Twenty applications were sent to the Constitutional Court in October 2025, requesting the annulment and suspension of the Law of 14 July 2025 which modified the Law of 15 December 1980 on access to territory, residence, and removal of third country nationals, as well as Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the Law of 12 January 2007 on the reception of asylum applicants and other categories of aliens. The first contested measures allowed Fedasil to limit or withdraw the right to material assistance when a person who already received international protection from another Member State applied for asylum in Belgium. The second measure abolished the possibility to grant reception in the form of financial assistance in exceptional circumstances. The applicants argued that abolishing the possibility of providing financial support in exceptional circumstances breached the right to a dignified life and the right to respect for private and family life. These measures were suspended in an interlocutory judgment by the Constitutional Court on 26 February 2026 in Applicants v Federal Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (Agence fédérale pour l'accueil des demandeurs d'asile‚ Fedasil), and a question on the first measure was referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. Pending the judgment from the CJEU, the constitutional court ruled on the annulment of the second measure.

In the present case, the court held that the recast Reception Conditions Directive allows Member States to determine at their own discretion the form and level of the provision of reception to asylum seekers. However, it upheld the position of the applicants, finding that where maximum capacity has been reached in a reception centre, and other forms of material assistance are unavailable, or there is no available shelter which can adequately meet the needs of the particular circumstances of the individual, the inability to switch to financial assistance results in a risk of undermining the right to human dignity, in breach of EU law.  In its reasoning, the court referred to the CJEU ruling in Cimade and GISTI v French Minister of the Interior, Overseas France and Local Authorities (C-179/11, 27 September 2012) which held that regardless of the choice made by a Member State between the various options of assistance provided for in Articles 17 and 18 of the recast RCD, the right to human dignity must be respected and protected, and the minimum standards laid down by the Directive cannot be withdrawn, even if only temporarily. It also referred to Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers (Belgium, Fedasil) v S. Saciri and Others (C-79/13, 27 February 2014), in which the CJEU affirmed that a saturation of the reception network cannot justify a derogation from the minimum standards on reception laid down in EU law. Thus, the court held that even where a situation characterised as a saturation exists, Member States have the option to provide reception in kind in order to cover the basic needs of the person concerned, or must provide such assistance in the form of benefits or vouchers ensuring that such form of assistance can guarantee a decent standard of living that ensures their health and livelihood. Thus, although a certain margin of discretion exists in the modalities of providing reception, the court emphasised that Member States must not fail, even temporarily, to provide material reception conditions that meet the basic needs of a person applying for international protection and who does not have sufficient means. Furthermore, with reference to the CJEU ruling in S.A.,R.J. v Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Ireland, Attorney General (C-97/24, 1 August 2025), the court held that a failure to do so may constitute a qualified infringement of Union law, even when it occurs in a situation where the housing capacity is temporarily exhausted.

Additionally, the court held that the measure breaches the right to human dignity, social assistance and decent housing, protected by Article 23 of the Constitution, and the right to private and family life enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution.

The court therefore annulled the contested provision.