Author
Right to shelter and assignment to a centre
According to the Reception Act, every asylum seeker has the right to material reception conditions from the moment he or she has made his or her asylum application, that allow him or her to lead a life in human dignity.[1]
There is no limit to this right connected to the nationality of the asylum seekers in the Reception Act. Asylum seekers 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.
In theory, no material reception conditions, with the exception of medical care, are due to a person with sufficient financial resources.[2] Expenses that have been provided in the context of reception can also be recovered in such cases.[3] Nevertheless, no assessment of these financial resources or the actual risk of destitution of the person concerned occurs at the moment of the intake. In practice, the withdrawal of material aid is only rarely applied since Fedasil does not have the capacity to check the financial resources a person has.
The Aliens Act provides that “registration” and “lodging” are two different steps in the asylum procedure.[4] The Reception Act, however, now clearly provides that an asylum seeker has the right to shelter from the moment they make the asylum application, and not only from the moment the asylum application is registered,[5] in line with the recast Reception Conditions Directive.
In December 2018, an ‘arrival centre’ was established at the open reception centre ‘Klein Kasteeltje’/’Petit Château’ located in the city centre of Brussels, where all asylum applications have to be made and registered and where applicants access the reception system. This means that both the Immigration Office and Fedasil are present at the arrival centre: the Immigration Office registers the asylum applications, and Fedasil screens the newly arrived asylum seekers to provide them with information on their right to reception conditions and access to the reception system for those in need. The arrival centre is also where asylum seekers who were already in the reception system but need to be reassigned to another centre – for example, because they were temporarily excluded from the reception system due to sanctions – need to present themselves and where a new reception centre is designated.
Impact of the reception crisis on the arrival centre: Due to security reasons, the registration centre has been moved from ‘Klein Kasteeltje’ to the offices of the Immigration Office on 29 August 2022.[6] Since that date, applicants for international protection have to register at the Pachecolaan 44. Fedasil is not present in this registration centre. This means that applicants for international protection who do not receive access to the reception network are not seen by Fedasil and are asked by the Immigration Office to register on a waiting list. Those who do receive access to the reception network on the day of the application are transferred to ‘Klein Kasteeltje’ or another reception centre in the first phase. Applicants for international protection who are not immediately given access to the reception network can be invited to receive a place at a later date. These applicants are asked to present themselves at the ‘Klein Kasteeltje.
Applicants who receive shelter are first accommodated in the arrival centre or another centre in the first phase for at least 3 days. Here they undergo a medical screening where they can get vaccinated (optional) and have to undergo a tuberculosis test (compulsory). Fedasil assesses any specific reception needs that might arise (e.g. medical needs) and designates a reception centre in the second phase for the rest of the procedure.[7] The document of designation by Fedasil is called “Code 207”. The length of stay in the arrival centre depends on how quickly Fedasil finds an adapted place in the reception network and how many requests for international protection are made in one day. There are currently around 800 places in the arrival centre (about 600 regular places and about 200 buffer capacity).[8]
Asylum seekers who stay at private addresses will only be entitled to medical 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. These applicants can always opt for material aid again if their asylum procedure is pending.
Constraints to the right to shelter
2018-2019: a shortage of places and a limit on the number of applications for international protection per day
The arrival centre faced significant difficulties in 2018 and 2019, mainly due to a lack of capacity both in the centre and in the overall reception system (see Types of accommodation). As a consequence of the shortage of places, the government set a limit to the number of asylum applications that could be submitted per day, which was ruled to contradict national and international law by the Council of State.[9] After this judgement, all asylum seekers were thus accommodated on the day they applied for international protection.
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’.[10] This instruction limited the material reception to medical assistance for two categories of applicants:
- Applicants with a decision that designates another EU Member State as responsible for the asylum procedure based on the Dublin III Regulation (Annex 26 quater), who have not been transferred to this competent Member State within the prescribed period, and who report back to the Immigration Office after the expiry of the transfer period in order to reopen their asylum procedure in Belgium. (see Right to reception: Dublin procedure)
- applicants who have already been granted international protection (i.e. refugee or subsidiary protection status) in another EU Member State and who make a new application for international protection in Belgium. (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.[11] Both categories of asylum seekers have thus since regained their full right to material assistance, including reception, during their asylum procedure.
2020: COVID-19 pandemic and online registration system
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant number of applicants for international protection had no access to the reception system between March and October 2020. This was primarily due to the introduction of the online registration system for applications for international protection introduced by the Immigration Office (see Registration of the asylum application). Since applicants for international protection are only entitled to material assistance from the moment they make their application for international protection, and during that period, some applicants for international protection had to wait multiple weeks before they were able to make their application, they had no access to the reception system during this waiting period.[12] In addition, since the dispatching service of Fedasil in the arrival centre was closed from 17 March 2020 onwards, applicants who needed to re-integrate into the reception system (e.g. because they had left their reception place or after having received a decision that their subsequent application for international protection was declared admissible) were also not entitled to accessing the reception system.[13]
In August 2020, several NGOs denounced the Belgian state in front of the Brussels Court of first instance, thereby requesting a suspension of the online registration system. On 5 October 2020, the court condemned the Belgian state, stating that completing the online registration was equal to ‘the formal lodging of a request for international protection’ and should give the immediate right to reception conditions.[14] 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 – 2023: reception crisis: systematic denial of reception for male applicants for international protection and incidental denial of reception for families and minors
In September 2021, Fedasil announced that the reception network was under pressure, with the occupancy rate on 9 September 2021 being at 96% (the saturation capacity being 94%).[15] Fedasil referred to several external factors limiting the number of available places.[16] At the beginning of the reception crisis, some single men still gained access to the reception network. Since March of 2022 and until the time of writing, single men are systematically excluded from reception on their registration day. The Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration has confirmed this on numerous occasions.[17] In practice, they can only obtain reception after going to court. When getting a court decision, the average waiting time for receiving reception is at least 3 months at the time of writing.[18] The chances of obtaining shelter are small if a male applicant does not go to court. The reception crisis also severely impacted access to the asylum procedure in 2022 (see Registration of the asylum application).
