Staff Report
Belgium’s Constitutional Court recently challenged several key measures within the government’s stricter asylum and migration policies, signaling a potential pause in the implementation of what Prime Minister Bart De Wever’s administration has termed the “strictest possible migration policy” in the nation’s history. These rulings emerged from appeals brought by individuals and migrant rights organizations, focusing on aspects of family reunification and the reception of asylum seekers. The court’s decisions do not yet represent a final annulment, but rather a suspension of certain provisions and a referral of specific legal questions to the European Court of Justice, indicating a complex interplay between national policy ambitions and broader European legal frameworks.
One of the court’s recent interventions centered on tougher rules introduced last August concerning family reunification. Specifically, the ruling addressed a two-year waiting period imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection before they could apply for family reunification. This measure, according to NGOs, made the process “virtually impossible for many families,” with significant consequences, particularly for children. Two families directly affected by these stricter laws brought the case before the Constitutional Court. The court, rather than issuing an immediate final judgment, has posed five questions to the European Court of Justice to clarify how European law should be interpreted in this context. Until those interpretations are provided, the new rules governing family reunification stand suspended. Mr. M.S., a Yemeni war refugee whose wife and one-year-old child were prevented from joining him in Belgium by the new law, expressed relief at the temporary suspension, highlighting the personal toll of these policies.
Migration Minister Anneleen Van Bossuyt, however, downplayed the broader impact of this particular ruling, stating that it primarily affects subsidiary protection cases, which she described as a “very small fraction of all cases.” She maintained that for other groups, existing family reunification rules, such as higher income thresholds and waiting periods, remain in effect. This suggests a governmental view that the court’s actions are limited in scope and do not fundamentally undermine the overall thrust of their migration strategy.
The second set of rulings targeted measures implemented last July regarding the reception of asylum seekers. Under Belgian and EU law, the country is obligated to provide shelter to those seeking asylum. However, one provision sought to deny reception services from Fedasil, Belgium’s asylum and migration agency, to individuals who had already received international protection in another EU country. This policy led to instances where “many people, including families with minor children, [found] themselves on the streets,” as described by Marie Doutrepont, a lawyer with the Progressive Lawyers Network. One family, identified as “family B,” spent weeks without shelter in Belgium despite having received protection status in Greece, a status which Doutrepont argued was ineffective in their specific circumstances. The court found that refusing shelter in such cases was “likely to cause serious harm” that would be difficult to repair.
Additionally, the court examined the abolition of financial aid as a form of assistance in special circumstances. This measure was particularly problematic for asylum seekers who had already filed an initial application in Belgium but could not access reception facilities due to the chronic saturation of the Fedasil network. The Constitutional Court noted that this could also inflict harm. Given the ambiguities surrounding whether EU law permits Belgium to refuse material assistance under these specific conditions, the court has again referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. Minister Van Bossuyt’s cabinet clarified that this measure was not annulled but suspended until the EU Migration Pact comes into effect in June 2026. The court also ordered a three-month period for further rulings on the annulment appeals for these provisions, citing their apparent contradiction with EU law and fundamental rights.
Critics view these court decisions as a significant setback for the government’s ambitious migration agenda, interpreting them as a clear message that fundamental rights, including the right to family life and dignified existence, cannot be overlooked. Doutrepont emphasized this point, suggesting the rulings send a strong signal to the Belgian government. Conversely, Minister Van Bossuyt expressed confidence that Belgian legislation aligns with European Court of Justice case law, anticipating that the European Court will ultimately uphold the national measures. She also indicated that the recently adopted EU Migration Pact, which aims for stronger border controls and faster asylum procedures, would ultimately support Belgium’s stricter approach once it is fully implemented.
