The Belgian Council of State has suspended the decision of the Minister of Asylum and Migration to limit material reception conditions for applicants for international protection who have already obtained protection in another EU Member State. In its judgment No. 267.364 of 8 July 2026, the Council of State suspended the measure following an urgent appeal introduced by several organisations active in the field of asylum and migration. The decision concerns a measure adopted following the entry into application of the European Pact on Migration and Asylum on 12 June 2026.

On 9 April 2026, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in M.V. and Others v. Belgium and held that Belgium had violated several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the reception conditions of four applicants for international protection.

The Fedasil Pondrôme reception centre will host a photo exhibition featuring the work of unaccompanied and accompanied minors. The images were created over an eighteen-month project led by CIDJ Rochefort–Beauraing. The exhibition provides insight into the daily lives, experiences, and identities of the young participants. The event is free, open to all, and offers an opportunity to meet the creators.

The Belgian Constitutional Court has clarified how the means of subsistence requirement applies in family reunification applications. The ruling establishes that the means of subsistence of both the Belgian sponsor and their partner must be taken into account when assessing compliance with this requirement. Previously, some applications were refused because only the sponsor’s means were considered. The decision aims to ensure compliance with principles of equality, non-discrimination, and respect for family life.

The Belgian Council of State has suspended a ministerial instruction that systematically limited material assistance to international protection applicants who had already obtained protection in another EU Member State. The court ruled that the instruction exposed these individuals to the risk of severe hardship and potential homelessness. It also noted that, due to its regulatory character, the instruction should have been submitted for review by the Council of State’s Legislation Section.

Belgium plans to progressively return several defence sites used for the reception of applicants for international protection to military use as part of a broader plan to expand defence infrastructure towards 2040. The measure concerns around 4.000 reception places located on military premises across the country. Authorities state that the reduction in capacity can be absorbed within the existing reception network. The transition will take place gradually, with closures scheduled at different times depending on the site.

The Netherlands has decided to resume Dublin transfers of single, non-vulnerable male asylum seekers to Belgium, following a period in which such transfers were suspended after a Dutch court ruling. In April 2025, the District Court of The Hague, sitting in Groningen, found that single male asylum seekers risked being deprived of adequate reception conditions in Belgium, which could expose them to inhumane or degrading treatment. The ruling led to a halt in transfers under the EU Dublin system.

Myria, the Federal Migration Centre, has advised against a draft law proposing to remove the legal possibility of activating a mandatory distribution plan for reception places in times of crisis. The plan allows the federal government to require municipalities to provide local reception initiatives according to objective allocation criteria. Myria stresses that this mechanism is important to safeguard human dignity and the right to reception, particularly during periods of structural shortages. 

CIRÉ, together with partner organisations, has lodged an urgent appeal at the Council of State challenging a ministerial instruction that continues to exclude asylum seekers who have already been granted protection in another EU member state from reception facilities. The move follows a recent temporary suspension of the measure by the Constitutional Court. CIRÉ argues the instruction undermines judicial authority and the rule of law.

The Belgian Constitutional Court has temporarily suspended legislative measures introduced in 2025 that tightened rules on material reception conditions for asylum seekers and family reunification for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. The suspensions concern two separate laws, and the Court has referred several preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to clarify their compatibility with EU law.

Fedasil has released its management plan for 2025–2030. Approved in December 2025 and submitted by Director General Pieter Spinnewijn to the Minister for Asylum and Migration, the plan sets out the Agency’s priorities, including restoring the core functioning of the reception system, strengthening its capacity to respond to fluctuations in the number of applicants to be accommodated, and improving the quality, resilience, and effectiveness of services.

Twenty-five organisations have submitted a petition to the Belgian Constitutional Court challenging the new family reunification law, which entered into force in August 2025. The petition highlights concerns that the law creates barriers that may prevent families from reuniting, potentially separating children from their parents indefinitely.

Fragomen will host a webinar on recent changes to Belgium’s immigration policies. The session will cover two main areas: first, new rules in the Flanders Region concerning economic migration, including labour migration pathways, contractual liability, and labour market testing; and second, nationwide modifications affecting family reunification, such as stricter financial criteria for visa applications. The webinar will also highlight practical implications for businesses employing foreign nationals.

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.