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 applicant has the right to material reception conditions ensuring a dignified standard of living from the moment of making an application for international protection.^[2]

There is no limit to this right connected to the nationality of the applicants in the Reception Act. Applicants from safe countries of origin will have a reception place assigned to them. EU citizens applying for international protection 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 international protection can challenge the formal refusal decision of Fedasil (known as ‘non-designation of a code 207’) before the Labour Court.

No material reception conditions, except for 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] Fedasil can check on the quarterly income of working applicants and can claim a financial 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 application for international protection are two different steps in the asylum procedure.^[5] The Reception Act, however, now clearly provides that an applicant has the right to shelter from the moment they make the application for international protection, and not only from the moment the 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 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. Because of the ongoing shortage of reception places (see below), single men are systematically denied access to reception on the day of their application for international protection. These applicants are instructed by the Immigration Office to register on Fedasil’s waiting list. 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. The average waiting time for persons registered on this waiting list was 59 days in 2025.[7] During this period they have no access to material reception conditions, apart from medical reimbursements.

During the intake procedure, applicants undergo a medical screening and can get vaccinated (optional) and must undergo a tuberculosis test (compulsory). Therefore, applicants who are on the waiting list for reception do not undergo a medical screening on the day of their application, leading to increased health risks. Fedasil assesses any specific reception needs that might arise (e.g. medical needs). Afterwards, applicants are first accommodated in one of the 11 first-phase reception centres (with a total capacity of 2,529 places in 2025).^[8] Once a place in a second phase reception structure becomes available, the person is moved to the new reception place. Due to the shortage of reception places, the average stay in a first phase reception places rose to 53 days in 2025, compared to 49 days in 2024.^[9]

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 (see Legal Assistance). When the need arises, these applicants can always opt for material aid again if their procedure is still pending.

Constraints in accessing accommodation

2021 – 2026: shortage of reception places & 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. Therefore, priority is given to those applicants considered ‘vulnerable’ (families, children, single women, etc.). Unless they present an exceptional (medical) vulnerability^[10], single male applicants are almost systematically not considered as vulnerable and are thus denied access to a reception place. There are no clear criteria to assess when a single man would be considered as vulnerable. In 2025, Fedasil did not provide accommodation to 7.015 single male applicants with a right to reception.^[11]

Since May 2022 and until the time of writing this report (March 2026), 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.^[12] They are merely informed about the shortage of places and instructed to register themselves on a waiting list of Fedasil.^[13] In May 2026, 1,127 single men were on the waiting list.^[14]  To offset the impact of the shortage of Fedasil reception places, the federal government finances 2,000 places within the Brussels network of homelessness shelters (the so-called ‘Brussels Deal’). However, applicants on the waiting list are not automatically directed to these places. 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 applicants for international protection. Therefore, the Brussels Deal is not an adequate solution for applicants on the Fedasil waiting list. In 2025, the average waiting time on the waiting list for reception was 59 days.^[15] During the waiting period, the applicants are left to fend for themselves, many living in extremely precarious conditions (see Consequences on the applicants’ livelihoods). This has been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in M.V. and Others v. Belgium.[16] Belgium was found to violate article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights with regards to four applicants for international protection. They were not provided access to material reception conditions and had to sleep rough between 111 and 338 days. The Court found that the applicants had thus been victims of degrading treatment that had entailed a lack of respect for their dignity. A level of severity sufficient to engage Article 3 of the Convention had been exceeded as a result of those living conditions, together with the lack of an appropriate response from the Belgian authorities. 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). However, since August 2023 single men on the waiting list can no longer obtain a reception place through litigation. Fedasil no longer respects court decisions, hereby rendering the available legal remedy ineffective.

In February 2025, a new government was installed. Since then, the new Minister for Asylum and Migration has repeatedly stated that “no applicant for international protection should sleep on the streets”, asserting that the waiting list would therefore no longer be necessary. She further maintains that applicants who are not accommodated by Fedasil can instead find shelter within the Brussels network for homeless persons.^[17] According to the Minister, the Brussels Deal adequately meets the housing needs of the fewer than 2,000 applicants currently on the Fedasil waiting list. However, this position is not supported by observations from civil society, nor does it correspond with information provided by Fedasil.^[18] Furthermore, it also disregards the fact that Fedasil has no legal basis for refusing accommodation to these single men. Moreover, the reception agency cannot shift its statutory responsibilities onto civil society actors.

