News

On 25 June 2026, the Constitutional Court of Belgium (Grondwettelijk Hof) delivered its judgment no. 78/2026, concerning the procedure introduced by the Act of 10 March 2024 for granting a residence permit to stateless persons. The applicants challenged several provisions, arguing that the procedure applicable to stateless persons provided less favourable guarantees than those available to beneficiaries of international protection and was therefore discriminatory.

The Court held that the legislature is not required to treat stateless persons in the same way as refugees or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, as stateless persons are not subject to European legislation. However, it found that several conditions and procedural rules imposed disproportionate limitations on applicants for residence on grounds of statelessness.

It considered that the requirement that applicants must be unable to acquire or regain the nationality of another State was incompatible with the concept of statelessness under the 1954 New York Convention, as a person is stateless when they do not possess any nationality, regardless of whether they may subsequently obtain or recover one. It therefore annulled this condition. The Court also annulled the exclusion of applications where applicants had not previously held lawful residence for more than three months or had not previously applied for international protection, finding that this could disproportionately affect stateless persons who may never have held a residence permit.

The Court held that a personal hearing constitutes an essential procedural safeguard in statelessness proceedings and therefore annulled the provision making such a hearing optional. It also ruled that the five-year residence period must begin once the judgment recognising statelessness becomes final. Finally, it required applicants to receive proof of submission of their application and to be protected, in principle, from enforcement of removal measures during the proceedings, except on grounds of national security or public order.

The Court rejected the remaining complaints, holding that statelessness applicants were not required to benefit from all procedural guarantees applicable to asylum applicants, including an appeal with full jurisdiction and suspensive effect.

Unofficial translation by the EWLU team

On 26 June 2026, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) published its decision on the case Amnesty International and Médecins du Monde – International v. Sweden (Complaint No. 227/2023).

The complaint concerned access to healthcare for vulnerable EU nationals in Sweden who due to the lack of health insurance in their country of origin were excluded from subsidised healthcare and, in some cases, unable to access necessary treatment because of the costs involved.  The complainant alleged that this situation resulted in a denial of access to healthcare and discriminatory treatment, in breach of Articles 11 and 13 of the European Social Charter, read alone and in conjunction with Article E.

The Committee recalled that Article 11§1 requires access to healthcare to be effective, affordable and without discrimination, with particular protection for vulnerable groups. It noted that vulnerable EU nationals without healthcare insurance were excluded from subsidised healthcare in Sweden, which in practice prevented access to necessary treatment, including emergency and serious care. While the Government did not dispute these findings, it argued that extending subsidised healthcare to persons exercising free movement rights who lacked healthcare coverage in their country of origin would have significant policy consequences for Sweden. The Committee nevertheless found that excluding persons unable to obtain alternative coverage undermined the effective enjoyment of the right to health and failed to protect a particularly vulnerable group, in violation of Article 11§1 of the Charter.

It found that the rules governing access to healthcare were applied inconsistently across Swedish regions, resulting in unequal treatment of vulnerable EU nationals, who were also treated less favourably than undocumented persons without sufficient justification. The Committee considered that the Government’s arguments based on public health and policy considerations did not justify this difference in treatment and that, in any event, the effects of the measures were disproportionate, as they prevented access to necessary healthcare. It also noted that, although all vulnerable EU nationals seem to not have access to healthcare, the situation had a disproportionate impact on Roma, constituting indirect discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin, in violation of Article E in conjunction with Article 11§1.

With regard to Article 13§1, the Committee recalled that it guarantees a subjective right to social and medical assistance for persons without adequate resources, including urgent care and basic needs. It considered that the issues raised under this provision overlapped with those already examined under Article 11§1 and Article E and therefore found that no separate examination was necessary.

The Committee concluded that there was a violation of Article 11§1 of the Charter, a violation of Article E taken in conjunction with Article 11§1 with respect to the difference in treatment between regions and in comparison, with undocumented persons, and a violation of Article E taken in conjunction with Article 11§1 with respect to indirect discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin.

On 18 December 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) delivered its judgment in case C-417/23 (Slagelse Almennyttige Boligselskab, Afdeling Schackenborgvænge).  
 

The case arose from a request for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret (High Court of Eastern Denmark) on whether Danish legislation requiring development plans to reduce the proportion of public family housing in designated “transformation areas” is compatible with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin under Directive 2000/43. The request stemmed from five sets of proceedings relating to housing estates in Ringparken (Slagelse) and Mjølnerparken (Copenhagen), in which tenants contested lease terminations and development plans based, inter alia, on the fact that more than 50% of residents were classified as “immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants”. The referring court asked whether that classification falls within the concept of “ethnic origin” and whether the national scheme constitutes direct or indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Directive.  

The CJEU held that Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43 must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation requiring the adoption of development plans to reduce the proportion of public family housing in residential areas where more than 50% of residents are “immigrants from non-Western countries and their descendants” may constitute direct discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin. Although nationality and country of birth are neutral criteria taken in isolation, the Court found that the Danish criterion is based on a complex combination of such factors which may, in context, amount to a distinction based on ethnic origin. The decisive role played by that criterion in classifying areas as “transformation areas” can result in less favourable treatment, since all residents of such areas are exposed to an increased risk of lease termination and loss of home compared with residents of similarly disadvantaged areas not meeting the 50% threshold. The Court underlined that it is for the referring court to verify whether the legislation was in fact adopted on the basis of ethnic origin, in which case the burden shifts to the authorities to demonstrate that the scheme is justified by objective factors unrelated to discrimination. 

As regards indirect discrimination under Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43, the CJEU held that, even in the absence of direct discrimination, Danish legislation may still constitute indirect discrimination if an apparently neutral criterion places persons of certain ethnic origins at a particular disadvantage compared with others. The Court clarified that indirect discrimination may arise even where several ethnic groups are affected, unless the measure is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and complies with the principle of proportionality. While objectives such as social cohesion, integration and public housing policy may, in principle, constitute overriding reasons in the public interest, the measures adopted must be appropriate, necessary and proportionate, and must strike a fair balance with the fundamental right to respect for the home under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The Court held that it is for the referring court to verify, in particular, whether the obligation to adopt development plans genuinely and consistently contributes to those objectives, whether less restrictive alternatives exist, and whether the increased risk of lease termination and loss of housing for residents of “transformation areas” leads to disproportionate disadvantages.