A national of Burkina Faso requested international protection in Belgium and was registered under the mandatory fictitious registration place, code 207 "Fedasil - No Show", in the waiting register. In his case, this did not mean that he failed to present himself at the designated compulsory place of registration, but rather that no reception facility was allocated to him - due to a lack of available capacity within the reception system. The applicant was living on the streets and, from 10 May 2023, was hosted by an acquaintance. On 25 April 2023, the applicant requested social assistance from the Public Welfare Centre (CPAS). 

On 4 May 2023, the applicant filed an action (Case RG 23/1444) seeking the annulment of Fedasil's decision assigning him code 207, the removal of the code from the register, the enforceability of the annulment against the CPAS, and damages for the period from 12 January 2023 to 24 April 2023. On 30 May 2023, the CPAS issued a decision refusing to grant the applicant social assistance as of 25 April 2023, citing that Fedasil alone was competent to provide him with material assistance. On 31 May 2023, the applicant filed a second action (Case RG 23/1829), requesting that the CPAS be ordered to pay him social assistance equivalent to the social integration income as of 25 April 2023. On 19 June 2023, the applicant extended his appeal against the decision of the CPAS of 30 May 2023 by which he was refused social assistance until 25 April 2023. 

On 26 June 2023, the Labour Court of Liège ordered the joinder of the cases under numbers R.G. 23/1444 and 23/1829. It held that the actions were well-founded and ordered Fedasil to pay the applicant damages equivalent to the amount of social integration income for a single person for the period from 12 January 2023 to 24 April 2023. The court also declared that the applicant was eligible for social assistance equivalent to the social integration income for a single person from 25 April 2023, and ordered the CPAS to grant him social assistance at that rate from 25 April 2023.The court further emphasised that Fedasil's use of code 207 did not constitute a valid designation of a reception facility and should be regarded as non-existent, thereby obligating the CPAS to intervene.

The CPAS appealed the decision of the Labour Court of Liège before the same court. The CPAS argued that its decision was based on a lack of competence to intervene while Fedasil had designated a compulsory place of registration under code 207. The applicant, without filing a formal cross-appeal, sought confirmation of the judgment under appeal. Fedasil filed a counter-appeal, challenging the judgment of 26 June 2023, seeking to reverse the annulment of its decision from 12 January 2023.

The Labour Court of Liège confirmed that both the main appeal by the CPAS and the cross-appeal by Fedasil were admissible. The court found Fedasil at fault for assigning code 207 to the applicant and for failing to redirect him to the CPAS. The court concluded that code 207 could not be understood as the designation of a reception facility and must be considered non-existent. The court observed that under Article 11 of the Reception Act, Fedasil is obligated to designate a reception facility as the compulsory place of registration for asylum seekers. However, in cases of "exceptional circumstances related to the availability of reception places," Fedasil may, for a specified period, designate a CPAS as the compulsory place of registration for an asylum seeker. The court emphasised that the "special circumstances" referred to in this provision, as outlined in the travaux préparatoires, include situations such as the risk of saturation of reception capacity. In this regard, the court referenced the CJEU judgment in Fedasil v S. Saciri and Others (C-79/13, 27 February 2014), which highlighted that while reception can take different forms, asylum seekers must not be deprived, even temporarily, of the minimum standards outlined in the recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCD). The court further cited the ECtHR judgment in Camara v Belgium (No 49255/22, 18 July 2023), which found a systemic failure by Belgian authorities to enforce final judicial decisions regarding the reception of asylum seekers.

In the present case, the court noted that Fedasil had argued that the applicant needed to justify specific circumstances to request the deletion of the code 207, which would grant access to CPAS social assistance. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that Fedasil's failure to provide accommodation was not due to force majeure, but rather to the saturation of its reception system. The court concluded that the applicant should not be held responsible for the lack of accommodation or material assistance, as Fedasil had failed to fulfill its obligations. The court reaffirmed that, in situations of reception system saturation, Fedasil is legally required either to designate a reception facility or refrain from doing so, which would trigger the applicant's entitlement to social assistance under Article 11(3) of the Reception Act. The court further suggested that, given the circumstances, Fedasil should have explored alternative options, such as emergency reception facilities, refraining from designating a compulsory place of registration due to "special circumstances" , or changing the compulsory place of registration to a CPAS. The court found that, in this case, Fedasil had failed to either designate a reception facility or allow the applicant to claim his right to social assistance through the CPAS. As a result, the court concluded that Fedasil's decision, which deprived the applicant of his right to reception, was unlawful and must be annulled. The court also ruled that the applicant suffered harm by not receiving any material or financial assistance despite his legal entitlement as an applicant for international protection. It held that this damage was directly attributable to Fedasil's failure to fulfil its reception obligations and must be compensated through the award of damages. The court held that, in the absence of proof of specific or exceptional needs, the financial equivalent of the failure to provide material assistance could be assessed by reference to the social integration income for a single person, which represents the minimum threshold required to ensure respect for human dignity under both the Belgian Reception Act and the recast RCD.

The court then examined the claim against the CPAS. It held that, following the annulment of the code 207, the CPAS could no longer invoke Fedasil's responsibility to provide material reception conditions and, consequently, could not refuse to grant social assistance from 25 April 2023 onwards. However, regarding the amount of assistance, the court agreed with the CPAS, determining that it should be provided at the cohabiting rate. This decision was based on the fact that the applicant resided with an acquaintance and was domiciled at their address, demonstrating a shared living arrangement. The court further noted that the applicant failed to establish facts justifying entitlement to the isolated rate, as he did not substantiate his claim with evidence of a living situation that would warrant such an equivalence.

In conclusion, the court partially upheld the  CPAS's appeal and Fedasil's cross-appeal. The court amended the previous judgment, ordering Fedasil to pay the applicant damages equivalent to the social integration income at the cohabiting rate for the period from 12 January to 24 April 2023. Additionally, the court ordered the CPAS to pay the applicant social assistance at the cohabiting rate as of 25 April 2023.