Civil society organisations claim that the long-term mismanagement of the reception network has to be regarded as a main cause of the shortage, mainly because centres have been systematically closed and staff dismissed in periods of lower occupation rates. Despite the will expressed by the Secretary of State in 2020 to develop a stable reception system,[19] no timely action was taken to prevent the insurgence of another situation of overoccupancy of the reception system. Fedasil personnel has organised several strikes in the course of 2021 en 2022 to denounce the lack of reception capacity and their working conditions.[20]
The limited access to the reception network is caused by a limited number of available places in the reception network. If more applicants for international protection are present at the registration centre, Fedasil decides to give accommodation to the ‘most vulnerable’ applicants for international protection.[21] In descending order of vulnerability, these are the most common categories:
- Unaccompanied minors and single women
- Families with children
- Families without children
- Single men
As a result, between October 2021 and March 2022, not all single men could access the reception network.[22] Since March 2022, access to the reception network has been systematically denied to single men applying for international protection, as confirmed by the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration.[23] Homeless shelters in the city of Brussels are complete, and the applicants have no other option than to sleep rough, returning to the arrival centre every day hoping to get access to a reception place. Families with children and unaccompanied minors were prioritised in searching for a reception place and gained access to the reception network on most days.
However, in October 2022, there were some days on which Fedasil could not provide shelter to families with children.[24] Fedasil did not monitor the number of families left destitute. Due to an increase in the number of unaccompanied minors for international protection in the second half of 2022, the reception network for minors was saturated. As a result, Fedasil could not provide accommodation to all unaccompanied minors on the day of their application for international protection.[25] In practice, self-proclaimed male minors above 16 did not receive accommodation on the day of their application. The screening of which minor received a reception place was done on the basis of physical characteristics in front of the registration centre.[26] Initially, this group without reception could choose to undergo an age assessment. If their minority was proven, they were given a reception place. On 26 October 2023, the Guardianship Service no longer conducted age assessments for this group. According to the Service, the situation was “untenable for the hospitals and the Guardianship Service” since the age assessment test had to be conducted in “demeaning circumstances”.[27] As a result, the self-proclaimed minor without reception could not contest the doubt on their minority. This in turn prolonged the non-reception of the self-proclaimed minor. In December the occupancy rate of the reception network for minors and the number of minor applicants for international protection decreased again. This allowed Fedasil to once again provide reception to all unaccompanied minors on the day of their application. On 15 January 2023, Fedasil stated that 294 unaccompanied minors were not given reception on the day of their application. 70 self-proclaimed minors were found to be above 18 years of age after an age assessment and were not given reception. 202 unaccompanied minors were given reception after undergoing an age assessment or after a certain period of time. 22 unaccompanied minors were gone missing.[28] On 9 January 2023, Caritas International announced that 24 unaccompanied minors were officially reported missing.[29]
Applicants without access to the reception network are not given an individually motivated decision.[30] They are merely informed about the shortage of places, and instructed to register themselves on a waiting list.[31] Registration on this waiting list does not guarantee a reception place within a predefined time limit. In addition, if someone from a ‘more vulnerable’ category has to register on this waiting list, this person is given priority. Once someone can be given a reception place, this person is invited to present himself at ‘Klein Kasteeltje’. Fedasil indicated it can invite 25 persons from this waiting list on a daily basis.[32] The number of persons invited is based on the amount of available places on a given day.[33]
Applicants without access to the reception network have to sleep rough for multiple weeks. This has resulted in several squats in Brussels, inhabited by asylum seekers. Between October 2022 and February of 2023 there was a squat of around 1000 persons in ‘Rue de Palais’. The situation soon became precarious, due to unsafe living conditions and the spread of infectious diseases.[34] As a result, the Federal government and the region of Brussels decided to evacatue this squat in February. After the evacuation of the residents in the squat, Fedasil indicated that it provided shelter to 840 registered asylum seekers who were living in the squat.[35] Between March and April 2023 two other buildings were squatted by asylum seekers.[36] They were quickly evacuated and accommodated in shelter for homeless and destitute persons. Fedasil announced that it would accommodate these persons within the reception network as soon as possible. Since the summer of 2022, destitute asylum seekers were also living in 20 tents near the Arrival Centre in the ‘Canal Zone’. After the evacuation of the ‘Rue de Palais’ squat, other destitute asylum seekers searched shelter in tents at the Arrival Centre as well.[37] As a result, the number of tents increased to 110 with an estimated 250 persons.[38] In the beginning of March 2023, the mayor of Molenbeek decided to evacuate this makeshift camp.[39] 80 registered asylum seekers with a right to shelter were immediately given shelter by Fedasil. A remaining group of 55 asylum seekers were brought to temporary shelter for destitute and homeless persons. Fedasil announced that it would accommodate these persons within the reception network as soon as possible. Apart from these squats, there have been several smaller squats in the city of Brussels.[40] Civil society organisation Samusocial counted 2000 persons in Brussels squats in 13 buildings.[41]
Medical organisations have denounced the dire medical situation for destitute asylum seekers on multiple occasions. On 12 October 2022 Doctors Without Borders Belgium opened a medical unit at the registration centre. After one month, they conducted more than 500 medical consultations. 94% of the patients were male, of which 90% were sleeping rough. The organisation counted 40 cases of cutaneous diphtheria and 99 cases of scabies, it gave 20 prescriptions to resume medical care for chronic non-transmittable illnesses like diabetes, epilepsy and hypertension.[42] In the winter of 2022, Doctors of the World issued a press release warning for the risk of hypothermia for destitute asylum seekers.[43]
Collective legal proceedings
Since the beginning of the reception crisis in October 2021, several NGOs have asked the Federal government to find solutions. Although possibilities of opening new reception places were urgently examined and several new reception centres – some structural, some emergency shelters – were announced to open shortly, these processes took several weeks, often due to the unwillingness of local administrations to admit the opening of a centre on their territory.[44] The Secretary of State was unwilling to provide emergency shelter in empty hotel rooms, stating this might provoke a pull factor.[45] Although several new places opened in 2021 and 2022, these were insufficient for all applicants in need of shelter.[46]
On 18 November 2021, several organisations (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)) declared the Belgian State and Fedasil in default at the Brussels court of first instance. In a judgment of 19 January 2022, the court 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 €5000 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).[47] 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,[48] 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. On 24 January 2022 – only 5 days after the Court of First Instance ruled against the Belgian State and Fedasil – the government launched a ‘five-point action plan’ to counter the ‘growing problem of asylum seekers crossing Belgium’.[49] One of the pillars of this action plan consisted in giving priority to ‘new’ asylum seekers, who had not yet applied for or/and received asylum in another EU member state. Male applicants with a Eurodac hit indicating they had already applied for or received international protection in another country, were denied access to the reception network and were told to send an e-mail to Fedasil in order to be put on the waiting list.[50] Between the 24th of January and 23rd of March of 2022, 813 applicants with a Eurodac hit were excluded from reception.[51]
As a result, the group of 10 NGO’s filed a new appeal at the court of first instance, requesting an increase of the penalty payment from €5000 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 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 can be claimed for every working day that Fedasil does not respect the judgment of 24 January 2022, until the Court of First instance has delivered a judgement on the merits of the case. This is to be expected in the course of 2023.
