The applicants, a group of associations working to defend and support asylum applicants and refugees, requested the Court to order the national authorities to fulfil its obligations with regard to registration, lodging of applications and to provide accommodation to asylum applicants.

The applicants alleged that the reception system in the area of Brussels faced an increase in demand, leading since October to allow to enter the arrival centre each day in order to submit their application for international protection (and then register it), only a number of persons corresponding to the number of places available inside the centre. Due to insufficient number of places available in reception centers, the remaining persons were denied access to premises and would have to queue again in the following days, consequently dozens of applicants were left on streets every day.

The Court of First Instance reiterated Belgium obligations under CEAS, specifically the right to lodge an application for international protection in light of Articles 6 and 7(1) of the revised APD and referred to the CJEU judgment European Commission v Hungary, C-808/18, 17 December 2020. The Court held that the exercise of the right to lodge an asylum application cannot be unjustifiably delayed or hindered and stated that Belgium authorities failed to fulfil their obligations under the revised APD.

The Court also reiterated the right of asylum applicants to reception and for respect for fundamental rights as provided by national legislation, Reception Directive and CJEU cases law (Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers (Belgium, Fedasil) v S. Saciri and Others, 27 February 2014 and ], Zubair Haqbin (Afghanistan) v Belgium, Federal agency for the reception of asylum seekers (Federaal Agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers), 12 November 2019).

Asylum applicants have the right to material reception conditions, including accommodation, meals, clothing, medical, social and psychological support and the granting of a daily allowance as well as access to legal aid, access to services such as interpreting and training and access to a voluntary return programme.

Despite some efforts put forward by Fedasil to overcome the pressure on the reception system and to open new reception centres, many applicants remained without effective access to reception and other had limited and random access. The Court concluded that Belgium authorities failed to comply with their obligations regarding reception of asylum applicants.

The Court allowed the request and ordered the Belgian State to take all necessary measures to end the impossibility for an indeterminate number of applicants of international protection to make and register their asylum applications, subject to a penalty of 5,000 euros per day, from the date of the judgment, and ii) the Fedasil to grant access of asylum applicants to the necessary material reception conditions, subject to a penalty of 5,000 euros per day, from the date of the judgment.