary of State issued an instruction according to which such applications should be considered as a ‘subsequent applications’, even if it is the first one in Belgium, which allows to restrict the reception conditions of these applicants. To support this definition of subsequent application, the Secretary of State declared that she had received 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. [112] 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 advice to the Council of State – hadn’t been followed.[113] 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’.[114] 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.[115] 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.

‘Return track’ and assignment to an open return centre

The law foresees a so-called ‘return track’ for asylum applicants.[116] This is a framework for individual counselling on return set up by Fedasil, which promotes voluntary return to avoid forced returns. The return track aims at providing applicants with the necessary information to consider their different options, including the possibility of return, allowing them to take an informed decision on their return.[117]

The return track starts with informal counselling, followed by a more formal phase. The informal phase provides information on possibilities of voluntary return and starts from the moment the asylum application is registered. Within 5 working days after a negative first-instance decision on the asylum application by the CGRS has been issued, the asylum applicant is formally offered return assistance. When an appeal is lodged in front of the CALL, the asylum applicant is informed again about their options for return. The return track ends with the transfer to an open return place in a federal reception centre, when:

(1) The period to introduce an appeal in front of the CALL has expired or a negative appeal decision is taken by the CALL: Asylum applicants may ask Fedasil for a derogation of this rule and thus to stay in their first reception centre in case of:

• Families with children who are going to school, who receive a negative decision of the CALL between the beginning of April and the end of June;
• Ex-minors who turn 18 between the beginning of April and the end of June and go to school;
• A medical problem which prevents the asylum applicant from moving to the open reception place or during the last 2 months of pregnancy until 2 months after giving birth;
• a family reunification procedure with a Belgian child was initiated;
• an asylum procedure of a family member that is still pending.

If these derogations are granted, the asylum applicant can stay in the first reception centre until the conditions for the derogation are no longer met, and the return track is continued in this reception centre, albeit in a slightly different format then the track in the context of the open return places.[118] At the end of the derogation, the asylum applicant can ask for a new designation at an open reception centre or simply leave the old centre.

In November 2019, Fedasil published instructions specifically addressed to persons who cannot be accommodated in open return centres due to medical reasons which would render the accommodation inadequate.[119] A specific track has thus been established for them by the ‘voluntary return’ service of Fedasil. This service foresees the possibility to set up 3 appointments during which possibilities for voluntary return are discussed and which can take place in the reception centre of the asylum applicant, if necessary. The decision to further prolong the right to the reception of the concerned person will depend on their medical situation and cooperation.

(2) The Immigration Office takes a return decision based on the Dublin Regulation: In this situation, derogations from the obligation to go to the open return centre are only possible in case of a medical problem which prevents the asylum applicant from moving to the open reception place or during the last 2 months of pregnancy until 2 months after giving birth.[120]

When this derogation is granted, the asylum applicant can stay in the first reception centre. Their return should be organised there instead of in the open return centre.

Unaccompanied minors subject to a negative decision are not transferred to an open return centre until adulthood, after which they can apply for a place in an open return centre.

Regularly, decisions of transfer to an open return place are challenged before the Labour tribunals by applicants having received an annex 26quater, especially when an appeal against this Dublin decision has been brought before the CALL. According to Belgian law, this latter appeal possibility does not have an automatic suspensive effect (see Appeal). Consequently, notwithstanding the introduction of this appeal, a return procedure is initiated at the open return place. Lawyers have argued that this return procedure violates the applicants’ right to an effective appeal and other fundamental rights. In 2020, Belgian judges referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling in several cases to clarify this question of an effective appeal in the context of a Dublin transfer decision.[121] In two orders on request for a preliminary ruling of 26 March 2021, the CJUE has decided that the transfer to an open return place, where the Dublin transfer is being prepared, does not violate the right to an effective appeal, as long as the information provided to the applicants in the context of the return tracks does not put undue pressure on the applicants to abandon their procedural rights.[122] Some labour tribunals have nevertheless decided that the return track in open return places violates other fundamental rights – such as the inviolability of the home, Article 3 and 5 ECHR, the right to legal assistance as guaranteed in Article 23(3) Directive 2013/32/EU and Article 6 ECHR – and puts applicants under undue psychological pressure. Therefore, labour tribunals ruled that Fedasil should allow the applicants to remain in their former reception centre for the duration of the appeal procedure before the CALL.[123]