Despite these judgements, Fedasil has continued to violate the right to reception up until the time of writing.[52] This has been confirmed by Fedasil in several official communications.[53] Fedasil has not payed the penalty fees that are due, hereby violating legal judgements.[54] The 10 NGOs have tried to demand the payment of the penalty fees, so far with no success. Legal procedures on the payment of these penalties are currently pending.
On 13 December 2022, Dunja Mijatovic, the Commissioner for Human Rights for the Council of Europe sent a letter to the Belgian secretary of state for asylum and migration, Nicole de Moor.[55] She expressed her concern about the deteriorating reception crisis in Belgium. She noted that the government’s measures so far “do not appear to be sufficient to address the complexity and magnitude of the existing needs”. She also noted “significant delays in enforcing” the decisions of the Brussels Labourt Court. In her response, de Moor provided an overview of the measures taken by the Belgian government to tackle the reception crisis.[56] She further stated: “I regret that there have been periods in which my services were not able to provide a reception place to all asylum applicants the same day of filing for international protection. […] Not all of the court decisions could be implemented immediately. This is by no means a political decision, but a sheer material impossibility”.
Individual legal proceedings
A first line legal helpdesk was set up by the Bureau of legal aid of Brussels, volunteer lawyers and law students and the NGO Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, providing legal information to applicants for international protection without access to a reception place and linking them to lawyers for further legal support.[57] In many of these cases, a ‘unilateral request’ (non-contradictory procedure in extreme urgency) was lodged before the presidents of the Labour courts, to claim the right to reception. In many of these cases, labour court presidents have accorded the right to reception to the applicants, condemning Fedasil and requesting it to give them immediate access to a reception place. If Fedasil does not provide immediate access, it should pay a fine of €100 to €250 per working day it fails to respect the judgement.Applicants who present themselves at the arrival centre after having received a positive judgement from the Labour court, do not get immediate access to a reception place: they are asked to make an appointment with the Fedasil dispatching service by e-mail. In the beginning of the reception crisis, applicants in this situation were given an appointment for accommodation within a week. At the time of writing, the average waiting time increased to between 4 and 5 months according to Fedasil. Fedasil now has a waiting list of 2400 applicants with a court decision, who should be given immediate access to reception.[58] Fedasil does not pay any fine for these persons, hereby not respecing the judgement of the labour court. This practice has been confirmed on several occasions by the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration and Fedasil.[59] If Fedasil does not pay the fines to an individual, the claimant can proceed to the enforcement judge in order to claim goods as a compensation for these fines. These goods are then sold at a public auction. The income from this auction is transferred to the claimant. In 2 cases, individual applicants succeeded in obtaining goods owned by Fedasil.[60] As a reaction to this event, the Secretary of State for Asylum & Migration stated that it is a matter of ‘common sense’ not to pay the fines and to prevent claiming these goods.[61]
Fedasil has been condemned by Belgian labour courts 8600 times in 2022.[62] Until 15 March 2023, Fedasil has been condemned by Belgian labour courts 812 times in 2023.[63] The total amount of fines that are due is estimated to be above 100 million euros. In 3 individual cases, applicants for protection went to the enforcement judge to enforce the payment of 315.000 euros in total.[64] The amount of cases brought before the Brussels Labour Court, led this court to publish a press release in May of 2022. It stated that in normal years it treats -on average – 38 cases against Fedasil. At the time of the press release, the number of cases brought before the Brussels Labourt Court reached 1007. The Court exposed how it does not receive any information about the waiting list from Fedasil. As a result, it is impossible for the Court to estimate when an applicant on this list will receive shelter. In several judgments, the Court ruled that this waiting list violates the Belgian Reception Law. The Court further exposes that Fedasil does not put forward any legal arguments in support of its defence and limits itself to invoking the saturation of its network. According to the Court, this raises the question of whether there is even a dispute, given the absence of any challenge by Fedasil.[65]
In a ruling of 13 June 2022, the Brussels Labour Court communicated an individual case against Fedasil to the public prosecutor’s office.[66] 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.[67]
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”.[68] The court states in the judgement that Fedasil showcases 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”.
