Author
The instances of asylum applicants not having access to reception accommodation in 2024 did not entail sleeping on the grass in Ter Apel, as this happened in 2022, but sleeping on matrasses on the floor of portakabins (container cabins) on the grounds of the Ter Apel location. These instances are addressed under Criteria and restrictions to access reception conditions.
Conditions in (crisis) emergency locations
As is made clear in the section Types of accommodation, over half of the asylum applicants in the Netherlands are housed in (crisis) emergency locations. Since 2022 and including in 2024, reception conditions provided to these asylum applicants did not meet the minimum legal standards. In the first year of the reception crisis, the Dutch Council for Refugees (VWN) published three Quickscans on the conditions in (crisis) emergency locations, and reported seriously inadequate living conditions.[1] Basic needs – such as privacy, security and warmth – were often not fulfilled and there were concerns about health care, access to education and other activities for children and the fact that asylum applicants were forced to frequently move from one facility to the other.[2]
After almost a year of witnessing said conditions, the Dutch Council for Refugees (VWN) summoned the State and COA in front of the Regional Court of the Hague on 17 August 2022.[3] On 6 October 2022, the Court of First Instance confirmed that the State has an obligation of result to take appropriate measures to guarantee dignified reception facilities for asylum applicants. In fulfilling these obligations, the State must take into account the EUAA reception guidelines, as they are widely supported scientific insights and internationally accepted standards.[4] Furthermore, the court established that COA and the State needed to improve reception conditions in a timely manner, detailing different terms for various situations in the country:
- In Ter Apel, every asylum applicant who wants to register their application must immediately be offered a safe covered sleeping place, food, water and access to hygienic sanitary facilities.
- All asylum applicants must be given immediate access to any form of necessary health care.
- The vulnerable asylum applicants mentioned in the Crisis Emergency Locations Guide (including babies and their families and heavily pregnant women) may no longer be placed in crisis emergency shelters, with immediate effect.[5]
- All asylum applicants must be medically screened before being placed in a crisis emergency location within two weeks.
- Additional reception for unaccompanied minors must be realised within two weeks, in particular for the unaccompanied minors currently residing in Ter Apel.
- A maximum of 55 unaccompanied minors may stay in Ter Apel for a maximum of five days, within two weeks.
- Minor asylum applicants must be given access to play facilities and education within four weeks.
- All asylum applicants residing in (crisis) emergency reception locations must receive a financial allowance, within four weeks.
- Vulnerable asylum applicants may no longer be placed in an emergency reception location in four weeks’ time, unless their specific special reception needs are met in that location.
The overall situation had to be improved within nine months. On 20 December 2022, the Hague Court of Appeal upheld the essence of the earlier ruling: the reception conditions in which thousands of asylum applicants are forced to live and do not meet minimum legal requirements.[6] The ‘reception crisis’ is a self-made crisis caused by the government’s policies.[7] Therefore, the State and COA could not invoke the force majeure situation of Article 18(9) Reception Conditions Directive. However, although the Court expects the State and COA to fulfil their legal obligations as soon as possible, the deadline given to the State to improve all reception conditions was revoked. The State and COA still need to provide with immediate effect that:
- Asylum applicants are no longer left in the streets or sleeping outdoors in Ter Apel.
- Vulnerable asylum applicants should not be placed in (crisis) emergency locations unless their special needs are met there.
- The State and COA must make every effort to screen asylum applicants medically as far as possible before they are transferred from Ter Apel to another reception centre – especially if that other facility is an (crisis)emergency location; if the screening could not take place immediately, it should take place as soon as possible thereafter.
- Access to necessary health care is be provided.
- Asylum applicants in crisis emergency locations must be provided with a weekly financial allowance in accordance with Article 14 Rva 2005.
- Children in (crisis) emergency locations should have access to playing facilities and education. An exception can only be made if there is no way to meet this condition immediately due to a shortage of teachers, and then only as long as the State continues its efforts to make education accessible to minor asylum applicants.