Once a person is transferred to an open return place, an individual case management (ICAM)-trajectory is started by ICAM-coaches of the Immigration Office, who are present in the Fedasil-centres with open return places 2 days a week to this purpose (see Return procedure). Within 4 working days after their arrival, the social assistant organises a first intake meeting, informing the applicant about the trajectory, the expectations and consequences of e.g. not turning up for ICAM-meetings. During a second meeting, at the latest one week after the intake meeting, the social assistant asks the applicant to choose from different options: return to the responsible member state with or without support of the Immigration Office, refusing the return, a non-suspensive appeal or voluntary return to the country of origin. If the applicant refuses the return, they are informed of the fact that the Immigration Office can at any moment proceed with a forced return. A third meeting is organised, either to prepare the return if the person agreed with it, or to explain once more the consequences of not collaborating with the return. If the Immigration Office proceeds to an intervention in the centre in view of a forced return, the management of the centre should be present. In such situations, the person is arrested and transferred to an administrative detention centre operated by the Immigration Office in view of their forced return (see Detention on the territory).

Attendance to the ICAM-interviews is mandatory. If a person does not show up, the Immigration Office notifies Fedasil, which can then limit the right to material assistance.[124]

End of the right to reception

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.[125] This is now the case:

• When a legal stay for more than three months is granted; or
• Upon notification of a final negative decision.

This is opposed to the previous system, where applicants benefitted from the right to reception until, after a final negative decision, they were notified an order to leave the territory and the deadline to leave the territory indicated on this order, had expired.

A final negative decision can consist of one of the following decisions:

• a negative decision of the CGRS, if no suspensive appeal is filed within the legally prescribed term;
• a decision of the CALL rejecting an appeal against a negative decision of the CGRS in the context of a suspensive appeal procedure;
• a decision of inadmissibility by the CGRS of a 2nd or following subsequent application for international protection;
• the closure of the case (e.g. in case of technical refusal if a person does not show up to an interview without notification) if no suspensive appeal against this decision is filed within the legally prescribed term.

An appeal before the Council of State against a judgment of the CALL refusing to grant international protection does not lead to a right to material assistance until the appeal has been declared admissible. However, if the appeal is directed against a decision of the CALL not granting refugee status but granting subsidiary protection status, the applicant is not granted the right to reception during the entire appeal procedure.[126]

After the notification of a final negative decision, the applicant benefits from material assistance for 30 more calendar days. During these 30 days, the applicant will be subject to the return track (see ‘Return track’ and assignment to an open return centre), either in the context of an open return place or in the context of the centre in which they were previously residing. The applicant must leave the centre on the 1^st working day after the expiration of this term, unless that day is a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, in which case the departure is postponed until the next working day.[127] If the person accepts the transfer to an open return place and they accept to follow the return track, the 30 days start to count from the day they arrive in the open return place. The term of 30 days can be prolonged if the person agrees to collaborate with the return trajectory.[128]

In case the right to reception ends due to a negative outcome in the asylum procedure, there are some humanitarian reasons and other circumstances which may allow for prolongation of the right to reception conditions, namely:

• to end the school year (from the beginning of April until the end of June);
• during the last 2 months of pregnancy until 2 months after giving birth;
• when a family reunification procedure with a Belgian child has been started;
• when the person cannot return to their country of origin for reasons beyond their own will;
• for medical reasons, when an application for legal stay has been made on this ground at the Immigration Office; or
• whenever respect for human dignity requires it.[129]

Fedasil has adopted internal instructions about these possibilities and how to end the accommodation in the reception structures in practice.[130]

