News

On 9 April 2026, the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in H.D. v. Italy (Application no. 41645/23). The case concerned the placement and prolonged stay of an unaccompanied child in an adult reception centre in Italy, as well as the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty and the adequacy of available remedies.

The applicant, a Burkinabe national, was placed in the adult reception and asylum centre in Isola di Capo Rizzuto (Crotone). Despite being soon recognised as a minor and granted a residence permit, he remained in the centre for more than five months without being allowed to leave. During that time, he challenged his situation before the domestic courts and subsequently requested an interim measure under Rule 39, which led to his transfer to a facility for unaccompanied children.

The Court found that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty lacked any legal basis and could not be justified under Article 5 § 1 (f) ECHR. It examined both limbs of that provision and noted that no removal or refusal of entry procedure had been initiated. On the contrary, the applicant had been formally recognised as a child and granted a residence permit to stay in Italy. The Court therefore concluded that his detention could not be justified under Article 5 § 1 (f). It also rejected the Government’s reliance on subsequent legislative amendments allowing the temporary accommodation of minors in adult centres, noting that these provisions entered into force after the applicant’s placement and did not provide a legal basis for deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, the Court held that the authorities failed to inform the applicant of the reasons for his detention, in breach of Article 5 § 2. Regarding Article 5 § 4, the Court recalled the requirement of a speedy judicial review and found that the domestic proceedings lasted several months and only concluded after the applicant’s transfer following an interim measure, therefore finding a violation of Article 5 § 4.

In relation to the complaint under Article 3, the Court reiterated the principles applicable to the treatment of persons held in immigration detention and emphasized the particular vulnerability of children. It found that the applicant had been held for over five months in an adult reception centre characterised by overcrowding, poor material and hygienic conditions, and a lack of appropriate services. Although children were nominally placed in a separate area, the evidence showed that separation from adults was ineffective in practice and that they lived in close contact. Moreover, no specific educational, recreational or psychosocial support adapted to minors was provided, and the applicant was not allowed to leave the centre. The Court concluded that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 ECHR.

The Court also found that Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 had been violated. The applicant’s complaint concerned not only the material conditions of detention but also his placement in an adult facility, which required an effective remedy capable of securing his prompt transfer to a suitable centre for children. Although a domestic remedy was available, the Court considered that the delays in the proceedings rendered it ineffective in practice.

On 2 April 2026, the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) published its Views in the communication No. 3742/2020 submitted by Gentilmen Issa Magumba against the Republic of Korea, concerning the refusal to process an asylum application lodged in an airport transit zone and the applicant’s prolonged confinement in that zone.

The author, a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was held for approximately 14 months in the transit area of Incheon International Airport after being denied the possibility to apply for refugee status on the ground that he was a transit passenger and not subject to entry inspection. He claimed that this refusal exposed him to a risk of refoulement and that his confinement amounted to arbitrary detention and inhuman treatment.

The Committee found a violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights due to the denial of access to the asylum procedure. It reiterated that States must not remove individuals where there are substantial grounds for believing that they face a real risk of irreparable harm and must ensure access to an effective and independent review with suspensive effect. In the present case, the author’s asylum request was rejected solely on formal grounds linked to his status as a transit passenger, depriving him of any opportunity to seek protection against refoulement. The Committee held that domestic legal provisions cannot be applied in a manner that undermines obligations under the Covenant.

The Committee further found a violation of Article 9(1), holding that the author’s confinement in the airport transit area constituted a deprivation of liberty. It recalled that such deprivation may arise from confinement in a restricted airport area without free consent, and that prolonged and indefinite detention of asylum seekers may be arbitrary. The Committee noted that the author was subjected to de facto detention for approximately 14 months within a space under the State party’s jurisdiction, without any legal basis, as no formal detention order had been issued. His confinement was of indefinite duration, lacked appropriate justification, and was not based on an assessment of necessity or proportionality. The Committee therefore concluded that the author’s detention was arbitrary and constituted a violation of Article 9(1) of the Covenant.

Finally, the Committee found the conditions of detention and the prolonged exposure to inadequate living conditions such as lack of privacy, insufficient access to food, medical care and sanitary facilities and constant lighting during COVID-19 pandemic, to be incompatible with human dignity, therefore finding a violation of Article 10(1) of the Covenant.

The Committee concluded that the State party violated Articles 7, 9(1) and 10(1) of the Covenant and held that it is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including compensation, and to take measures to prevent similar violations in the future.
 