In order to enforce domestic judgements, some applicants introduced a request for interim measures at the European Court of Human Rights. The first interim measures concerning reception conditions in Belgium were granted in the case of Camara v. Belgium on 31 October 2022.[69] The Court decided to enjoin the Belgian State to enforce the Brussels French language Labour Court’s order and provide the applicant with accommodation and material assistance to meet his basic needs. At the time of writing, the Court granted interim measures in approximately 1.132 cases.[70]
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.[71] An amendment was signed in May 2022 following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and subsequent displacement, adding a third pillar of enhancing the Belgian authorities’ capacity to implement the TPD effectively.[72] A second amendment was signed in November 2022, extending the operational support throughout 2023.[73]
Throughout 2022, the EUAA deployed 21 different experts in Belgium,[74] mostly external experts (17). Most of them were junior asylum information provision experts (11), along with 4 roving team members, 2 intermediate reception child protection experts, 2 junior reception child protection experts and 2 senior social workers.[75]
As of 20 December 2022, a total of 20 EUAA experts were deployed in Belgium, out of which 11 were junior asylum information provision experts, 3 roving team members, 2 intermediate reception child protection experts, 2 junior reception child protection experts and 2 senior social workers.[76]
Reception support
In 2022, the EUAA provided Belgian national reception authorities with 150 containers, including 91 for accommodation use and 59 for other reception use.[77] These containers were installed in emergency shelter in Berlaar, an old military site. In March of 2023, the government announced that it will install an additional 600 container units provided by the EUAA to house 750 persons in emergency shelter. At the time of writing, the precise location for these additional containers is unknown.
Assistance to migrants with no right to reception conditions
Since 2017, many migrants, mostly originating from Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea, are sleeping in the North district of Brussels in the public space such as the park opposite the (former) Immigration Office building. Many of them refuse to apply for asylum and are therefore not entitled to accommodation under the Reception Act. Many of them fear to be sent back to Italy or Greece under the Dublin III Regulation and some others have already obtained a protection status in another EU-country but wish to reach the United Kingdom. According to NGOs, they refuse to apply for asylum because of feelings of mistrust towards a government that has abandoned them. In February 2019, MSF demonstrated in a report that the mental health of these migrants is negatively affected by a combination of fear of Dublin transfers and police interventions, inhumane living and reception conditions, discrimination and violence, and the lack of opportunities and support.[78] These problems also prevent them from accessing the asylum procedure or trying to obtain another legal status.[79]
At the end of September 2017, several NGOs including Ciré, Artsen zonder Grenzen, Plateforme des citoyens and Médecins du Monde set up a Humanitarian Hub for these migrants, where they receive medical and psychological help, legal advice, clothes, and family tracing assistance. This hub, formerly located near the Northern train station in Brussels, is currently located at the Brussels port and continues to provide aid.[80] The Red Cross has opened a day centre next to the humanitarian hub where these migrants can stay during the day, take a shower and have a meal at noon and in the evenings. Some NGO’s are present to provide information about the asylum system in Belgium. Through their new ‘Reach Out’ project, a team of Fedasil is also informing migrants without a residence permit about their rights and options in terms of asylum and return.[81]
In the summer of 2022, the Humanitarian Hub saw a significant increase in the number of meals distributed on a daily basis. This was primarily due to the reception crisis and the high number of applicants for international protection living on the streets of Brussels.[82]
Right to reception: subsequent applications
The Reception Act provides the possibility for Fedasil to refuse reception to asylum seekers who lodge a second or further subsequent asylum application, until their asylum application is deemed admissible by the CGRS.[83] This is unless Fedasil is informed that they have a pending or granted request for a prolongation of reception.[84] Between the moment of the subsequent application and the admissibility decision by the CGRS, asylum seekers 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 seekers must then present themselves to the dispatching desk to be allocated a reception place.
If the asylum seeker has not obtained reception from Fedasil during the first stage of the procedure and the CGRS declares the subsequent asylum application inadmissible, he or she will not be entitled to reception during the appeal with the CALL.
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, should be individually motivated and based on the particular situation of the person concerned, especially concerning vulnerable persons. Health care and a dignified standard of living should be ensured at all times. According to the Constitutional Court, this decision is only legal 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.[85] In practice, however, Fedasil systematically refuses to assign a reception place to subsequent applicants until their asylum application is declared admissible by the CGRS. On multiple occasions, labour Courts have ordered Fedasil to motivate such decisions individually and consider all case elements.[86] As a result, subsequent applicants often obtain reception after challenging such decisions in front of the courts. However, applicants who do not manage to contact a lawyer are left without access to reception. The Federal Mediator has been steadily receiving complaints 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.[87]
Right to reception: Dublin procedure
Applicants registered as asylum seekers 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 seekers are entitled to a reception place. If an annex 26quater (negative Dublin transfer decision with order to leave the territory) is issued, the right to material assistance is terminated as soon as the delay in leaving the territory, has expired, or as soon as the travel documents are delivered (in case the asylum seeker confirms his/her willingness to collaborate with the transfer but cannot obtain the necessary travel documents within the delay to leave the territory for reasons beyond his or her own will).[88] Fedasil considers this practice in line with the Cimade and Gisti judgement of the CJEU.[89] 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 seeker has to present him or herself for this.[90] 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 seekers, children, disabled, Roma) during the (non-automatically suspensive) appeal procedure against an Immigration Office transfer decision under the Dublin Regulation.[91]
Currently, asylum applicants subject to a Dublin transfer decision (annex 26quater) who are residing in the reception network are asked to go to an ‘open return centre’. 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).[92]
After the maximum period allowed by the Dublin Regulation to transfer the asylum seeker 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 him or herself to the Immigration Office and the Immigration Office has reopened the first application (see Dublin).
2020: Temporary restrictions on the right to shelter for applicants with an ‘expired Dublin’
In 2020, applicants with an expired Dublin could no longer gain immediate access to the reception network (see Right to shelter and assignment to a centre).