In case of a positive outcome of the asylum procedure, and thus after a decision granting a protection status, or upon receiving another form of legal stay (for example, a medical regularisation procedure – which has been introduced in parallel with an asylum procedure – with a positive outcome and thus a legal stay of more than 3 months), there is a transition phase during which the person can look for another place to live and transit from material aid by Fedasil to social welfare services of the PCSW if necessary.[131] People staying in collective structures at the moment of obtaining a positive decision about the residence in Belgium (international protection or other form of legal stay) will be offered the choice between moving to an individual reception structure, or leaving the collective structure within a short time with the support of food cheques with a monthly value of €420 (adult) or €180 (children), for either one or two or four months depending on how quickly they leave the reception centre.[132] If there is no place in an individual reception structure, the transition phase will take place in the collective reception centre. For persons who already stay in an individual reception structure, the transition phase happens in this same place. The duration of the transition phase is two months (or 6 months for persons who came to Belgium through the resettlement scheme). In case it is impossible to leave the reception place after two months, up to three requests for extension of the transition phase can be done. In general, prolonging one month is common; in exceptional cases – e.g., finishing the school year from April onwards or having a signed lease that starts after a month – prolongation can be granted for more than a month. A first, and exceptionally second prolongation can be granted on the basis of the steps taken by the persons to secure their own housing. A third prolongation request can exceptionally be granted for reasons linked to human dignity. If the person [133] This transition system is not applicable to unaccompanied minors[134] or to accompanied children in family context[135], to which other transition systems apply.

In 2024, applicants who were granted international protection stayed on average for 121 more days in the reception network.[136]

[1] Law of 12 January 2007 regarding the reception of asylum applicants and other categories of aliens, available in French and in Dutch.

[2] Article 3 Reception Act.

[3] Article 35/1 and 35/2 Reception Act.

[4] 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.

[5] Article 50/1 Aliens Act.

[6] Article 6(1) Reception Act.

[7] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2025.

[8] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2025.

[9] Fedasil Instruction 3 January 2020, ‘Modaliteiten betreffende het recht op materiële hulp van verzoekers om internationale bescherming met een bijlage 26quater of een bescherming in een andere lidstaat’, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3lmlFWU.

[10] Myria, Contact meeting, 16 September 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SpsP94, § 720.

[11] Vrt News, Asylum seekers wait on the streets for weeks before being able to register: “Barely 1 in 3 gets the chance”, 8 May 2020, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3t38o3D.

[12] ECRE, Belgium: Electronic Registration System Blocking Access to Material Reception Declared Unlawful, 9 October 2020, available here; The Bulletin, Court condemns Belgium’s failure to receive asylum seekers, available here.

[13] Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV 55 COM 1184, 4 October 2023, available in Dutch here, 8.

[14] Fedasil, ‘A network under pressure’, 15 February 2024, available here.

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

[16] Chamber of Representatives, Nicole de Moor, CRIV 55 COM 1010, 1 March 2023, available in Dutch and French here, 26.

[17] Fedasil, ‘Register for reception’,last consulted on 26 March 2025, available here; the waiting list can be accessed online here.

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

[19] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2025.

[20] For further details, see AIDA 2023 update.

[21] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, ’De weg uit de opvangcrisis’, September 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3DDgHe9.

[22] Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV COM 877, 21 September 2022, available in French and Dutch at: https://bit.ly/45PpJQw, 28.

[23] Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV COM 1169, 20 September 2023, available in French and Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3QcaETx, 23-34.

[24] Euronews, ‘Belgium’s asylum shelters will no longer take in single men in order to make room for families’, 2 September 2023, available here; Fedasil, ‘Pas d’accueil pour les hommes isolés’, available in French here.

[25] Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV 55 COM 1184’, p. 8 available in Dutch here.

[26] Council of State, Ruling n° 257.300 of 13 September 2023, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/v5w53wcy; Euractiv, ’Belgian court halts decision denying housing to single male asylum applicants’, 14 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3QA4KNx.

[27] The Brussels Times, ’Decision to stop providing shelter for single men reversed by Council of State’, 13 September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3scsldB and Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV 55 COM 1169’, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3QcaETx, 12

[28] For further details see: AIDA, Country Report Belgium, 2023 update.

[29] VRT NWS, ‘Brussels receives 20 million euros as compensation for homeless shelters’, 13 December 2022, available in Dutch here.

[30] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and others, ‘Dashboard non-reception policy – January 2024-December 2024’, March 2025, available in French here, p. 5.

[31] Samusocial, ‘Greater fairness and accessibility: Samusocial’s initial findings on its new accommodation allocation system’, 4 March 2025, available in French here.

[32] Based on the observations of Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, the organization responsible for writing this report, in the context of its legal helpdesk for asylum applicants.

[33] Médecins Du Monde, ‘Emergency shelter: even families with children on the streets’, 19 November 2024, available in French here.