Once the shortage of reception places is resolved and the number of applicants has significantly decreased, the government plans to drastically reduce the number of reception places. In a first phase, it has already closed emergency accommodation in hotels (NOC’s).[19]  The last hotel was closed in the beginning of January 2026. According to the Minister this was possible due to a sharp decline of applications for international protection in Belgium.[20] In a second phase, the government intends to close all Local Reception Initiatives (LRIs), which it considers to be a pull factor. This substantial reduction in reception capacity would result in an 83% budget cut for Fedasil. These plans have been strongly criticized by civil society. Commenting on these budget plans, the Court of Auditors noted that “the international context has a significant impact on the number of asylum applications. As a result, forecasts covering a period of more than two years are insufficiently reliable. The Court of Auditors also noted that the government’s calculation is insufficiently substantiated”.^[21] Despite these criticisms, the government continues to plan for a decrease of the Fedasil budget with the Agency’s budget decreasing with €126,735,000 in 2026 compared to last year. Commenting on the 2026 budget, the Court of Auditors has again voiced its concerns on the extent to which Fedasil will be able to meet its future obligations with the resources provided.[22]

The shortage of reception places also impacted access to the procedure for international protection in 2022 and 2023 (see Registration of the asylum application). In 2024 and 2025 the access to the procedure for international protection was guaranteed.

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.^[23]

To address the shortage of reception places, in 2022 the federal government allocated funding for 2,000 places within the Brussels Capital Region’s homeless shelter network, a measure commonly known as ‘the Brussels Deal’ (discussed above).^[24] The government claims that applicants unable to secure Fedasil accommodation should be able to find shelter within this system. However, in practice, as stated above, this measure does not provide a solution for all applicants in need of reception. These places are difficult to access. People must register for homelessness accommodation themselves. The registration systems often have high barriers. For example, people may need to call a hotline in a language they do not speak well. Others must register online, even though not everyone can easily use digital systems. In addition to these barriers, there is also a serious shortage of places. There are not enough places for all destitute applicants. In addition, these places are open to everyone in need of accommodation, so applicants for international protection are not given priority. Throughout 2025, 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 16 to 24 days. 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.^[25] 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 apply for homelessness accommodation for days or even weeks, without success.^[26] Consequently, applicants denied Fedasil accommodation face a high risk of destitution unless they can secure housing on their own. In September 2025, Samusocial published a press release. In this statement, they explained that they had begun refusing shelter to single women. They stated this decision was a result of federal migration policy.^[27] Since May 2023, several humanitarian NGO’s publish an overview of the non-reception policy. The latest version was released in April 2026 and covers the period between June and December 2025.[28]

Medical organisations have denounced the dire medical situation for destitute applicants for international protection 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, Croix-Rouge provides medical consultations in a ‘Refugee Medical Point’ (RMP).  Of all the visitors to the RMP, 95% were applicants for international protection without Fedasil accommodation.^[29] 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.^[30] 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.^[31] 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.^[32] 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 shortage of reception places 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 procedure for international protection. This can result in missing their first interview, potentially leading to the closure of their procedure. Many go to their interview uninformed and unprepared.

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 shortage reception places. 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 76% in 2025.^[33] 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 procedure for international protection 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, 12,083 individual applicants came to the legal helpdesk.^[34] Between July and December 2025, the helpdesk received 4,014 visitors.[35] The demand for shelter is their most pressing concern, with 488 visitors stating that they were homeless at the time of their visit. These were mainly people who had only just lodged an application for international protection and had not yet gained access to the Fedasil shelter network. More than a quarter of homeless visitors are also unaware of the waiting list for shelter, so the Legal Helpdesk assists with registration on the waiting list.

In September 2023, Fedasil 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.^[36] 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 2025, the Info Point welcomed 10,945 visitors. 79% are single men, and of the total amount of visitors 87% have an ongoing asylum procedure. On average, half of the visitors indicated that they were sleeping rough.[37] The most common questions concern shelter, assistance with medical care, and legal aid.[38]

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 11,030 times by Labour Courts for violation of the right to reception.^[39] Similarly, the European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) has indicated 2,286 interim measures to the Belgian state, ordering to provide shelter to the persons involved. On 13 March 2026, 5 of these interim measures were still active.^[40] 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.^[41]