Reception crisis 2021-2022: 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, the reception rights of applicants with a ‘Dublin-hit’ were again 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.[93] 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). Since they did not receive a formal refusal decision of reception, these applicants cannot automatically challenge this decision before the labour court. Lawyers thus had first to send an e-mail to Fedasil to notify their client’s individual application for reception and give Fedasil a 24h delay to reply, before being able to file a unilateral request. Labour court presidents have not always granted reception to applicants in the Dublin procedure. According to the Courts, 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 Court seems to contrast with the Cimade and Gisti judgement from the European Court of Justice, 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, applicants in the Dublin procedure still faced these difficulties (see Constraints to the right to shelter).
2022: Dublin reception centre in Zaventem
In the summer of 2022, the Immigration Office opened a new ‘Dublin reception centre’ in Zaventem. This centre is a regular open centre, meaning that its residents are free to leave if they wish to do so. The aim of this centre is to fast track the Dublin procedure for a specific target group. In doing so, the state secretary for asylum and migration hopes to ease the pressure on the reception network.[94] Applicants who have previously applied for international protection in another member state can be designated to this reception centre. Applicants who have previously applied for international protection in Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece are not designated to this reception centre.[95] Applicants who are designated to this centre can refuse this designation, after which their right to reception will be suspended.
Applicants in the centre in Zaventem 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 (Dublin decision) 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 2022 the average stay in this centre was 30 days, and 151 voluntary returns were already organised from the centre.[96] In 2023 (until 9 March) the average stay was 33 days, and 129 voluntary returns were organised from the centre.[97]
Dublin Returnees
Asylum seekers sent back to Belgium following a Dublin procedure are often considered subsequent applicants (see Situation of Dublin Returnees). Consequently, they often only get shelter after their asylum application is taken into consideration by the CGRS. In the case where an asylum seeker has left Belgium before the first interview, he or she will have gotten a “technical refusal” in his or her first asylum procedure. When this asylum seeker is then sent back to Belgium following a Dublin procedure and lodges his or her asylum application again, the CGRS is legally obliged to take it into consideration.[98] Nonetheless, these asylum seekers often are still considered as subsequent applicants and therefore are without shelter until this decision is officially taken.
In the context of the reception crisis, male Dublin Returnees are systematically excluded from the reception network. Similarly to other male applicants for international protection, they have to lodge an appeal at the labour court in order to obtain shelter. The average waiting time to obtain shelter this way is 4 to 5 months at the time of writing (see Constraints to the right to shelter). In the meantime, applicants do not have any other solution than to sleep rough, on the streets or in occupied buildings.
Right to reception: Applicants with a protection status in another EU Member State
On the basis of a Fedasil instruction (see Constraints to the right to shelter), beneficiaries of protection in another EU Member State were no longer provided accommodation in Belgium from 7 January 2020 onwards. To that end, the Immigration Office introduced a new questionnaire that each applicant for international protection has to complete on the day they make the application. In this questionnaire, the Immigration Office asks inter alia whether the applicant has already obtained international protection in another EU Member State. In addition to the questionnaire, the Immigration Office checks through EURODAC whether applicants have already received protection. If, based on the applicant’s declarations or on EURODAC’s results, it appears that the applicant has been granted international protection elsewhere, Fedasil could refuse material reception and only grant medical assistance (known as a decision ‘code 207 no show’). Such a decision is taken only following an evaluation of the individual situation and needs of the applicant, notably by taking into account the reasons for applying for international protection in Belgium (e.g., presence of family members).
As was the case for applicants excluded from the reception system after the expiry of the Dublin transfer period (see Right to reception: Dublin procedure), appeals against these exclusion decisions were brought before the presidents of the Labour tribunals (urgent procedure) in individual cases. After the Belgian government issued strict confinement orders in the middle of March due to the outbreak of COVID-19, Labour tribunals ordered Fedasil to accommodate these persons, stating that as applicants for international protection, they should be provided with reception by Fedasil and the reasons of national health and security making the matter extremely urgent.[99]
After withdrawing the instructions of 3 January 2020 in September 2020, applicants with a protection status in another EU member state regained their full right to material assistance, including reception, during their asylum procedure.
2021-2022: Impact of the reception crisis
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, 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 are being denied access to the reception network and told to send an e-mail to Fedasil to be put on a waiting list.[100] 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).
“Return track” and assignment to an open return centre
The law foresees a so-called “return track” for asylum seekers.[101] This is a framework for individual counselling on return set up by Fedasil, which promotes voluntary return to avoid forced returns.[102]
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 seeker is formally offered return assistance. When an appeal is lodged in front of the CALL, the asylum seeker is informed again about his or her 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 seekers 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 seeker 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 seeker can stay in the first reception centre until the conditions for the derogation are no longer met. At the end of the derogation, the asylum seeker 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.[103] 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 seeker, if necessary. The decision to further prolong the right to the reception of the concerned person will depend on his or her medical situation and cooperation.
(2) The Immigration Office takes a negative 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 seeker from moving to the open reception place or during the last 2 months of pregnancy until 2 months after giving birth; and
- The asylum seeker has applied to prolong the order to leave the territory at the Immigration Office.
When this derogation is granted, the asylum seeker 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. Then 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 courts by applicants having received an annex 26quater, especially when an appeal against this annex has been brought before the CALL. According to Belgian law, this latter appeal possibility does not have an automatic suspensive effect (see Appeal). As a consequence, 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.[104] 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.[105] Some labour courts 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 courts ruled that Fedasil should allow the applicants to remain in their former reception centre for the duration of the appeal procedure before the CALL.[106]
End of the right to reception
The right to material reception ends when:[107]
- A legal stay for more than three months is granted; or
- An order to leave the territory is delivered and the delay on this order has expired, and there is no possibility left for introducing a suspensive appeal.
Appeals do not have suspensive effect when they are appeals against:
- a decision of the Immigration Office (like a Dublin decision or an order to leave the territory),
- a negative decision on the asylum application or a decision to grant subsidiary protection of the CALL after a first suspensive appeal.