[34] Doctors without Borders, ‘Fourth year of the non-reception policy: more than 10.000 convictions of the Belgian state and still 3.000 persons living on the streets’, 17 March 2025, available in French here.

[35] Fedasil, ‘The Fedasil Info Point is one year old’, 1 October 2024, available here.

[36] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and others, ‘Dashboard non-reception policy – January 2024-December 2024’, March 2025, available in French here, 6.

[37] Ibidem.

[38] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and others, ‘Dashboard non-reception policy – January 2024-December 2024’, March 2025, available in French here, 6.

[39] Ibidem.

[40] Ibidem, 7.

[41] Information provided by Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, author of the AIDA report. For more information, contact info@vluchtelingenwerk.be.

[42] Fedasil, ‘Ouverture du Point Info à Bordet’, 29 September 2023, available in French here.

[43] Fedasil, ‘The Fedasil Info Point is one year old’, 1 October 2024, available here.

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

[45] Ibidem.

[46] The Brussels Times, ‘Tribunal of first instance condemns Belgium for reception crisis’, 5 July 2023, available here.

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

[48] Francophone Labourt Court of Brussels, 22/1343/K, 13 June 2022, available in French here.

[49] Openbaar Ministerie, ‘Press Release – Brussels’, 24 June 2022, available in Dutch here.

[50] Francophone Labour Court of Brussels, 2022/CB/15, 28 March 2023.

[51] Court of Cassation, Decision n° S.23.0046.F of 12 February 2024, available in French here.

[52] HLN, ’Europees Mensenrechtenhof verzoekt België opnieuw onderdak te geven aan asielzoekers’, 16 December 2022, available in Dutch here.

[53] De Standaard, ’Mensenrechtenhof beveelt België asielzoeker onderdak te geven’, 3 november 2022, available in Dutch here.

[54] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2025.

[55] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 20 September 2023, available in French and Dutch here, 48; Federal Parliament, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV COM 1154’, 12 July 2023, 9 available in French and Dutch here; and Myria, ’Contact Meeting International Protection’, 21 June 2023, available in French and Dutch here, 28.

[56] Fedasil, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 4 December 2024, available in French and Dutch here, 35-36.

[57] ECHR, ‘Camara v. Belgium’, 18 July 2023, available here, §118.

[58] Nicole de Moor, Federal Chamber of Representatives, CRIV 55 COM 1288, 12 March 2024, available in French and Dutch here, 12 and The Brussels Times, ’State ignoring court judgements in asylum applicant cases’, 8 October 2022, available here.

[59] Van Bossuyt, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV COM 56 COM 089’, 26 February 2025, available in French and Dutch here, 30 and De Standaard, ‘Minister of Asylum and Migration Anneleen Van Bossuyt’, 18 March 2025, available in Dutch here.

[60] VRT NWS, ‘Dwangsommen niet betaald? Rechter laat nu ook spullen van Fedasil in beslag nemen’, 20 januari 2023, available in Dutch here; VRT NWS, ’Dwangsommen blijven staatssecretaris De Moor (CD&V) in de nek hijgen’, 1 February 2023, available in Dutch here; VRT NWS, ‘Deurwaarder neemt diepvriezer en koffiemachine kabinet-De Moor in beslag’, 11 January 2024, available here.

[61] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, CIRÉ, Médecins sans Frontières, Médecins du Monde, NANSEN vzw, ADDE, Ligue des Droits Humains, SAAMO and the Order of French and German speaking bar associations (OBFG).

[62] Brussels Court of First Instance, Judgment nr. 2021/164/C of 19 January 2021, available in French here; The Brussels Time, ‘Court condemns Belgium for asylum crisis, the situation remains precarious’, 21 January 2022, available here.

[63] VRT NWS, ‘Asielzoekers kunnen voor nachtopvang terecht in voormalig ziekenhuis’, 4 January 2022, available here.

[64] Brussels Court of First Instance, ’2022/4618/A’, 29 June 2023, available in French here.

[65] The Brussels Times, ‘Despite 6,000 convictions, Belgium still refuses to tackle reception crisis’, 23 January 2023, available here.

[66] Fedasil, ‘Reception of asylum seekers: key figures of 2024’, 22 January 2025, available here; Fedasil, ‘Opening of Temporary Centers’, 5 November 2024, available here and Fedasil ‘Annual Report of 2023, 18 July 2024, available here.