• 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 11,030 times since the start of the reception crisis.^[42] The theoretical amount of these fines is estimated to be well above 100 million euros. However, Fedasil does not pay these fines. This is a policy openly assumed by the Minister for Asylum & Migration who stated that “she cannot and will not pay these penalties”.[43] This overt disregard for the rule of law led to severe criticism by the judiciary in an open letter in September 2025.[44] After some time, an individual court decision becomes inactive. Therefore, on 12 September 2025 Fedasil was due to pay 6.7 million euros in 527 individual files.[45]

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.^[46] The first interim measure was granted on 31 October 2022.^[47] On 23 December 2024, the ECtHR had granted 2,285 interim measures in this context.^[48] 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 lodged their application.^[49] This practice was still applied in 2025.^[50] The practice renders the available legal remedies at the domestic and European level practically ineffective. The Camara v. Belgium case resulted in a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the ECtHR found that Belgium was violating 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’. ^[51] 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. The Minister for Asylum and Migration has confirmed this policy on several occasions.^[52] 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.^[53] 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. In one mediatised case, four applicants managed to obtain a compensation of €40.000. In this case, the applicants claimed the penalty from the Belgian Buildings Agency which is led by another federal minister than Anneleen Van Bossuyt. In April 2026 this minister, Vanessa Matz, decided to pay the penalty of €40.000 to these four applicants. This is the only known case in which penalties were paid. The Minister for Asylum and Migration Anneleen Van Bossuyt repeatedly states that she ‘cannot and will not pay any penalty’.[54]

• Collective legal proceedings

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 international protection and the right to reception, as well as for not respecting judicial decisions.^[55] The appeal was introduced by a group of 10 NGO’s.  The court found that 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.

In several judgements preceding this decision on the merits, Fedasil was forced to pay a penalty fee for every day that it violated the right to reception. The Reception Agency did not pay a single penalty fee and did not respect the right to reception either. This led to extensive legal proceedings in which the court of First Instance and the court of Appeal upheld the initial decisions and even increased the penalty fee that Fedasil was due. Because the Agency did not respect these judgements, the court of Appeal stated that Fedasil ‘deliberately and manifestly disregards the initial judgement of the 19 January 2022’ (for more information see AIDA update on 2024).

Despite these judgements, Fedasil has continued to violate the right to reception up until the time of writing.^[56] This has been confirmed by Fedasil in several official communications.^[57] Fedasil has not yet paid the penalty fees that are due, hereby violating legal judgements.^[58] The ten NGOs have sought to enforce payment of these penalties, but so far without success. Legal proceedings regarding the payment of these penalties are currently pending. In total, the NGOs are claiming €2.9 million in unpaid penalty fees. The courts have ruled that the NGOs may seize individual bank accounts held by Fedasil. Following such a seizure, the Agency is given the opportunity to demonstrate why the specific account in question is essential for the public service it provides. Concerning the first account that was seized, the court of Appeal found in November 2025 that this particular account was indeed crucial for Fedasil’s public service functions.

(Inter)national reaction

On 13 December 2022, the then 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.^[59] 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’.^[60]

On 23 July 2025 the Dutch Council of State ruled that the Netherlands can no longer transfer single men to Belgium in the context of the Dublin Regulation.[61] Because of the systemic shortage of reception places, the principle of mutual trust towards Belgium no longer applies in the case of single male applicants for international protection.

During 2023, 2024 and 2025, several institutions, courts and civil society organizations underlined their concern regarding the deterioration of the reception conditions in Belgium. These include:

• A letter to the Belgian Government sent on 30 March 2023 by four UN Special Rapporteurs;^[62]
• An open letter sent in September 2023 by several Belgian human rights institutions calling the rapporteurs and representatives of various European institutions and the United Nations to examine the situation in Belgium (which, however, received very little response);^[63]
• A statement published in October 2023,^[64] and an international campaign launched in December 2023,^[65] by Amnesty International, urging the Belgian authorities to take all possible measures to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of asylum applicants and to comply with the court rulings ordering Belgium to provide adequate accommodation;
• A statement published by UNHCR in November 2023, 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”.^[66]
• A collective memorandum published by the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation and the Council of State before the federal elections of June 2024, expressing their serious concern on the state of the rule of law in the context of the reception crisis.^[67]
• The publication by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in September 2024, and in September 2025 of its findings regarding Belgium’s compliance with the Camara v. Belgium^[68] In their latest publication they express concerns “about the steady decline in the number of reception places since the end of 2024, given that in many cases the authorities are unable to offer applicants the reception they are entitled to and that the number of applications for protection and their average processing time remain high”. In addition, the Committee noted concerns about the effects of other planned measures, in particular significant reductions in the federal budget for the reception of applicants and the long-term capacity of the reception network, as well as the removal of legal solutions that could help to respond to the crisis”.[69]
• Two statements by the Federal Migration Centra (Myria) and the Federal Institute for Human Rights (FIRM) in response to the Committee of Minister’s communications.[70] In their latest statement of September 2025, Myria and FIRM point to “a worrying development: the federal government is consciously and knowingly accepting a situation that has become inhumane and degrading for the individuals concerned and that is unworthy of a state governed by the rule of law. By deciding not to enforce court rulings, the Belgian authorities are undermining the effectiveness of these individuals’ legal remedies: they are thus unable to assert their rights”.
• Research by Amnesty International, published in April 2025, titled ‘Belgium: Unhoused and unheard – How Belgium’s persistent failure to provide reception violates asylum seekers’ rights’. This paper was meant as a ‘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’.^[71]
• An open letter of the Court of Cassation, the College of Prosecutors General and the College of Courts and Tribunals entitled ‘Court rulings are binding – even for ministers’.[72] In a rare communiqué, the judiciary responds sharply to the disturbing statements made by the Minister for Asylum and Migration indicating that she would not pay any penalties or comply with the judges’ decisions on reception. The judiciary states that ‘Minister Van Bossuyt’s statements are symptomatic of a worrying development in which a member of the executive branch believes he can place himself above the law. This is contrary to the principles of a democratic constitutional state’.

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.^[73] Several amendments were signed, extending support into 2024.^[74] In December 2024, the EUAA and Belgium agreed on an operational plan for 2025-2026, with support with regard to asylum procedures and reception.^[75]

Throughout 2025, the EUAA deployed 92 experts in Belgium,[81] mostly external experts (81). The majority of them were asylum procedures experts (23), access to asylum procedures experts (14), along with information and data management experts (7) and programme and project management experts (6).[82]

As of 15 December 2025, a total of 65 EUAA experts were deployed in Belgium, out of which 20 were asylum procedures experts, 14 were access to asylum procedures experts, 6 were information and data management experts and 5 were programme and project management experts.[83]

In 2025:

– 6,093 lodged asylum applications were registered with the support of EUAA personnel in Belgium. 56% of these related to the same 10 citizenships, mainly of nationals from Afghanistan (655), Eritrea (654), Palestine (481), Türkiye (320), Burundi (260), Guinea (233), Democratic Republic of Congo (226), Congo (205), Cameroon (201) an Somalia (187).[84]

– the EUAA carried out 828 registrations for temporary protection in Belgium.[85]

– EUAA caseworkers carried out interviews concerning 1,297 applicants, all of which related to the same 3 citizenships: Palestine (1,220), Syria (36) and Yemen (41).[86]

– the EUAA delivered 14 training sessions to a total of 148 local staff members.[87]

Right to reception: subsequent applications

The Reception Act provides the possibility for Fedasil to refuse reception to applicants who lodge a second or further subsequent application for international protection, until their application is deemed admissible by the CGRS.^[88] Between the moment of the subsequent application and the admissibility decision by the CGRS, 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. Applicants for international protection must then present themselves to the Dispatching service at Fedasil’s arrival centre to be allocated a reception place.

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

If, after a final negative decision in the 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.^[89]

In August 2025 the parliament adopted two laws that changed article 50 of the Aliens Act and article 4 of the Reception Act.[90] In short, the change to the Aliens Act expands the definition of a subsequent application to include those applications made by persons who received a final decision in another EU member state.[91] The change to the Reception Act introduces an additional ground for reduction of reception conditions based on the fact that an applicant already enjoys international protection in another EU member state (so-called “M-status”).[92] Based on these amendments, Fedasil refused access to accommodation to 438 applicants with an M-status between 2 August 2025 and 26 February 2026.[93] Considering this refusal unlawful, these applicants introduced unilateral requests at Labour courts.[94] These courts suspended the refusal decision, instructing Fedasil to provide access to accommodation as soon as possible. Initially, the Minister for Asylum and Migration instructed Fedasil to disregards these rulings and to not provide access to accommodation.[95] After pressure in media and in political debates, the Minister revised this instruction. Fedasil would be allowed to provide access to accommodation by inviting these applicants for a place in the Dublin centre of Zaventem.[96]

In February 2026, Fedasil also began refusing access to accommodation to applicants who had already received a final negative decision in another EU Member State.[97] This situation arises when an applicant is required to return to the Member State where the final negative decision was issued, but the Belgian authorities fail to carry out the transfer within the applicable time limits. As a result, Belgium becomes responsible for examining the application and registers it as a subsequent application, after which Fedasil refuses access to accommodation on the basis of article 4(1)(3) Reception Act.