On 16 April 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in joined Cases C‑50/24 to C‑56/24 (Danané and Others), originating from a request for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Council for asylum and immigration proceedings (Conseil du contentieux des étrangers). The cases concerned the interpretation of Directive 2013/32/EU (Asylum Procedures Directive) and Directive 2013/33/EU (Reception Conditions Directive), in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the context of asylum applications lodged at Brussels airport by third-country nationals who were detained in facilities situated within Belgian territory but legally treated as border facilities.

The Court clarified that Article 43 of Directive 2013/32 does not require border procedures to be carried out at geographically defined border locations. A procedure may fall within the scope of that provision even where the applicant is detained in a facility located within the territory of the Member State, as long as those facilities are legally treated as border or transit zones. The Court emphasised that neither the wording nor the objectives of the provision impose a geographical requirement and that a restrictive interpretation could render border procedures ineffective and undermine fundamental rights.

The CJEU further held that, once the four-week period laid down in Article 43(2) of Directive 2013/32 has expired, the examination of the application can no longer be carried out under the border procedure and must continue under the ordinary procedural framework of the Directive. However, EU law does not preclude the same detention facility from being reclassified from a “place at the border” to a “place in the territory”. In such circumstances, the Member State must ensure that applicants are informed of the change in their legal situation, including their authorisation to enter the territory.

The Court confirmed that applicants may remain detained after the expiry of the four-week period on a different legal basis, in particular under Article 8(3)(b) of Directive 2013/33. It held that the continuation of detention is permissible where necessary to determine elements of the application, insofar as it complies with the requirements of necessity, proportionality and individual assessment. It stressed that detention must remain exceptional and cannot be applied automatically or systematically.

It also ruled that, after the expiry of the four-week period, the determining authority may continue examining the application as a matter of priority under Article 31(7) of Directive 2013/32. It clarified that investigative steps carried out during the border procedure may be relied upon in subsequent procedures, provided that they comply with the basic principles and guarantees laid down in EU law.

Finally, it held that the expiry of the four-week period and the continued detention of the applicant do not affect the competence of the determining authority. The expiry of that period merely entails a shift from the border procedure to another procedural framework and the cessation of the specific temporal and material limitations applicable to border procedures.

On 9 April 2026, the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in M.V. and Others v. Belgium (Applications nos. 52836/22 and three others). The case concerned the failure of the Belgian authorities to provide accommodation and material support to applicants for international protection. 

The asylum applicants were left without access to accommodation or material support in Belgium for several months. During this period, they allegedly lived in extremely precarious conditions on the street in Brussels, including during winter, without shelter, sanitation, or means to meet their basic needs. This situation persisted despite the final decisions by the Brussels Employment Tribunal ordering the Belgian State to provide them with reception conditions, and despite interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court.

In relation to the complains under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court observed that Belgium was responsible for providing reception conditions to the applicants, to which they were entitled under national legislation transposing European Union law for as long as they were authorised to remain on the territory. It held that this obligation was not diminished by any assistance potentially received from humanitarian organizations, and reiterated that constraints linked to a migration crisis cannot exempt Contracting States from their obligations under Article 3 ECHR. The Court found that the authorities’ failure to provide reception conditions resulted in the applicants’ prolonged homelessness and deprivation of basic necessities, which amounted to degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR.

In regard to Article 6 § 1 ECHR, the Court noted that the domestic judgments in favour of the applicants were not enforced promptly, but only following the indication of interim measures by the ECtHR and with significant delays and incomplete execution. It held that structural pressure on the reception system could not justify such delays and found no indication that the applicants had contributed to them. The Court therefore concluded that the time taken to enforce the domestic judgments was not reasonable and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The Court also found that the Belgian authorities had failed to comply with the interim measures indicated under Rule 39. Neither the prompt action had been taken, nor the Government had demonstrated the existence of objective obstacles or that all reasonable steps had been taken to comply, thereby breaching its obligations under Article 34.

Finally, under Article 46 ECHR, the Court reiterated the existence of a systemic deficiencies in Belgium’s asylum reception system, previously identified in Camara v. Belgium. It emphasised that the persistent failure to provide accommodation and to comply with final domestic court decisions was incompatible with the rule of law and requires the adoption of general measures to ensure effective access to reception conditions for applicants for international protection.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team
 

On 17 March 2026, the Court of Cassation (Hof van Cassatie) dismissed an appeal against a judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal (Hof van beroep te Brussel) upholding the detention of an asylum applicant at the border following the use of forged travel documents.