[67] Fedasil, ‘Inbeslagname goederen bij Fedasil’, 20 January 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3yWVbyy.

[68] Court of Appeal Brussels, Judgment n° 2024/QR/3 of 23 January 2024, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/26xap9mk.

[69] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, ‘Government omission forces NGO’s to seize bank accounts of Fedasil’, 2 February 2024, available in Dutch at https://tinyurl.com/5fr4jd6t; Ciré, ‘Court authorizes NGO’s to seize Fedasil’s bank accounts’, 2 February 2024, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/mr45apnk; Le Soir, ‘Three million seized on bank account of Fedasil on behalf of several NGO’s’, 2 February 2024, available in French at https://tinyurl.com/59y72rnx.

[70] Brussels Court of Appel, Judgment nr. 2024/AR/423 of 11 June 2024, available in French here, 9.

[71] Ibidem, 10.

[72] Dunja Mijatovic, ‘Letter to Belgium concerning reception of applicants for international protection’, CommHR/DM/sf 040-2022’, 13 December 2022, available here.

[73] Associated Press, ’Belgium’s asylum shelters will no longer take in single men in order to make room for families‘, 30 August 2023, available here.

[74] United Nations, ‘AL BEL 1/2023’, 30 March 2023, available in French here.

[75] Myria et al., ‘Human Rights Institutions invite Europe and the United Nations to investigate human rights violations’, 2 October 2023, available in Dutch here. The letter was sent by the following human rights institutions: Myria Federal Center on Migration, Federal Institute for Human Rights, Federal Ombudsman, Unia, Institute for the Equality of Women and Men, General Delegate for Children’s Rights, Kinderrechtencommissariaat and Interfederal Service for Combating Poverty.

[76] Amnesty International, ‘Belgium: Urgent Action Needed to End Human Rights Violations against Asylum Applicants’, 31 October 2023, available here.

[77] Amnesty International, ‘Urgent Action: Asylum applicants denied shelter’, 14 December 2023, available here.

[78] UNHCR, ‘Reception crisis in Belgium is concerning, but solutions are at hand’, 30 November 2023, available here.

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

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

[81] Myria and FIRM, ‘Reception crisis: Europe once again points to Belgium’s shortcomings’, 20 September 2024, available in French here.

[82] Nicole de Moor, ‘CRIV 56 COM 009’, 1 October 2024, available in French and Dutch here, 22.

[83] See the chapter on reception in the Federal Coalition Agreement 2025-2029 of 12 February 2025, available here, 169-170.

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

[85] EUAA, ‘Belgium: EASO launches operation to support reception authorities’, 16 December 2021, available at: http://bit.ly/3ZSYoud.

[86] EUAA, Operational Plan 2022 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Belgium, amendment 1, May 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3YAc0cL, annex 1.

[87] EUAA, Operational Plan 2022-2023 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Belgium, amendment 1, November 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3Jp4FZo.

[88] EUAA, Operational Plan 2024 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Belgium, amendment 3, December 2023, available here.

[89] EUAA, Operational Plan 2025-2026 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Belgium, amendment 3, December 2024, available here.

_{[90] EUAA personnel numbers do not include deployed interpreters by the EUAA in support of asylum and reception activities.}

[91] Information provided by the EUAA, 14 March 2025.

[92] Information provided by the EUAA, 14 March 2025.

[93] Information provided by the EUAA, 14 March 2025.

[94] Article 4(1)(3) Reception Act.

[95] Fedasil, Update of instruction – Right to material aid – Subsequent application for international protection, 27 November 2023, available in French via https://tinyurl.com/3nvne8x2.

[96] Constitutional Court, Decision No 95/2014, 30 June 2014.

[97] Labour Court of Brussels, Decision No 21/538/K, 31 August 2021, available in French at: https://bit.ly/37kYDIH; Labour Court of Brussels, Decision No 17/1762/A, 8 February 2018; Labour Court of Brussels, Decision of 17 February 2015, available in French at: http://bit.ly/1Q3cOBn; Labour Court of Brussels, Decision No 16/1384/A, 14 November 2016; Labour Court of Bruges, Decision No 16/8K, 11 October 2016.

[98] Federal Mediator, Annual Report 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3u2VaFi

[99] Fedasil Instruction of 20/07/2024, ‘Dublin trajectory – assistance of residents and allocation to a Dublin place’, available in Dutch and in French, 2.