In parallel with the proceedings before the Labour courts, several affected applicants also lodged a suspensive appeal before the Constitutional court. On 26 February 2026, the Constitutional court suspended both Article 50, §5 of the Aliens Act and Article 4, §1, 5° of the Reception Act.[98] According to the court, refusing accommodation to applicants with an M-status risked causing irreparable harm. In addition, the court found that it is uncertain whether the current Asylum Procedures Directive and the future Asylum Procedures Regulation allow Member States to register applicants with an M-status as subsequent applicants.[99] The court therefore referred a prejudicial question to the court of Justice of the European Union, asking whether Article 33 of the current Asylum Procedures Directive and Articles 3, 19°, and 55, §2 of the future Asylum Procedures Regulation permit Member States to register applicants with an M-status as subsequent applicants, thereby allowing them to reduce access to material reception conditions on the basis of Article 20, §1(c) of the current Reception Directive.[100]

Following this suspension, the Minister for Asylum and Migration stated that she had identified another legal basis in Belgian legislation that would allow the reduction of access to material reception conditions for applicants with an M-status.[101] This reasoning relies on a combination of three elements: the definition of a subsequent application in the Aliens Act, Fedasil’s possibility to reduce access to material reception conditions for subsequent applicants, and the Khan Yunis and Baabda judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. By combining these elements, the Minister argues that applicants with an M-status can still be registered as subsequent applicants despite the Constitutional Court’s suspension. This position has been widely criticized by constitutional law specialists, as well as by Myria, the Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, and the High Council of Justice.[102] According to these critics, Belgian legislation does not contain any additional legal basis that would allow such a policy. Moreover, the Constitutional court had already considered the legal ground relied upon by the Minister when it decided to suspend the amendments to the Aliens Act and the Reception Act. Several NGO’s introduced a suspensive appeal at the Council of State asking the Council to suspend the instruction in an urgent procedure. At the end of March, the Council of State suspended the Ministerial instruction ruling that the Minister should have consulted the legislative section of the Council of State on the legal basis of the instruction before implementing it. After this ruling, the Minister maintained her position that Belgian law contains legal grounds allowing Fedasil to continue to refuse reception conditions using individually motivated decisions. At the time of writing (April 2026) it is unclear how Fedasil motivates these decisions.

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.^[103] 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.^[104] 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. On 22 September 2025 the Court of Cassation ruled that Fedasil has to explicitly mention how the right to human dignity is preserved for subsequent applicants who do not receive access to accommodation.[105]

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, applicants for international protection are entitled to a reception place. Social assistants in the regular 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.^[106] If a negative Dublin decision (‘annex 26quater’: refusal of residence with an order to leave the territory) is issued, applicants have a right to accommodation until the moment of their effective transfer to the responsible member state. Applicants with a negative Dublin decision are however a priority group of the proactive return policy.

Consequently, applicants for international protection 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. Applicants 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 place).^[107] In that case, their right to material assistance is limited to medical care. Exceptions to the designation of a Dublin-place can be requested in case of medical counter-indications, pregnancy or recent birth.^[108]

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.^[109] (see Return track and assignment to an open return place). If the applicant refuses collaboration with voluntary 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).

Applicants can also be assigned to the Dublin centre in Zaventem from the moment of the registration of their application in Belgium.^[110] 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 in the first few days of their arrival in the centre 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.^[111] At the time of writing, no statistics were available for 2025.

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).

