In a judgment delivered in Case C-184/24 (Sidi Bouzid), the Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified the limits of sanctions that may be imposed on applicants for international protection who refuse to be transferred to another accommodation centre. The Court found that such a refusal cannot justify the withdrawal of all material reception conditions. While Member States may impose sanctions for serious breaches of reception rules, these must remain proportionate and respect the applicant’s dignity. 

On 15 and 16 December 2025, EMN Belgium organised a conference in Brussels bringing together stakeholders from Belgium, EMN Member and Observer Countries, as well as European and international organisations. The event provided a forum to examine reception and support for applicants for international protection other than in-kind from legal, policy, and operational perspectives, exploring how these forms of support are organised, implemented, and linked to broader reception systems.

The Council of the European Union has agreed its position on two key proposals to strengthen the use of safe country concepts in EU asylum rules. One addresses the safe third country concept, and the other establishes the first EU‑wide list of safe countries of origin. They aim to accelerate asylum procedures and improve the management of applications from those unlikely to require protection. Negotiations with the European Parliament, which has also endorsed the list, will follow to agree on the final texts.

During a session of the Chamber of Representatives’ Interior Committee on 2 December 2025, Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt outlined the government’s decision regarding the list of safe countries of origin. She specified which countries are included in the 2025 list and explained that Morocco was added due to improvements in its human rights situation and the low recognition rate for asylum applications from Moroccan nationals. 

On 20 November 2025, EMN Belgium attended the launch of the annual report "Rechten op de drempel" by the Flemish Children’s Rights Commissioner, on the occasion of International Children’s Rights Day. The report highlights persistent challenges affecting foreign children and young people in reception centres, including disparities in living conditions, safety, hygiene, and access to basic needs.

On 13 November 2025, several civil society organisations held a silent protest outside the Palais de Justice in Brussels to draw attention to the shortage of reception places for third-country nationals. Participants, including advocates, volunteers, and citizens, brought sleeping bags to symbolise people forced to sleep outdoors. The demonstration called for urgent measures to ensure that all individuals entitled to accommodation can access it.

The Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) is resuming the processing of applications for international protection from Syrian nationals from 1 November 2025. The suspension, in place since 9 December 2024, was implemented to gather sufficient information on the security situation in Syria.

On 30 September 2025, seven organisations, including humanitarian groups, published the fifth edition of their Belgian report on the country’s non-reception policy and its effects on asylum seekers. The report provides data on reduced access to accommodation and essential services during the first half of 2025, following policy changes introduced by the coalition government formed in January. It documents impacts on housing, healthcare, mental health, and legal support for people seeking international protection.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe examined the execution of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Camara v. Belgium. The case highlighted a systemic failure to enforce judicial decisions ordering the State to provide accommodation and material support to asylum-seekers. While some progress has been made in freeing up reception places and improving operational support, concerns persist over reductions in capacity and the risk to the rule of law. The Committee urged the Belgian authorities to adopt sustainable measures and provide detailed information on enforcement.

Asylum applications in EU+ countries fell by nearly a quarter in the first half of 2025, according to the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA). A sharp decline in requests from Syrians, following political change in the country, shifted the profile of applicants across Europe. Venezuelans became the largest group seeking protection, while Germany lost its position as the main destination country. Recognition rates reached a record low, reflecting procedural factors and changes in applicant composition.

In August 2025, the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) introduced a Self-Assessment Tool to help national authorities evaluate the quality of their asylum procedures. Based on EUAA operational standards and indicators, the tool provides a structured method for self-assessment. It aims to help administrations identify areas for improvement and ensure compliance with EU standards. A descriptive version of the tool is currently available to guide implementation.

A European pilot project is underway to improve access to sustainable housing for beneficiaries of international protection and beneficiaries of temporary protection. Running from November 2024 to October 2027, PATHS brings together IOM, Orbit and Fedasil in Belgium, with partners in France and Greece. The initiative focuses on preventing homelessness through housing platforms, stronger intermediary organisations and greater engagement with property owners.

From 4 August 2025, Belgium implements two changes affecting international protection procedures. The period to justify absence from personal interviews is reduced from 15 to 8 days. In addition, new applications submitted after a decision on a previous request in another EU Member State are now registered as subsequent applications.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that a Member State may designate a third country as a ‘safe country of origin’ by legislative act, provided that the designation can be subject to effective judicial review. The judgment clarifies that the sources used for such a designation must be accessible to both applicants and courts. The Court also stated that a country cannot be listed as ‘safe’ if it does not offer adequate protection to all its population.