During these non-suspensive appeals there is no right to shelter, unless:
- the CALL suspends or annuls the decision of the Immigration Office or CGRS;
- the Council of State declares a cassation appeal against a decision of the CALL admissible.
Therefore, the right to reception in the open return centre ends when the order to leave the territory expires. In case of a negative Dublin decision this delay is mentioned on the “Annex 26quater” (see Right to reception: Dublin procedure). In case of a negative decision by the CGRS, the Immigration Office delivers an order to leave the territory only when the suspensive appeal has been rejected by the CALL, or after the deadline for introducing the appeal has expired. If a third (or further) asylum application was declared inadmissible by the CGRS and it deems that there is no risk of direct or indirect refoulement, the order to leave the territory is delivered immediately after the decision of the CGRS.[108] The time limit of the order to leave the territory will vary between 0 and 30 days (see Procedures).[109]
Until the expiry of the deadline of the order to leave the territory, every asylum seeker (whether he or she collaborates with voluntary return or not) is entitled to full material reception conditions. The order to leave the territory can be prolonged only if the person collaborates with his or her return.[110] When the period for voluntary return as determined in the order to leave the country expires and there is no willingness to return voluntarily, the right to reception ends and the Immigration Office can start the procedure to forcibly return the person, including by using administrative detention. In practice, the police may come to the open return centre and arrest a person whose right to reception has ended and is unwilling to return voluntarily.[111]
In case of a negative outcome of the asylum procedure and thus the end of the right to reception, 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.[112]
Fedasil has adopted internal instructions about these possibilities and how to end the accommodation in the reception structures in practice.[113]
In case of a positive outcome of the asylum procedure, and thus after a decision granting a protection status or another legal stay (for example, a medical regularisation procedure – which has been started up parallel with an asylum procedure – with a positive outcome and thus a legal stay of more than 3 months), the person concerned can stay for a maximum of 2 more months in the reception place.[114] These 2 months should the person look for another place to live and transit to financial help of the PCSW if necessary. People staying in collective structures at the moment of recognition (or other legal stay) will be offered the choice between moving to an individual reception structure for 2 months or leaving the collective structure within 10 working days. In the last case, they will receive food cheques for one month. The deadline of two months can be extended.[115] 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. This is not specified in the Reception act but Fedasil has adopted internal instructions allowing such rules to be put in place.[116]
[1] Article 3 Reception Act.
[2] Article 35/2 Reception Act.
[3] Article 35/1 Reception Act.
[4] Article 50/1 Aliens Act.
[5] Article 6(1) Reception Act.
[6] The Brussels Times, Temporary solution proposed for migrant crisis at reception centre, 24 August 2022, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3iw02SG.
[7] Fedasil, ‘In a reception centre’, http://bit.ly/3SkOkrm.
[8] Fedasil, Opvangnetwerk voor asielzoekers in België, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/2O7iAtn and Myria, Contact meeting, 20 January 2021, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3sE592s, 27.
[9] CE, Decision No 243 306, 20 December 2018
[10] Fedasil, ‘Modaliteiten betreffende het recht op materiële hulp van verzoekers om internationale bescherming met een bijlage 26quater of een bescherming in een andere lidstaat’, 3 January 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3lmlFWU.
[11] Myria, Contact meeting, 16 September 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3SpsP94, § 720.
[12] 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.
[13] Myria, Contact meeting, 6 May 2020, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3sE592s, 27.
[14] ECRE, Belgium: Electronic Registration System Blocking Access to Material Reception Declared Unlawful, 9 October 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/33VHO5t ; The Bulletin, Court condemns Belgium’s failure to receive asylum seekers, available at: https://bit.ly/33BVkeB.
[15] Myria, Contact meeting, 15 September 2021, available in French and Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3flTdhe, 45.
[16] Fedasil, ‘Additional reception places needed’, 16 November 2021, http://bit.ly/3FAKdlZ; according to Fedasil these factors were the covid 19-pandemic, the floods in southern part of Belgium in 2021 and the evacuation of Afghan nationals after the fall of Kabul.
[17] Latest example: Chamber of Representatives, CRIV 55 PLEN 235, 16 March 2023, p. 18, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3LvFMwD.
[18] Myria, ‘Contact meeting’, 23 November 2022, p. 30, available in French and Dutch: https://bit.ly/3Lxwccu.
[19] Chamber of Representatives, Doc 1580/014, Policy Note on asylum and migration, 04 November 2020, available in Dutch/French at: https://bit.ly/3c9hy9z
[20] The Bulletin, ‘Staff at Petit-Château stage 24-hour strike due to overcrowding’, 18 October 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3CpXf2V; The Brussels Time, ‘Asylum centre in Brussels goes on strike on Monday’, 16 October 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3tPzs8O; Bruzz, ‘Nieuwe staking bij Klein Kasteeltje’, 26 October 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3KsIqzk; De Standaard, ‘Asielopvang sukkelt van de ene crisis naar de andere’, 9 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3pNkWgA; VRT Nws, ‘Asylum workers demonstrate for more reception places’, 9 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3I28DD3.
[21] Fedasil, ‘4.000 reception places created in 2022’, 20 January 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/3JVzZz7.
[22] ECRE, ‘Belgium: Asylum Seekers (Once Again) Left Destitute’, 29 October 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3hT2HC3; ECRE, ‘Belgium: Accommodation Shortage Leaves Men in the Cold, Court Insists on Reception Conditions, Charities Launch Judicial Challenge, Media Access Curtailed’, 3 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3wzNHS3; The Brussels Times, ‘A crisis foretold’: Belgium’s system for asylum seekers is overwhelmed’, 18 November 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3tAog0W; Infomigrants, ‘Belgium: Hundreds of asylum seekers on the street’, 10 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3MxGJCJ.