Dublin Returnees

Depending on the situation of their procedure in Belgium at the moment they left Belgium, applicants who are 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 application for  international protection is taken into consideration by the CGRS (see Right to reception: subsequent applications). Single male applicants who are not considered subsequent applicants suffer the consequences of the ongoing reception crisis, in the context of which they are systematically deprived of shelter for several months before receiving access to the reception network (see Criteria and Restrictions to Access Reception Conditions). On 23 July 2025 the Dutch Council of State ruled that the Netherlands can no longer transfer single men to Belgium because of the shortage of reception places.[112] The Council observed that this shortage of reception places is no longer temporary but has become structural. It is also unclear whether this group of asylum seekers can be accommodated in emergency and homeless shelters. Moreover, single men do not have access to effective legal protection because the Belgian authorities do not comply with court rulings and do not pay penalty payments. The indifference of the Belgian authorities to resolve these shortcomings in reception and legal protection leads to the conclusion that, in Belgium, there is a systemic failure for this group of asylum seekers, as they are unable to meet their most basic needs upon return to Belgium. The Council of State therefore ruled that the Dutch asylum services may no longer rely on the principle of mutual trust with regard to Belgium.

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

In August 2025 the parliament adopted two laws that changed article 50 of the Aliens Act and article 4 of the Reception Act.[113] In short, the change to the Aliens Act expands the definition of a subsequent application to include those applications made by persons who received a final decision in another EU member state.[114] The change to the Reception Act introduces an additional ground for reduction of reception conditions based on the fact that an applicant already enjoys international protection in another EU member state (so-called “M-status”).[115] Based on these amendments, Fedasil refused access to accommodation to 438 applicants with an M-status between 2 August 2025 and 26 February 2026.[116] Because of the close link with the right to reception of subsequent applicants, this matter is further extensively discussed under Right to reception: subsequent applications.

‘Return track’ and assignment to an open return place

The law foresees a so-called ‘return track’ for applicants for international protection.^[117] 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.^[118]

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 applicant is formally offered return assistance. When an appeal is lodged in front of the CALL, the applicant is informed again about their options for return. The return track ends with the transfer to an open return place in one of the five federal reception centres who have such places (400 places in total), 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: applicants for international protection 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 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.^[119] At the end of the derogation, the 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 an open return place due to medical reasons which would render the accommodation inadequate.^[120] 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 an open return place are only possible in case of a medical problem which prevents the applicant from moving to the open return place or during the last 2 months of pregnancy until 2 months after giving birth.^[121]

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

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

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.^[122] 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.^[123] 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.^[124]

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.^[125]

End of the right to reception

The right to material reception ends:[126]

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

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.^[127]

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 place), 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.^[128] 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.^[129]

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.^[130]

Fedasil has adopted internal instructions about these possibilities and how to end the accommodation in the reception structures in practice.^[131]

In case of a positive outcome of the procedure for international protection, 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.^[132] 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.^[133] 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. 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 115 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 (“Royal Decree Cumul”), available in French and in Dutch.

[5]          Article 50/1 Aliens Act.

[6]          Article 6(1) Reception Act.

[7]          Information provided by Fedasil, April 2026.

[8]          Information provided by Fedasil, April 2026.

[9]          Information provided by Fedasil, April 2026.

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

[11]         Information provided by Fedasil, April 2026.

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

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

[14]         Fedasil, ‘Reception network for applicants’, 1 February 2026, available in Dutch here.

[15]         Information provided by Fedasil, April 2026.

[16]         ECHR 9 April 2026, 52836/22, 57898/22, 3913/23 et al., M.V. and others v. Belgium, available here.

[17]         Chamber of Representatives, Anneleen van Bossuyt, CRIV 56 COM 186, 17 September 2025, available in Dutch and French, here, 12.

[18]         For example, the website www.fedasilinfo.be states that “Currently, Fedasil cannot give shelter to all asylum seekers. Vulnerable people, women and children are given priority. If you don’t get shelter, you can register on the waiting list” and Samusocial, ‘An alarming turning point: Samusocial must refuse shelter to women with children and to victims of domestic violence’, 9 September 2025, available in Dutch and French here.

[19]         VRT NWS, ‘Hotel accommodation for asylum seekers to be gradually phased out’, 20 October 2025, available here.

[20]         Anneleen Van Bossuyt, ‘Hotel accommodation for asylum seekers completely closed – Minister Van Bossuyt: ‘I am doing what I promised.’’, 16 January 2026, available here.

[21]         Court of Auditors, ‘Comments and remarks on the draft state budget for the 2025 financial year’, 15 May 2025, available in Dutch here, 63.

