The applicant, a Guinean national, was left without accommodation and material assistance after applying for asylum in Belgium on 15 July 2022. The applicant was informed by Fedasil that he could not receive a place because of the saturation of the reception system and he was placed on a waiting list.

At the request of the applicant, the Brussels Labour Court ordered the Belgian State on 22 July 2022 to grant him material assistance and provide accommodation, in a reception centre, in a hotel or any other suitable establishment in the absence of available places, which was not complied with, and the applicant was forced to live on the streets for several months. The order became final on 29 August 2022.  

On 20 October 2022, the applicant requested an interim measure on the basis of Rule 39 of the Rules of court and the court indicated to the Belgian Government to enforce the domestic court order and provide him with emergency accommodation and to allow him to meet his basic needs.  

The applicant also lodged an application before the ECtHR, in which he complained that he was forced to live on the streets for several months in inhuman and degrading conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, that the state failed to enforce the decision of the Labor Court, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Convention and under Article 8 of the Convention he complained that his right to respect for his private life was violated and that he did not have an effective remedy.  

The court dismissed the claim under Article 3 of the Convention, holding that the applicant did not exhaust the relevant domestic remedies. The court considered that the domestic court was seized only to analyse whether the applicant had the right to accommodation and did not analyse the conditions in which the applicant lived from the arrival in Belgium and until he was provided with accommodation by Fedasil in November 2022.

Under Article 6(1) of the Convention, the court concluded that there was a violation, as the domestic decision of 22 July 2022, ordering the Belgian State to grant him accommodation and material assistance became final on 29 August 2022 and enforced on 4 November 2022, when the applicant was assigned a place in a reception center following the interim measure indicated by the ECtHR.

The court highlighted that the order should have been executed ex officio by the state and that in assessing the requirements of Article 6, it must examine the conduct of the competent authorities, the complexity of the enforcement procedure, and the behavior of the applicant.  

On the conduct of the Belgian authorities, the court noted that Fedasil and the Belgian State did not dispute before the Labour Court the existence of the right to reception claimed by the applicant, did not oppose the order and did not execute it before the interim measure. Thus, the applicant had to take legal action to obtain recognition of the right and the execution of the order was not spontaneous.

On the complexity of the enforcement procedure, the court noted the arguments of the government, that there was a saturation of reception centres since the summer of 2021, logistical obstacles to increasing the capacity of reception centers and the lack of cooperation and resistance from the local authorities. The court also looked at the number of applications for international protection in 2022 in Belgium, noting an increase of more than 42% compared to 2021 and the fact that Belgium received 65,000 Ukrainian nationals. It further noted that it could not criticize the choice of the Belgian authorities to prioritise its reception capacity on the most vulnerable applicants, with the consequence of delaying accommodation to other applicants, and also to focus on financing associative arrangements. However, the court highlighted that the time taken to execute the court decision in the applicant’s case was not reasonable even considering the general circumstances in Belgium and further noted that the present case was not isolated but revealed a systemic failure of Belgian authorities to enforce final court decisions on the reception of applicants for international protection.

On the applicant’s conduct, the court could not find any lack of diligence that would have contributed to delaying the execution of the order of 22 July 2022.  

Under Article 8 and 13 of the Convention, the court also dismissed this complaint for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.