[23] Chamber of Representatives, CRIV 55 PLEN 235, 16 March 2023, p. 18, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3LvFMwD.
[24] Brussels Times, ‘Belgium’s reception crisis: Over 100 families and children on the streets tonight’, 3 November 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/42npsEb.
[25] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting’, 23 November 2022, p. 30, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3Lxwccu.
[26] Ibidem, p. 31.
[27] Ibidem, p. 42.
[28] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting’, 25 January 2023, p. 48, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3JKpIWk.
[29] Brussels Times, ‘Belgian Reception Crisis: 24 underage asylum seekers officially missing’, 11 January 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/3YU6pOK.
[30] Chamber of Representatives, Nicole de Moor, CRIV 55 COM 1010, 1 March 2023, p. 26, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3JmL4rn.
[31] The waiting list can be accessed online at: http://bit.ly/3LzAIr0.
[32] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting’, 25 January 2023, page 40, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3JKpIWk.
[33] Fedasil, ‘Inbeslagname goederen bij Fedasil’, 20 January 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3jnTRAj.
[34] VRT NWS, ‘Infectious diseases rife at Schaarbeek squat housing around 800 asylum seekers’, 9 December 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/3zwD6HF.
[35] VRT NWS, ‘Schaarbeek asylum seeker squat to be sealed on Wednesday’, 13 February 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/40JqPvF.
[36] VRT NWS, ‘Video: Asylum seekers occupy future National Crisis Centre HQ’, 13 March 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/3MegVO8.
[37] VRT NWS, ‘150 asylum seekers from Paleizenstraat squat spend the night on the street’, 16 February 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/3nNSGMD.
[38] Doctors without Borders, ‘Opvangcrisis: Artsen Zonder Grenzen hekelt chaos aan Klein Kasteeltje’, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3zv1UzY.
[39] VRT NWS, ‘Video: Brussels asylum seeker tent camp cleared’, 7 March 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/3mbFTmM.
[40] De Standaard, ‘Wij doen het werk van de overheid zonder de middelen van de overheid’, 28 January 2023, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3zz0Hru.
[41] Het Nieuwsblad, ‘Samusocial telt tot 2.000 mensen in Brusselse kraakpanden’, 28 February 2023, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3UhT9Tu. ‘
[42] Doctors without Borders, ‘1 maand medische interventie aan Pacheco-registratiecentrum: cijfers, tendenzen en aanbevelingen’, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3KAZfv1.
[43] Doctors of the World, ‘Belgique, personnes en marge de la societé’, 13 December 2022, available in French at: http://bit.ly/3GkXH5z.
[44] De Standaard, Noodopvang in Glaaien kan morgen openen, 2 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3vOIrcV; De Tijd, Mahdi krijgt voorlopig geen grip op opvangcrisis, 28 October 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3Crx0Jn
[45] Twitter, Sammy Mahdi, 17 November 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/35KjLaL; Knack, Socialistische en groene Kamerleden verhogen druk op Sammy Mahdi in opvangcrisis, 24 November 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3MzbR4B.
[46] The Brussels Time, ‘Closed Hotel Mercure in Evere becomes reception center for asylum seekers’, 9 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3vRM81n; Bruzz, Gesloten Hotel Mercure in Evere wordt opvangplaats asielzoekers, 9 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3KuFUZh; Bruzz, Opvangcentrum voor 40 asielzoekers opent in Elsene, 24 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3hU3JNW.
[47] Brussels Court of First Instance, Judgment nr. 2021/164/C of 19 January 2021, available in French at https://bit.ly/363Nqvk; The Brussels Time, ‘Court condemns Belgium for asylum crisis, the situation remains precarious’, 21 January 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3H2kTUo.
[48] VRT Nws, ‘Asielzoekers kunnen voor nachtopvang terecht in voormalig ziekenhuis’, 4 January 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3CuJpfF.
[49] Website Secretary of State Sammy Mahdi, ‘Sammy Mahdi sharpens approach of asylum seekers who already applied in another country’, 24 January 2022, available in French at https://bit.ly/35Jk3Pb; Bruzz, ‘Sammy Mahdi sharpens approach of asylum seekers who already applied in another country’, 24 January 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3HT2vxb; RTBF, ‘Belgium sharpens approach of asylum seekers who already applied in another country, 24 January 2022, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3i015WQ.
[50] Chamber of Representatives, Sammy Mahdi, ‘CRIV 55 COM 672’, 26 January 2022, p.17 available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3TnqQlU.
[51] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting, 23 March 2022, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3lthNTX.
[52] The Brussels Times, ‘Despite 6,000 convictions, Belgium still refuses to tackle reception crisis’, 23 January 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3YQ7hEM.
[53] Fedasil, ‘4.000 reception places created in 2022’, 20 January 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/3JVzZz7; Fedasil, ‘A reception network still under pressure’, 24 November 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/3LAgNbr; Fedasil, ‘Review 2021: Reception – Resettlement – Voluntary Return’, July 2022, p. 8, available at: https://bit.ly/40j55G4; Fedasil, ‘A reception network under pressure’, 25 July 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/42vuwGA; Fedasil, ‘Entrance arrival centre’, 8 December 2021n, available at: http://bit.ly/3FHFYVQ; Fedasil, ‘Additional Reception Places Needed’, 16 November 2021, available at: http://bit.ly/3FAKdlZ.
[54] Fedasil, ‘Inbeslagname goederen bij Fedasil’, 20 January 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3yWVbyy.
[55] Dunja Mijatovic, ‘Letter to Belgium concerning reception of applicants for international protection’, CommHR/DM/sf 040-2022’, 13 December 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3Kz8RGi.
[56] Nicole de Moor, ‘Concerning: reception of applicants for international protection’, CAB/NdM/NR/, 16 December 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3KzaO5C.
[57] Tijd voor Mensenrechten, ‘The Belgian reception crisis: pushing for a solution’, 17 March 2023, https://bit.ly/42VVcjQ.