[22]         “The Council of Ministers meeting of 14 February 2025 decided to tighten asylum policy. This stricter approach is expected to generate savings of €688 million by 2029. By reducing inflows, the government aims to gradually and carefully scale down the asylum reception network (€538 million). In addition, by organising more efficient returns (outflows), less reception capacity will be needed and the associated costs can be reduced (€150 million). Both savings measures are fully attributed to Fedasil. (…) Furthermore, the Court of Audit notes that the number of applications for international protection (inflows) strongly depends on the international context. In 2025, the number of applications (34,439) fell by 5,176 (–13.1%) compared to 2024 (39,615). This overall decline is largely due to fewer applications from Syrians (–4,163, –74.1%) and Palestinians (–2,297, –40.4%), respectively as a result of the removal of the former Syrian president and the ceasefire in Gaza. The international context therefore represents a factor that is difficult to predict and that will partly determine the extent to which Fedasil will be able to meet its future obligations with the resources provided”.

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

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

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

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

[27]         Samusocial, ‘An alarming turning point: Samusocial must refuse shelter to women with children and to victims of domestic violence’, 9 September 2025, available in Dutch and French here

[28]         Doctors without Borders, ‘Restricted access to reception undermines health and dignity’, 28 April 2026, available here.

[29]         Information provided by Croix Rouge, April 2026.

[30]         Ibidem.

[31]         Ibidem 11.

[32]         Ibidem.

[33]         Belrefugees, ‘Service d’Information Sociojuridique et Administrative’, 16 December 2025, available in French here.

[34]         Information about the Legal Helpdesk is provided by Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, author of the AIDA report. For more information, contact info@vluchtelingenwerk.be.

[35]         One person can visit multiple times.

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

[37]         Information provided by Fedasil, April 2026.

[38]         Fedasil, ‘The Fedasil Info Point celebrates its second anniversary’, 26 September 2025, available here.

[39]         Fedasil, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 19 November 2025, available in French and Dutch here, 38.

[40]         Ibidem.

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

[42]         Fedasil, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 19 November 2025, available in French and Dutch here, 38.

[43]         N-VA, ‘Penalty imposed on Fedasil halved under Minister Van Bossuyt’, 7 February 2026, available here.

[44]         Board of Procurators General, Board of Courts and Tribunals, and the Court of Cassation, ‘Judiciary: ‘Court rulings are binding – even for ministers’’, 1 October 2025, available in French here.

[45]         Anneleen van Bossuyt, ‘Federal Chamber of Representatives – written questions and answers’, 2 October 2025, available in French and Dutch here, 447.

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

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

[48]         Fedasil, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 19 November 2025, available in French and Dutch here, 38.

[49]         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.

[50]         Based on information obtained by Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, author of the AIDA report.

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

[52]         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.

[53]         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.

[54]         Van Bossuyt, ‘Committee on Internal Affairs, Security, Migration and Governance: CRIV COM 56 COM 355’, 22 April 2026, available in French and Dutch here, 37.

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

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

[57]         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.

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

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

[60]         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.

[61]         Dutch Council of State, ‘The Netherlands can no long transfer single male applicants to Belgium’, 23 July 2025, available in Dutch here.

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

[63]         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.

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

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

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

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

[68]         Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, ‘H46-6 Camara c. Belgique (Requête n° 49255/22)’, 19 September 2024, available in French here and ‘H46-6 Camara c. Belgique (Requête n° 49255/22)’, 17 September 2025 available in French here.

[69]         Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, ‘H46-6 Camara c. Belgique (Requête n° 49255/22)’, 17 September 2025.

[70]         Myria and FIRM, ‘Reception crisis: Europe once again points to Belgium’s shortcomings’, 20 September 2024, available in French here and ‘Reception crisis: Myria and the Federal Institute for Human Rights warn of deterioration in rights’, 18 September 2025, available in French here.

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

[72]         Court of Cassation, the College of Prosecutors General and the College of Courts and Tribunals, ‘Court rulings are binding – even for ministers’, 1 October 2025, available in French here.

[73]         EUAA, ‘Belgium: EASO launches operation to support reception authorities’, 16 December 2021, available here.

[74]         EUAA, Operational Plan 2022 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Belgium, amendment 1, May 2022, available here, annex 1. EUAA, Operational Plan 2022-2023 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Belgium, amendment 1, November 2022, available here. EUAA, Operational Plan 2024 agreed by the European Union Agency for Asylum and Belgium, amendment 3, December 2023, available here.

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

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

[77]         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.

[78]         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.

