OP-ED: Belgium’s reception ban for M-status holders: Testing the limits of EU law and human dignity

By Thomas Willekens

Since 4 August 2025, families with small children who have applied for international protection are sleeping rough in Brussels. This is not due to a lack of places in the reception system but the direct consequence of a new federal policy.

According to Minister for Asylum and Migration Anneleen Van Bossuyt, too many people who already have refugee status in another EU country (known as “M-status”) travel onwards to Belgium and apply here. To deter these applicants, she introduced changes to the reception law: as of August 2025, the Federal Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (Fedasil) can refuse accommodation to applicants who have M-status.

This new ground for exclusion is presented as permissible under the EU Pact on Asylum and Migration (hereinafter referred to as “the Pact”). At the same time, the Minister insists that families who find themselves homeless in Brussels are solely responsible, since they made the “choice” to leave the country where they were already recognised. She offers them a reception place if they start a voluntary return procedure to the country of protection. According to the Minister therefore, their homelessness is the individual responsibility of the affected families.

But beyond these political messages, what does this policy mean in practice? In this op-ed, I will examine the claim that the Pact allows such a measure, reflect on the reasons why applicants with M-status travel onwards and provide an overview of the human impact that my colleagues and I are witnessing on the ground.

A fragile legal foundation

The Minister argues that the Pact enables Belgium to deny accommodation to applicants with M-status. However, when reading Article 23 of the 2024 Reception Directive, it becomes clear that EU member states are not allowed to exclude people from accommodation solely because they hold protection in another member state.

The main ground for the withdrawal of reception conditions remains the introduction of a subsequent application. Some interpret the 2024 Asylum Procedures Regulation broadly, suggesting that an application lodged by an M-status holder could be treated as a subsequent application. If this were the case, reception conditions could also be temporarily withdrawn for M-status holders.

At first glance this might appear a technical nuance, but the difference is significant. In the case of a subsequent application, accommodation must be provided again once the application is declared admissible. For M-status holders in Belgium, this step does not exist: the Belgian legal framework does not provide a positive admissibility decision for them. As a result, even if they present a well-founded claim, they may remain excluded from reception for the entire procedure. This treatment seems at odds with the textual interpretation of the Asylum Procedures Regulation and the recast Reception Directive, and goes against the principles of legal certainty and proper conduct of the procedure. Nevertheless, the law has been adopted and Fedasil is applying it today. Even so, the EU framework still obliges member states to guarantee a standard of living in accordance with EU law to all applicants for international protection. In addition, the Belgian Constitutional Court has ruled in several landmark judgements that children and their parents should never be subjected to homelessness, regardless of their migration status.

The reality behind “choice”

The government repeatedly frames homelessness as the “choice” of families who left their country of protection. However, most people with M-status who arrive in Belgium have been recognised in Greece.

The situation in Greece for beneficiaries of protection is very well documented. Year after year, reports by ECRE members Refugee Support Aegean and PRO ASYL describe the same reality: people recognised as refugees face chronic legal and practical obstacles in accessing documents, housing, and socio-economic rights. Their most recent report again concludes that many are pushed into homelessness and destitution, in violation of basic rights and dignity. In 2024 alone, 1,323 people with Greek protection status received protection again in Belgium because they were able to show that their status in Greece was no longer effective.

In light of this, it is not surprising that families seek safety and stability elsewhere in Europe. To hold them responsible for their homelessness in Brussels is to ignore the failure of another EU member state to uphold its obligations.

The human impact in Brussels

Since August, Fedasil has refused accommodation to 143 people under the new policy, including a number of  families (79 people).

At Flemish Refugee Action, we are currently accompanying six of these families. All are highly vulnerable. One image that I will never forget is of two Afghan families leaving our Legal Helpdesk and setting up for the night in the park across the street. While the parents were visibly distressed, debating their next steps, the children were playing as if they were on a family holiday. The contrast between their innocence and their parents’ despair was striking.

Several families have appealed their exclusion before the Brussels Labour Court. The Court suspended the refusal decisions, ruling that Fedasil had not taken into account the specific vulnerabilities of the families. It also confirmed that accommodation must be provided during the admissibility stage of the application for international protection. Notably, the Court did not even consider the new exclusion ground introduced in August. In these judgments, Fedasil was ordered to provide accommodation immediately, with a penalty fee for each day of non-compliance.

However, even when families present these rulings, Fedasil refuses to act. In official communication to these families, it acknowledges receipt of the judgments but states they are bound by ministerial instructions not to execute them. Accommodation is only offered if families agree to start a voluntary return procedure to their country of protection.

This means that even after the European Court of Human Rights’ landmark Camara v. Belgium ruling, applicants still lack an effective remedy. Court decisions are ignored, and even families with small children are left on the streets.

A European race to the bottom

The new Belgian policy is not an isolated measure. It is another step in the wider European race to the bottom in asylum standards. Rather than tackling the root causes of onward movement – notably the failure of Greece to ensure decent reception and rights for recognised refugees – Belgium lowers its own standards.

The result is predictable: refugees are caught in destitution, EU law becomes weaker and political problems around migration remain unresolved.

As the first High-level Solidarity Forum under the Pact approaches, the contradictions will become apparent. Solidarity between EU member states looks increasingly utopian when, instead of raising standards, governments compete with one another to erode them.

Thomas Willekens is Policy Advisor at ECRE member organisation Flemish Refugee Action.