Dublin

Author

Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen Visit Website

General

Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December 2025^[1]

 In 2025, the total number of outgoing take charge and take back requests was 12,175 (4,767 take charge and 7,408 take back requests). 8,390 requests were accepted out of the total number of requests, none of which were for dependency or humanitarian reasons. The difference between the number of requests and the number of agreements is partly because the Immigration Office often sends requests to several countries simultaneously for a single person.^[2]

A total of 1,043 persons were transferred from Belgium to other Member States in 2025. The top 3 most transferred nationalities are Afghanistan (127 persons), Algeria (107) and Morrocco (87).

In 2025, there was a total of 3,866 incoming take charge and take back requests (796 take charge requests, and 3,070 take back requests), of which one for dependency reasons^[3] and nine for humanitarian reasons.^[4] Out of the total of incoming requests, 1,544 were accepted, one for dependency reasons and three for humanitarian reasons. 586 persons were effectively transferred to Belgium.

According to available statistics,^[5] the Immigration Office applied the sovereignty clause for 2,101 persons.^[6] In 2025, Belgium further became responsible ‘by default’ for 3,768 persons who were not transferred in within the legal time limits.^[7]

Application of the Dublin criteria^[8]

Since 2021, the Immigration Office has provided statistics about the application of the Dublin criteria.^[9] This overview does not give a breakdown of the Dublin criteria per Article. It instead provides a more general breakdown of the outgoing and incoming take charge and take back requests. Information about a more detailed breakdown of the Dublin criteria per Article, can be obtained through Parliamentary questions and questions during the monthly contact meetings, of which the reports are published online.^[10] The numbers below were provided by the Immigration Office upon request.

Source: Information provided by the Immigration Office, April 2026.

Source: Information provided by the Immigration Office, April 2026.

In 2025 the Immigration Office sent 26 take charge requests for family reasons, 24 based on article 11, and two based on article 10. 1 of these requests was accepted based on article 11, and none based on article 10. There were four outgoing transfers based on family reasons in 2024. Two transfers based on article 8, and two transfers based on article 10.[11]

In 2025 the Immigration Office received 50 take charge requests for family reasons, out of which 21 were based on Article 8, three were based on article 9, two were based on article 10 and 24 were based on article 11 of the Dublin Regulation. The Immigration Office accepted eight of these requests. Six based on article 8, one based on article 9, zero on article 10 and one on article 11.[12]

The dependent persons and discretionary clauses

Settled case law indicates that the Immigration Office, as confirmed by the CALL, strictly applies the dependency clause of article 16 of the Dublin Regulation.^[13] However, this observation does not consider the decisions in which the Immigration Office declared itself responsible for applications. In practice, it appears that information exchange on dependency and the situation in the other Member State between the Immigration Office and the lawyer prior to the decision in a specific case may lead to Belgium declaring itself responsible.^[14] However, it is impossible for the lawyers to know which element is decisive in each case. The threshold to prove dependency as defined under article 16 is rather high. According to the CALL, there must be indications of a ‘more than usual relationship of dependency’, which has to be proven by substantial evidence.^[15]

While the ‘sovereignty clause’ of article 17(1) of the Regulation is mentioned in article 51/5(2) of the Aliens Act, the ‘protection clause’ of article 3(2) and the ‘humanitarian clause’ of article 17(2) are not. So far, it is unclear when the Immigration Office declares itself responsible or applies the ‘sovereignty clause’ since no decision is taken, but the file is immediately transferred to the CGRS.

The criteria for applying the clauses are unclear. Since 2021 the Immigration Office provides general statistics on the application of the sovereignty clause of article 17(1). Belgium applied this provision 592 times in 2021, 2,244 times in 2022, 4,292 times in 2023, 2,634 times in 2024 and 2,101 times in 2025. These statistics do not provide a detailed breakdown per Member State.^[16] Since the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgment of the ECtHR, detention and reception conditions, guarantees in the asylum procedure, and access to an effective remedy in the responsible state seem to be considered in some cases when deciding whether or not to apply the ‘protection clause’. Since the C.K. and others v. Slovenia judgment of the CJEU,^[17] the CALL pays particular attention to the risk of inhumane and/or degrading treatment that a transfer in itself might entail for people with severe mental or physical illnesses, even if the responsible Member State does not demonstrate systemic flaws.^[18] The determining element is whether the transfer would deteriorate the person’s state of health in a significant and permanent manner. Case law analysis shows that CALL uses a very strict standard concerning the nature of the illness and the evidence thereof.^[19] Heavy reliance is placed on medical attestations for both the state of health and the impact of a transfer thereon.^[20]

Procedure

Indicators: Dublin: Procedure

The Dublin procedure is laid down in the Aliens Law under Articles 51/5 and 51/5/1. The Aliens Law refers to ‘the European Regulation’ for further details.

All applicants are fingerprinted and checked in the Eurodac and Visa Information System databases after making their application with the Immigration Office.^[22] In case they refuse to be fingerprinted, their claim may be processed under the Accelerated Procedure.^[23] In 2019, the CGRS stated that it did not use this legal possibility in practice and it did not keep statistics of these cases.^[24] Nevertheless, refusal to get fingerprinted could be interpreted as a refusal to cooperate with the authorities, which could result in detention (see Detention – Legal grounds).