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

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

^[81]         EUAA personnel numbers do not include deployed interpreters by the EUAA in support of asylum and reception activities.

[82]         Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026. In the course of 2025, 11 persons were deployed in Belgium under two different profiles. These cases are reported separately under each category.

[83]         Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

[84]         Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

[85]         Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

[86]         Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

[87]         Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

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

[89]         Fedasil, Update of instruction – Right to material aid – Subsequent application for international protection, 27 November 2023, available in French here.

[90]         Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, stay, settlement and removal of foreign nationals with regard to the processing of a subsequent application for international protection, 14 July 2025, available in French here and Act of 12 January 2007 on the reception of asylum seekers and certain other categories of foreign nationals, 14 July 2025, available in French here.

[91]         Article 50, §5 Aliens Act.

[92]         Article 4, §1, 5° Reception Act.

[93]         Fedasil, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 19 November 2025, available in French and Dutch here, p. 44.

[94]         For example: Brussels Labour Court, 25/554/K, 21 August 2025, available in French here and 25/557/K, 21 August 2025, available in French here.

[95]         RTBF, ‘Families of asylum seekers are once again sleeping on the streets of Brussels’, 20 August 2025, available in French here.

[96]         Fedasil, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 19 November 2025, available in French and Dutch here, p. 46.

[97]         Information provided by Fedasil in February 2026.

[98]         Constitutional Court, judgement nr. 23/2026, 26 February 2026, available in French here.

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

[100]       Constitutional Court, judgement nr. 23/2026, 26 February 2026, p. 51.

[101]       The Brussels Times, ‘Beyond belief’: Migration minister under fire for ignoring Constitutional Court order’, 4 March 2026, available here and Anneleen Van Bossuyt, ‘Van Bossuyt continues to refuse asylum seekers who already have protection in the EU’, 4 March 2026, available in Dutch here;

[102]       DeMorgen, ‘Constitutional Law specialists warn for the asylum policy of minister Van Bossuyt’, 7 March 2026, available in Dutch here; De Standaard, ‘Strong reactions to Minister Van Bossuyt’s decision on the suspension of reception for asylum seekers already under protection’, 4 March 2026, available in Dutch here; Bruzz, ‘FIRM concerned about Van Bossuyt ignoring court ruling’, 6 March 2026, available in Dutch here and The High Council for Justice, ‘All Court Rulings must be respected and executed’, available in French here.

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

[104]       Labour Court of Brussels, Decision No 21/538/K, 31 August 2021, available in French here; Labour Court of Brussels, Decision No 17/1762/A, 8 February 2018; Labour Court of Brussels, Decision of 17 February 2015, available in French here; Labour Court of Brussels, Decision No 16/1384/A, 14 November 2016; Labour Court of Bruges, Decision No 16/8K, 11 October 2016.

[105]       Court of Cassation of Belgium, ‘S.23.0030.N’, 22 September 2025, available in Dutch here.

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

[107]       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.

[108]       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.

[109]       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.

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

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

[112]       Dutch Council of State, ‘The Netherlands may not return single male asylum seekers to Belgium’, 23 July 2025, available in Dutch here.

[113]       Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, stay, settlement and removal of foreign nationals with regard to the processing of a subsequent application for international protection, 14 July 2025, available in French here and Act of 12 January 2007 on the reception of asylum seekers and certain other categories of foreign nationals, 14 July 2025, available in French here.

[114]       Article 50, §5 Aliens Act.

[115]       Article 4, §1, 5° Reception Act.

[116]       Fedasil, ‘Contact Meeting International Protection’, 19 November 2025, available in French and Dutch here, p. 44.

[117]       Article 6/1 Reception Act.

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

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

[120]       Fedasil Instruction, Instructions on Return assistance – medical exceptions for open return places, November 2019.

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

[122]       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 in French here.

[123]       CJUE, order of 26 March 2021, N° C-134/21, available in English here; CJUE, order of 26 March 2021, N° C-92/21, available in English here.

[124]       An overview of the development of this jurisprudence is available in Dutch here. See also: Labour Court Liège, 19 April 2021, N° 21/12/K, available in Dutch here.

[125]       Article 4 §1, 2° Reception Act.

[126]       Article 6, §1 Reception Act.

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

[128]       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.

[129]       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.

[130]       Article 7 Reception Act.

[131]        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.

[132]        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.

[133]       Ibid., 3 and 7.

[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, April 2026.