[58] Myria, ‘Contact Meeting’, 25 Janauary 2023, p. 31, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3JKpIWk.
[59] For example: Chamber of Representatives, Nicole de Moor, CRIV 55 COM 1001, 15 February 2023, p. 38, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3Lwh5QK; Chamber of Representatives, Nicole de Moor, CRIV 55 COM 1010, 1 March 2023, p. 26, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/3JmL4rn and Fedasil, ‘Sasies de biens à Fedasil’, 20 January 2023, available in French at: http://bit.ly/3UaAgBE.
[60] The Brussels Times, Depsite 6000 convictions, Belgium still refuses to tackle reception crisis, 23 January 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3YQ7hEM.
[61] VRT NWS, ‘Dwangsommen blijven staatssecretaris De Moor (CD&V) in de nek hijgen’, 1 February 2023, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/4145Kvp.
[62] Information provided by Fedasil in March 2023
[63] Nicole de Moor, Chamber of Representatives, CRIV 55 COM 1044, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Uckhmz, 24.
[64] Nicole de Moor, Chamber of Representatives, CRIV 55 COM 990, available in Dutch and French at: https://bit.ly/43615Lu,3-4.
[65] Francophone Labourt Court of Brussels, ‘Communiqué de presse – Contentieux Fedasil’, 24 May 2022, available in French at: http://bit.ly/3Gf7VEA.
[66] Francophone Labourt Court of Brussels, 22/1343/K, 13 June 2022, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3MANYfF.
[67] Openbaar Ministerie, ‘Communiqué de Presse – Bruxelles’, 24 June 2022, available in French at : http://bit.ly/3KgamYG.
[68] Francophone Labour Court of Brussels, 2022/CB/15, 28 March 2023.
[69] ECHR, Camara v. Belgium, no. 49255/22, 31 October 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3IfMJ1i.
[70] Similar cases are: ECHR, Al Shujaa and others v. Belgium, no. 52208/22, 13 December 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3XMztqQ and ECHR, Msallem and 147 others v. Belgium, no. 48987/22, 15 November 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3SiFElr.
[71] EUAA, ‘Belgium: EASO launches operation to support reception authorities’, 16 December 2021, available at: http://bit.ly/3ZSYoud.
[72] 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.
[73] 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.
[74] EUAA personnel numbers do not include deployed interpreters by the EUAA in support of asylum and reception activities.
[75] Information provided by the EUAA, 28 February 2023.
[76] Information provided by the EUAA, 28 February 2023.
[77] Information provided by the EUAA, 28 February 2023.
[78] ECRE, ‘MSF: The Insecure and Unsafe Situation of Migrants in Europe Increases their Psychological Pain and Suffering’, 1 March 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2TsVwWC.
[79] Migrants in transit in Belgium, February 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3IfOxHC.
[80] Bruzz, Humanitarian hub for migrants opens in Port Avenue, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/3t4ZO4E.
[81] Fedasil, Raising awareness among undocumented migrants, 25 March 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/37ivldJ.
[82] Médecins Du Monde, ‘Le Hub Humanitaire, depuis 5 ans, centre d’accueil et d’orientation pour personnes migrantes en errance’, 22 September 2022, available in French at : http://bit.ly/3JuXRbv.
[83] Article 4(1)(3) Reception Act.
[84] Fedasil, Instructions on the right to material aid in case of subsequent asylum applications, 6 March 2015, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1RrW7gl.
[85] Constitutional Court, Decision No 95/2014, 30 June 2014.
[86] 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.
[87] Federal Mediator, Annual Report 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3u2VaFi
[88] 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.
[89] 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.
[90] 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.
[91] ECtHR, V.M. and others v. Belgium, Application No 60125/11, Judgment of 7 July 2015 (referred to the Grand Chamber but eventually struck out of the list), available at: http://bit.ly/1MYGPvr.
[92] Fedasil, Instruction on the change of place of mandatory registration of asylum seekers 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.
[93] MO Magazine, ‘Ongoing reception crisis in asylum policy, while humans are concerned’, 17 February 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3IZhaYQ.
[94] The Brussels Times, Defence Ministry opens 750 places in military barracks for asylum seekers, 9 July 2022, available at: http://bit.ly/3klYAmK.
[95] Myria, Contact Meeting, 21 September 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3Za40zZ, 13.
[96] Myria, Contact Meeting, 25 January 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3JKpIWk, 10-11.
[97] Myria, Contact Meeting, 15 March 2023, not yet available online.
[98] Article 57/6/2 Aliens Act.
[99] For example, Labour Tribunal of Brussels, 30 March 2020, N° 20/105/K.
[100] MO Magazine, ‘Ongoing reception crisis in asylum policy, while humans are concerned’, 17 February 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3IZhaYQ.
[101] Article 6/1 Reception Act.
[102] Fedasil, Instruction concerning the return track and the assignment to an open return place, 20 October 2015, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1Nof30n, and Instruction concerning the modification of the reception place of asylum seekers who have received a negative decision on the basis of the Dublin Regulation, 20 October 2015.
[103] Fedasil, Instructions on Return assistance – medical exceptions for open return places, November 2019, available in French at: http://bit.ly/3baE7qJ.
[104] 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.
[105] 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.
[106] 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.
[107] Article 6 Reception Act.
[108] Article 52/3 Aliens Act; Article 6 Reception Act.
[109] Article 74/14 Aliens Act.
[110] Article 6/1 Reception Act and Article 52/3 Aliens Act.
[111] Myria, Contact Meeting, September 2019, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/32Bz939
[112] Article 7 Reception Act.
[113] Fedasil, Instructions on the termination and the prolongation of the material reception conditions, 15 October 2013.
[114] Fedasil, Instructions on the transition from material reception to financial help: measures for residents of collective centres and the accompaniment in transition in the individual structures, 20 July 2016.
[115] Ibid.
[116] Ibid.