[100] Fedasil, Instructions on the termination and the prolongation of the material reception conditions, 15 October 2013, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1Km961S. These internal instructions replaced the Instructions of 13 July 2012 before they were eventually quashed by the Council of State, Judgment No 225.673, 3 December 2013.

[101] CJEU, Case C-179/11, CIMADE, GISTI v. Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l’Immigration, 27 September 2012.

[102] Labour Court, Brussels, Judgment of 4 December 2013; Labour Court of Antwerp, Judgment of 6 March 2014, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1FGadUL. In the judgment V.M. v Belgium issued in July 2015, the ECtHR found that Belgium had violated Article 3 ECHR because (back in 2011) it had not provided for adequate material reception conditions for a particularly vulnerable family (asylum applicants, children, disabled, Roma) during the (non-automatically suspensive) appeal procedure against a negative Dublin decision.

[103] Fedasil, Instruction on the change of place of mandatory registration of asylum applicants having received a refusal decision following a Dublin take charge, 20 October 2015, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1MuInwV. This instruction replaces point 2.2.4. of the Instructions of 15 October 2013.

[104] Fedasil Instruction of 20/07/2024, ‘Dublin trajectory – assistance of residents and allocation to a Dublin place’, available in Dutch and in French; p. 5.

[105] Fedasil Instruction of 20/07/2024, ‘Dublin trajectory – assistance of residents and allocation to a Dublin place’, available in Dutch and in French; p. 7-8.

[106] Immigration Office, Open centrum Zaventem, available in Dutch and French.

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

[108] MO Magazine, ‘Ongoing reception crisis in asylum policy, while humans are concerned’, 17 February 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3IZhaYQ.

[109] Myria, Contact meeting, 16 September 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SpsP94, § 720.

[110] MO Magazine, ‘Ongoing reception crisis in asylum policy, while humans are concerned’, 17 February 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3IZhaYQ.

[111] 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.

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

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

[114] 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.

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

[116] Article 6/1 Reception Act.

[117] Fedasil Instruction 19 June 2024, The return track and open return places, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[118] Fedasil Instruction 19 June 2024, The return track and open return places, available in Dutch here and in French here; p. 4-5.

[119] Fedasil Instruction, Instructions on Return assistance – medical exceptions for open return places, November 2019, available in French at: http://bit.ly/3baE7qJ.

[120] Fedasil Instruction 19 June 2024, The return track and open return places, available in Dutch here and in French here; p. 5.

[121] Labour Court Liège, 10 February 2020, N° 2020/CL/3; Labour Tribunal Brabant-Wallon (div. Wavre), 24 July 2020 and CJUE, 22 January 2021, N° C-335/20, available at http://bit.ly/2PRitCD.

[122] CJUE, order of 26 March 2021, N° C-134/21, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3KtZB3u; CJUE, order of 26 March 2021, N° C-92/21, available in English at: https://bit.ly/35MDR43.

[123] An overview of the development of this jurisprudence is available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3I1abx8. See also: Labour Court Liège, 19 April 2021, N° 21/12/K, available in Dutch: https://bit.ly/3CxhlZd.

[124] Article 4 §1, 2° Reception Act.

[125] Article 6, §1 Reception Act.

[126] Article 6, §1, lid 4 Reception Act.

[127] Fedasil, Instruction concerning material assistance – right, end and prolongation of material assistance, 11 July 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here, p. 4.

[128] Article 7, §2 Reception Act; Fedasil, Instruction concerning the return track and open return places, 19 June 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here; p. 5.

[129] Article 7 Reception Act.

[130] Fedasil, Instruction concerning material assistance – right, end and prolongation of material assistance, 11 July 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here, p. 4.

[131] Fedasil, ‘Instruction on the transition of material assistance to social welfare services: measures for residents of collective reception structures and accompaniment in the transition phase’, 25 July 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[132] Ibid., 3 and 7.

[133] Ibid.

[134] Fedasil, ‘Instruction: transition to social welfare services for unaccompanied minors’, 11 March 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[135] Fedasil, ‘Instruction: transition to social welfare services – accompanied minors with a residence permit of more than 3 months or with the Belgian nationality, 30 April 2021, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[136] Information provided by Fedasil, March 2025.