Moreover, the Court ruled that the State treats displaced persons from Ukraine and asylum applicants from other countries unequally. The Court rejected VWN’s request to order the State and COA to treat all asylum applicants equally, based on the fact that the goal of ensuring that reception conditions meet the State’s minimum legal obligations ,was deemed impossible to achieve within a short period of time. The Court also does not consider it their role to instruct the State on how to ensure that the State ensures equal treatment of all asylum applicants. None of the parties appealed this decision, so the judgement is final.
In August 2023, one year after the start of the tort procedure, the Dutch Council for Refugees investigated the extent to which the living conditions in the (crisis) emergency locations align with European obligations as explained in the court ruling.[8] In the months of June and July 2023, 22 (crisis) emergency locations were visited, and 92 residents were interviewed. The report concluded that the majority of the (crisis) emergency locations still largely fail to meet the State’s obligations under European law. While some (crisis) emergency locations have adequate facilities, these are exceptions, and conditions elsewhere are equally distressing, if not worse than in 2022.
In January 2024, the Dutch Council for Refugees (VWN) released its second report which expanded on these findings.[9] 20 (crisis) emergency locations were visited, and 94 residents were interviewed. In line with the findings of the first report, the results again show that a significant amount of the (crisis) emergency locations still fail to meet the minimum standards for humane reception and the State’s obligations under European law. In half of the visited locations, sleeping spaces do not meet the EUAA reception guidelines and residents experience a lack of privacy and tranquillity. Only half of the locations meet the EUAA reception guidelines for sanitary facilities. The facilities often function poorly or not at all, are far away from the bedrooms or even outside, and are unhygienic, causing children to avoid using them. Health care is present at 15 out of 20 locations, but in 7 out of 20 locations residence experience obstacles to access it due to very limited availability and long waiting times. Nutrition also remains problematic: there is a lack of variation, some residents receive insufficient food and it is only possible for applicants to cook themselves on 2 out of 20 locations. This while residents on all locations express a strong desire to cook, both to have more diverse meals and as a daily activity. Weekly allowances are considered insufficient to cover basic needs, especially in remote locations where the applicants have high travel costs. Children have limited access to education, and more than half of the locations lack play areas or leisure activities for children.
Furthermore, residents experience difficulties accessing medical care. There are still vulnerable people residing at the (crisis) emergency locations even though their specific needs cannot be met there. Lastly, residents experience a difficult relationship with the location management, often due to miscommunication, strict house rules and in some cases aggressive behaviour. The long stay in such dire circumstances leads to stress and depression, and the significant differences between locations demonstrate that asylum applicants are subject to arbitrariness when it comes to receiving adequate reception in the Netherlands. In December 2024, the Dutch Council for Refugees conducted another research on the situation in (crisis) emergency locations, asking residents what they find important for good reception conditions.[10] 92 residents were interviewed individually and in focus groups, and 696 gave their responses through an online survey. This research confirmed the previous findings that privacy and the possibility to cook are very important for residents. It also illustrated that the lengthy stay in inadequate reception locations, in combination with uncertainty about the asylum procedure, is detrimental to the residents’ mental health. Furthermore, the residents stressed that they want to be able to make a reception location their home. Privacy is important for this, but this also requires less transfers and less remote locations, so that the residents can connect and integrate with the local community.
Other organisations also reported on the conditions in the (crisis) emergency locations. The findings on privacy, nutrition, education and play areas for children, and the detrimental mental health effects of such conditions are confirmed by the Dutch Inspection of Justice and Security.[11] Furthermore, the National Ombudsperson and the National Children’s Ombudsperson concluded in a report that human rights and children’s rights are put under pressure.[12] The whole situation keeps being handled in crisis mode, whereas it is a long-lasting issue. This is also confirmed by the Dutch Inspection of Justice and Security, which points out that the lack of buffer capacity and the continuous occupation of over 100% at COA locations is a structural problem, but the solutions provided (such as ‘pre-registration locations’ and portakabins at Ter Apel) are treating it as a temporary one.[13] The National Ombudsperson and the National Children’s Ombudsperson also consider that the government does not sufficiently take into consideration the necessity for asylum applicants to be able to exercise self-determination and autonomy. Finally, as the Dutch Council for Refugees (VWN) also concluded, the Ombudspersons highlighted the arbitrariness of the reception system and concluded that the principle of non-discrimination is not respected.
