The applicant, a national of Djibouti, requested international protection on 5 February 2024. On the same day, the National Reception Office (ONA) informed him of his right to benefit from the material reception conditions as an applicant of international protection. By the same decision, the applicant was informed that, due to the saturation of the accommodation facilities, he was placed on a waiting list with the aim of being allocated to a reception facility as soon as possible.

The applicant contested the decision on 1 March 2024 before the administrative tribunal. In a separate application lodged on 5 March 2024 he also requested the introduction of safeguard measures pending the outcome of the appeal. He claimed that due to the decision he had to shelter in a ‘Wanteraktioun', a simple night shelter for homeless persons, which could not be considered an accommodation facility within the meaning of national legislation (Article 2(g) of the Law of 18 December 2015).  He stated that this shelter did not guarantee an adequate standard of living nor protect his mental and physical health. The applicant pointed especially to the fact that it was not allowed for people to stay during the day, and that those places were not guaranteed from one day to the other. The applicant also alleged discrimination on the grounds of Article 15 of Luxemburg Constitution, as well as a violation of Recast Reception Conditions Directive 2013/33/EU.

The administrative tribunal ruled only on interim measures and noted that the request could only be granted on the twofold condition that, first, the contested decision was likely to cause the applicant serious and definitive damage and, second, the pleas in law put forward in support of the appeal against the decision appear to be serious. The court considered the applicant met the first requirement as, in the assessment of the ‘Wanteraktioun', it was concluded that the lack of a guarantee of permanent and available accommodation constituted a serious harm of indefinite duration. By referencing to the CJEU judgements Zubair Haqbin, 12 November 2019, and Cimade and GISTI v French Minister of the Interior, 27 September 2012, the tribunal emphasised that national authorities must ensure and supervise a decent standard of living permanently and without interruption, which includes the obligation to ensure subsistence and to protect the applicant. Therefore, the mere provision of a list of private reception facilities for homeless people did not fulfil this legal obligation. Regarding the pleas in law relied on in support of the action brought against the decision, the lack of any concrete position by the authorities on the allegations made the applicant's pleas sufficiently serious. Based on the abovementioned cases from the CJEU, the tribunal also mentioned that material reception conditions must be granted to asylum applicants since the request for international protection. The tribunal reiterated that Article 1 of the EU Charter states that human dignity must be respected and protected and opposes to a situation where an asylum applicant would be deprived, even for a short period, of the protection of minimum standards as provided by the recast Reception Conditions Directive.

The tribunal accepted the request for safeguard measures and ordered the ONA to provide accommodation to the applicant according to the standards held in the national and EU legislation.