The applicant, a third-country national, attempted to enter Belgium using false travel documents and applied for international protection upon arrival at the border. He was consecutively placed in detention in a border facility pending a decision on his entry or possible return. The applicant challenged his detention, arguing that the use of false documents is inherent to the situation of asylum applicants and should be regarded as a failure to comply with entry formalities, which cannot itself justify detention under the Directive 2013/33/EU (the Reception Directive). He also requested to refer a preliminary question on this matter to the Court of Justice of European Union.

The Court of Cassation rejected those arguments and confirmed that, while under Article 8(1) of the Reception Directive an applicant for international protection may not be detained solely because of their asylum application, detention is permitted where necessary, including in order to decide on the right to enter the territory in the context of a border procedure (Article 8(3)(c)). The Court held that, in assessing the lawfulness of detention, national authorities may take into account the use of false documents and that they are not required to treat such conduct as merely a failure to comply with entry formalities or as inherent to the status of an asylum applicant. The Court further upheld the findings of the lower court that the detention was based on an individual assessment and was necessary to ensure the effectiveness of border control and the possibility of return. Finally, it found that the request for a preliminary ruling was not relevant and it dismissed the cassation appeal.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

On 5 March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European  Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the case C-489/24 (Safita). The case arose from a request for a preliminary ruling by the Council of the State of The Netherlands (Raad van State) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2013/32/EU (the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (rAPD)), in particular about the possibility for Member States to adopt several successive decisions extending the time limit for examining applications for international protection where a large number of applications are lodged within a short period.

The Court clarified that, under point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU, a Member State may decide on several occasions and consecutively to extend the time limit for the examination procedure. However, the Court emphasised that the application of that provision is subject to three cumulative conditions: (i) applications for international protection must be lodged simultaneously, (ii) they must be lodged by a large number of applicants, and (iii) the situation must make it very difficult in practice to conclude the examination within the initial six-month period. Referring to its previous case law, the Court recalled that such extensions are justified only in the event of a significant increase in applications occurring within a short period, compared with the normal and foreseeable trend in the Member State concerned, and not in situations characterised by a gradual increase of applications over an extended period.

Furthermore, the Court held that under Article 4(1) rAPD, where the number of applications for international protection remains continuously high over an extended period, Member States are obliged to allocate appropriate and sufficient means to the determining authority to enable it to process those applications. A Member State may therefore rely on consecutive extensions only if it demonstrates, with sufficient reasons and evidence, that despite the efforts to address the simultaneous lodging of applications, it did not have sufficient time to allocate the necessary resources. In any case, the duration of successive extensions must not exceed either the time necessary to comply with that obligation or a maximum overall period of 21 months from the lodging of the application.

On 26 February 2026, the Belgian Constitutional Court delivered its judgments nos. 23/2026 and 24/2026, suspending, respectively, provisions of two Laws of 14 July 2025 reforming the reception regime for asylum applicants, and provisions of the Act of 18 of July 2025 introducing stricter conditions for family reunification between beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and their family members. In both cases, the Court considered that the immediate application of the contested measures was likely to cause an irreparable harm and raised doubts as to their compatibility with EU law and fundamental rights. It therefore referred several preliminary questions to the CJEU and ordered the suspension of the provisions pending the CJEU judgment.

In judgment No. 23/2026, the Court suspended provisions of two Laws of 14 July 2025 which allow Fedasil (Belgian Federal Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers) to refuse material assistance to asylum applicants  who already enjoy international protection in another EU Member State, and which cancel  the possibility of granting reception support in the form of financial assistance in special circumstances. The Court considered that the immediate application of these provisions could cause serious and irreparable harm, and referred to the CJEU the question on whether EU law allows an application by a person already granted protection in another Member State, to be treated as a “subsequent application” under Directive 2013/32/EU, thereby permitting refusal of material assistance under Directive 2013/33/EU.

In judgment No. 24/2026, the Court examined provisions of the Act of 18 July 2025 introducing stricter requirements for family reunification between beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and their family members, departing from the more favourable regime applicable to refugees. The Court considered that the immediate application of these provisions was likely to cause serious and irreparable harm.

It therefore suspended them and referred five preliminary questions to the CJEU, asking in particular: (1) whether the Directive 2003/86/EC is valid insofar as it excludes beneficiaries of subsidiary protection from its more favourable family reunification regime; (2) if so, whether the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights precludes national measures subjecting beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to less favourable conditions than refugees; (3) whether the Directive 2011/95/EU is valid insofar as it limits the concept of “family members” to those present in the same Member State; and (4-5) whether the Charter precludes national measures imposing stricter family reunification conditions on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection if their  family members are not present in Belgium, in light of the right to respect for family life and the best interests of the child.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

Belgium: Council for Aliens' Law Litigation annuls inadmissibility decisions for beneficiaries of international protection in Greece

On 20 February 2026, the United Chambers of the Council for Aliens’ Law Litigation (RvV-CCE) (CALL) annulled three inadmissibility decisions of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) concerning applications for international protection lodged by Palestinians who had been granted international protection in Greece. The three cases were examined together in the same proceedings (Nos. 341 503, 341 504, and 341 505 CR).

