Author
The Asylum Act provides for an exhaustive list of grounds that may warrant the reduction or withdrawal of material reception conditions.[1] These consist of unjustifiably:
- Abandoning the place of residence determined by the authority without informing SEF/AIMA or without adequate permission;
- Abandoning the place of residence without informing the reception organisation;
- Failing to comply with reporting duties;
- Failing to provide information that was requested or to appear for personal interviews when summoned;
- Concealing financial resources and hence unduly benefiting from material reception conditions; and
- Lodging a subsequent application.
For the reduction or withdrawal to be enacted, the behaviour of the applicant needs to be unjustified,[2] implying the need for an individualised assessment of the legality of the decision, which is, however, not clearly stated in the law.
Reduction or withdrawal decisions must be individual, objective, impartial, and reasoned.[3] The asylum applicant is entitled to appeal the decision before an Administrative Court,[4] with suspensive effect,[5] and may benefit from free legal aid to that end.[6] Reception conditions that are reduced or withdrawn pursuant to grounds (a) to (c) above can be reinstated if the asylum applicant is found or presents themself to the authorities.[7]
According to AIMA, no formal decisions were issued to reduce or withdraw reception conditions in 2024. No further information has been provided regarding practices in this matter.
In the past, CPR observed that SEF at times sent communications to the organisation reporting that an applicant was failing to comply with the reporting duties (i.e. they missed an appointment with the authority) and suggested that CPR should determine whether to withdraw the provision of reception conditions. Given the legal framework applicable to the reduction and withdrawal of reception condition and CPR’s legal status it is hard to reconcile such a practice with the Asylum Act and with the guarantees provided by the law to the applicant.
According to the experience of CPR, in the past where support was suspended because an applicant repeatedly failed to present themselves as required by the authorities, it was reinstated upon appearance.
Furthermore, particularly until the end of the first semester of 2024, CPR received consistent reports of deficiencies in the provision of reception conditions by AIMA, including instances of withdrawal of accommodation immediately following notification of a negative decision (in violation of the applicable legal framework).
According to AIMA, there may be interruptions in the provision of reception conditions at times when there are gaps. AIMA states that upon reception applicants are informed by the host entities of their rights and duties, features and rules of the reception system, and available services. While it is not clear to which type of gaps AIMA referred to and if it concerned, for instance, the transition from one host entity/institution to another in the practical framework for the reception of asylum applicants, the right to reception should be ensured until another institution takes over and secures alternative means.
According to ISS, no decisions reducing or withdrawing reception conditions were taken in 2024. According to the data provided by ISS, out of the 2,585 persons supported by the entity in 2024, support provision was terminated in a total of 36 cases, due to disappearance without informing the entity.[8] ISS states that it is not possible to disaggregate the information on the other grounds provided by law.
According to the data provided by SCML, out of the 814 persons supported by the entity in 2024, support provision was terminated in 351 cases due to disappearance without informing the entity.[9]
According to the available information, other instances of cessation of support were connected to situations where the applicant no longer lacked financial resources according to the relevant criteria (see criteria and restrictions to access reception conditions).[10]
Criteria and restrictions to access reception conditions
The law does not provide for specific sanctions for seriously violent behaviour or serious breaches of the rules of accommodation centres and other housing provided in the framework of material reception conditions. Nevertheless, service providers are required to adopt adequate measures to prevent violence, and notably sexual and gender-based violence.[11] The law does not provide any guidance regarding the measures to be adopted.[12]
In the case of CAR, both the Regulation of the centre and the individual contract signed between CPR and the asylum applicant include specific prohibitions of abusive and violent behaviour. Such behaviour can ultimately result in withdrawal of the support provided by CPR following an assessment of the individual circumstances and taking into consideration the vulnerability of the applicant.[13] Specific follow-up measures also vary considering the individual situation of the applicant.
In the case of CACR, while the Regulation contains similar prohibitions and age-appropriate remedial action,[14] the accommodation of unaccompanied children stems from and can only be reviewed by the competent Family and Juvenile Court in the framework of the Children and Youths at Risk Protection Act (see Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Children).
In practice, without prejudice to criminal proceedings where applicable, instances of withdrawal of support from CPR following abusive and/or violent behaviour in breach of internal rules remain rare events. For most cases, the consequences consist of a transfer to alternative accommodation to ensure the security and well-being of the remaining residents.[15] In the case of unaccompanied children, Family and Juvenile Courts generally prioritise the stability of the living environment,[16] and are extremely reluctant to uproot the child by transfer to another institution.
[1] Article 60(3) Asylum Act.
[2] Article 60(3) Asylum Act.
[3] Article 60(5) Asylum Act.
[4] Article 60(8) Asylum Act.
[5] Articles 63(1) and 30(1) Asylum Act.
[6] Article 63(2) Asylum Act.
[7] Article 60(4) Asylum Act.
[8] Article 60(3)(b).
[9] Idem.
[10] Articles 51(1) and 56(1) Asylum Act.
[11] Article 59(1)(e) Asylum Act.
[12] SCML reported having 24-hour surveillance to promote the safety and well-being of applicants staying in hotel units. Households and women are housed in a separate hotel unit from lone men. In cases of violence, the guard service calls the police.
[13] The contract is currently available inter alia in Portuguese, English, French and is otherwise interpreted to the client if not available in a language that he understands.
[14] These include, by order of increasing severity, an oral warning; a reprimand; to execute a repairing task; reduction of pocket money; limitation of authorisations to leave the CACR; restriction of ludic and pedagogical activities, notably with fellow children; and transfer to another institution.
[15] According to SCML this measure is also adopted by the organisation when the behaviour of the beneficiary jeopardises the well-being of other residents and staff.
[16] Article 78(2)(e) Asylum Act provides for stability of housing as a contributing factor to upholding the best interests of the child.