Pharos, the Dutch Red Cross and Doctors of the World (Dokters van de Wereld) also published several reports on the lack of sufficient medical care at (crisis) emergency locations (see Reception conditions – Health Care).[14]
Without structural measures, the dire situation in which residents find themselves at the (crisis) emergency locations continues to be without a foreseeable resolution so as to provide adequate and humane accommodation for asylum applicants in the Netherlands.
Conditions in AZCs
Residents of a regular reception centre usually live with 5 to 8 people in one unit. Each unit has several bedrooms and a shared living room, kitchen and sanitary facilities. At the time of writing, there are no reports of serious deficiencies in the sanitary facilities that are provided in the reception centres. Residents are responsible for keeping their habitat in order.[15] Unaccompanied children live in small-scale shelters, which are specialised in the reception of unaccompanied children. They are intensively monitored to increase their safety (see section on Special Reception Needs).
Adults can attend programmes and counselling meetings, tailored to the type and stage of the asylum procedure in which they are. Next to this, it is possible for asylum applicants to work on maintenance of the centre, cleaning of common areas, etc. and earn a small fee of up to € 14 per week doing this.[16] It is also possible for children as well as adults to participate in courses or sports at the local sports club. Children of school age are obliged to attend school. To practice with teaching materials and to keep in touch with family and friends, asylum applicants can visit the Open Education Centre (Open Leercentrum) which is equipped with computers with internet access. Children can do their homework here. There is supervision by other asylum applicants and Dutch volunteers.
AZC are so-called open centres. This entails that asylum applicants are free to go outside if they please. However, there is a weekly duty to report (meldplicht) in order for the COA to determine whether the asylum applicant still resides in the facility and whether he or she is still entitled to the facilities.[17] Some reception centres such as HTL, as well as centres for rejected asylum applicants, have a stricter regime. There have previously been some incidents and issues with asylum applicants. Other incidents are related to Dutch citizens protesting the establishment of a reception centre in their city.
Residents can use the MyCOA-application – available in 10 languages – to obtain extensive information on their stay in an AZC. For example, they receive a message when post arrives; they can obtain information on the job market in the Netherlands.
[1] VWN, First Quickscan, 14 December 2021, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3QzQimT, VWN, Second Quickscan, 9 March 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3iubcHC and VWN, Third Quickscan, 19 October 2022, https://bit.ly/3ZseCuT.
[2] Ibid.
[3] VWN, VluchtelingenWerk spant kort geding aan tegen het Rijk en het COA vanwege opvangcrisis, 17 August 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3IBnuIz.
[4] Regional Court The Hague (civil department), ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:10210, 6 October 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3wikDjE, para. 7.4.
[5] Guide for Crisis Emergency Locations, 2 December 2020, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3XSRbJi.
[6] The Hague Court of Appeal (civil department), ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2022:2078, 20 December 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3Ii2iX0.
[7] This has also been confirmed by the ACVZ and ROB (Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur). In their report they state that the reception crisis is a self-made crisis by the Dutch government: ‘Asielopvang uit de crisis’, 14 June 2022, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3ik1OGw.
[8] VWN, Gevlucht en vergeten?, August 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4205TBR.
[9] VWN, Gevlucht en Vergeten? No. 2, January 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/4hfWkVP.
[10] VWN, Onderzoek naar ervaringen en behoeften van vluchtelingen in de opvang, December 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40jjZ0F.
[11] Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid, Brief Toezicht Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid Ter Apel, 15 January 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3WmsWoR.
[12] Nationale ombudsman en Kinderombudsman, De crisis voorbij, 27 June 2023, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/40k5rhm.
[13] Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid, Brief Toezicht Inspectie Justitie en Veiligheid Ter Apel, 15 January 2024, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3WmsWoR.
[14] Pharos, Rode Kruis en Dokters van de Wereld, Zorgen in tijden van crisis, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3TUvbiW.
[15] For more information, see COA, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/41XxH9U.
[16] Article 18(1) and (3) RVA.
[17] Article 19(1)(e) RVA.