The cases concerned beneficiaries of international protection whose Greek residence permits had expired. During the waiting period for the renewal of these permits, the applicants lacked access to the rights and benefits associated with their status, including employment, housing, healthcare, and social assistance. The CALL  found that, in the absence of these benefits to meet their basic needs during the waiting  period, the applicants risked falling into extreme material deprivation incompatible with human dignity under Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Therefore, the Council annulled the three inadmissibility decisions on the ground that the CGRS had failed to sufficiently examine whether the applicants would be able to remain in Greece and meet their basic needs pending the renewal of their residence permits. In doing so, the CALL confirmed its previous case law on the precarious situation of beneficiaries of international protection in Greece (RvV‑CCE 22 January 2024, No. 300 342 CR).

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

On 22 January 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) published  its judgment in the case of A.N. and Others v. Greece (Applications nos. 65267/19 and two others) finding that Greece violated Article 3 of the Convention due to inadequate living conditions at the Samos Reception and Identification Centre (RIC).

The case concerned seven unaccompanied children accommodated at the Samos RIC for four to ten months, facing severe overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, inadequate medical and psychosocial support, an insufficient "safe zone" for minors, and an ineffective guardianship system (§§72-79).

The Court emphasised that unaccompanied minors constituted a particularly vulnerable group and that credible allegations of poor conditions can shift the burden of proof to the State (§120). The ECtHR further highlighted that the situation of vulnerable persons, and particularly unaccompanied minors, requires special protection (§124).

Recalling its case-law on the vulnerability of  asylum seeking children and reception conditions in Samos RIC, the ECtHR concluded that, considering their age and their particular vulnerability as unaccompanied minors,  the reception conditions to which they were subjected in and around the Samos RIC amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. (§134). The Court also decided that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 13, in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 as well as the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.

On 18 December the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C‑184/24 (Sidi Bouzid). The case concerns AF and his minor child BF, applicants for international protection in Milan, who challenge the withdrawal of their material reception conditions following AF’s refusal to be transferred to another accommodation centre. The national authorities justified the withdrawal under Article 23(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 142 as an administrative measure related to the organization of reception centres, while AF argues it violates his and his child’s rights to basic needs and protection as vulnerable persons under Directive 2013/33 (the recast RCD). The regional administrative court for Lombardia has referred a preliminary question to the Court of Justice asking whether EU law precludes withdrawal of reception conditions, not as a sanction but because of a refusal to transfer, where this leaves applicants unable to meet basic needs, provided the authority ensures equivalent conditions at another centre. 

While referring to the relevant case-law (Haqbin, Ministero dell’Interno), the Court emphasized that “material reception conditions” include housing, food, clothing, and daily expenses allowances. These conditions must guarantee a dignified standard of living, particularly for vulnerable persons such as minors or single parents, in accordance with Articles 17 and 21 of the recast RCD. While Article 20 permits withdrawal or reduction of reception conditions in cases of abuse, including when an applicant abandons the designated place of residence without informing the authorities, a refusal to transfer to another accommodation centre does not constitute “abandonment,” as the applicant remains present and traceable, and therefore the withdrawal of all material reception conditions is not allowed under Article 20(1)(a).  

The Court confirmed that repeated refusal to comply with a transfer decision may constitute a serious breach of the rules of an accommodation centre under Article 20(4), which can justify the imposition of proportionate sanctions, including partial reduction of material reception conditions, provided that the applicant’s dignity and fundamental rights are respected. In assessing such breaches, Member States must consider the nature and persistence of the conduct, its impact on the management of reception centres, and the applicant’s particular circumstances. The Court stressed that the competent authorities retain the power to implement necessary transfers to ensure the effective management of reception facilities, while upholding the applicant’s fundamental rights and maintaining equivalent reception conditions in the new centre. 

On that basis, the Court concluded that the national legislation at issue precludes the competent authority from withdrawing all material reception conditions from an applicant who refuses transfer to another accommodation centre, while confirming that partial sanctions may be imposed if the conditions of Article 20(4) and (5) are met.