Based on the fingerprints and any other relevant information, the Immigration Office then determines which EU state is responsible for examining the application based on the criteria of the Dublin III Regulation. This is a preliminary procedure to decide whether the file must be transferred to the CGRS. In case Belgium is deemed the responsible member state, the applicants’ file is transferred to the CGRS, and it is further mentioned on the registration proof of the application. If another Member State might be responsible, the Immigration Office will send a take back or take charge request. The Immigration Office has clarified that, in line with the CJEU ruling in Mengesteab,^[25] the time limit for issuing a Dublin request starts running from the moment an applicant makes an application at the Immigration Office and not from the moment they are issued a ‘proof of asylum application’ (‘Annex 26’).^[26]

A decision to transfer following an implicit or explicit agreement to take back or to take charge of an applicant is delivered in a written decision containing the reasons for the decision in person (the so-called ‘Annex 26quater’, or ‘Annex 25quater’ in case of a border procedure). The applicant’s lawyer does not automatically receive a copy of the decision sent to the applicant.^[27]

Individualised guarantees

The Immigration Office does not systematically ask for individualised guarantees for vulnerable asylum applicants. However, it sometimes requests guarantees when the continuity of an applicant’s medical treatment has to be ensured in the country of destination. In the past, the CALL has overruled the Immigration Office’s practice in some cases, without this having a generalised effect on it.^[28]

Transfers and the return procedure

When receiving their negative Dublin decision (‘annex 26quater’), the applicant is informed about the procedure to organise a transfer to the responsible Member State. The applicant is expected to cooperate with the transfer under the ‘voluntary return procedure’. If someone does not cooperate, this could be considered as ‘absconding’ which is a criterion that can lead to detention under the ‘forced return procedure’ (see Return procedure). The Immigration Office has 6 months after the agreement of the responsible state to execute the transfer. In application of Article 29(1) Dublin III regulation, the 6 months transfer period is suspended when the CALL suspends the transfer in the context of an emergency appeal in view of suspension of the execution of the transfer decision (see infra Dublin: Appeal).

After receiving the annex 26quater, applicants will be invited to an individual coaching trajectory (ICAM: individual case management), during which they are intensively assisted with the voluntary return procedure through a series of interviews. Applicants residing in a reception centre and who are moved to an ‘open return place’ will be accompanied in this trajectory by an ICAM-coach of the Immigration Office present in that centre (see Return track and assignment to an open reception place). Persons residing outside of the reception network are invited to ICAM-interviews at the ‘Dublin Pacheco desk’.^[29] Attendance to these ‘ICAM interviews’ is mandatory. Not attending without giving valid justification can be considered as a ‘failure to cooperate’^[30] with return procedures that can lead to the extension of the transfer period and may, eventually, result in detention (see Return procedure). For applicants staying in a reception centre, non-attendance can lead to the limitation of the right to material assistance by Fedasil.^[31]

During the transfer period, the applicant is supposed to remain at the disposal of the Immigration Office, otherwise they can be considered to be absconding. In that case, the transfer period can be extended from 6 months up to 18 months. The decision to extend the transfer deadline must be individually motivated in writing to make effective judicial review possible.^[32]

To address previously existing ambiguities regarding interpreting the concept of ‘absconding’ by the CALL,^[33] the Aliens Act was amended in May 2024.^[34] Article 51/5, §6 Aliens Act now contains a definition of absconding with a list of non-exhaustive criteria. The Immigration Office can consider someone to be absconding based on one article only:

• The applicant does not go to or left the designated reception centre and failed to provide a residence address within three working days.
• After one or more address checks, it is clear that the applicant does not reside at the residence address.
• The applicant did not go to the ICAM appointment without giving due reasons within three working days.
• The applicant did not cooperate with the required medical examination to organise the transfer.
• The applicant did not respect the less coercive measures enforced on him.
• The applicant left the centre for administrative detention without providing a new residence address within three working days.

The Jawo judgement of the ECJ provides the benchmark for a definition of absconding in the context of a Dublin procedure. The Court finds that absconding consists of a material (= the person cannot be found) and an intentional element (= the person expressed their refusal to cooperate). To consider someone as absconding, both elements must be proven by the authorities.[35]

Some of the criteria in article 51/5, §6 rely solely on the intentional element of absconding. The law does not consider an address check essential in case the applicant provided a residence address. For example, if the applicant did provide a residence address but chose not to go to the ICAM appointment this could be considered as absconding. Thus, it would allow the Immigration Office to consider someone as absconding based solely on the intentional element without investigating the material element. This seems to go against the case law of the CALL and the Jawo judgement.^[36]

The average processing time between the application and the delivery of a decision refusing entry (at the border) or residence on the territory based on the Dublin Regulation is not provided by the Immigration Office but can vary greatly depending on the number of pending cases at the Dublin Unit and the Member State to which the Immigration Office wants to transfer a person to.

The average time limit from accepting an outgoing request until the actual transfer was 93 calendar days in 2025.^[37]

Once the transfer period of 6 or – in case of extension – maximum 18 months has passed, Belgium’s responsibility for examining the asylum application will be accepted when the persons concerned present themselves to the Immigration Office again. In 2025, Belgium became responsible by default 3,768 times because the transfer was not carried out within the time limits.^[38]

Personal interview

Applicants must attend a Dublin interview, during which the Immigration Office gathers information to determine which Member State is responsible for their application. The applicant is asked about their route to Belgium, their reasons for not applying in — or for leaving — another Member State, and their motivation for applying in Belgium, among other elements relevant to establishing responsibility. Applicants may also use this interview to state their objections to a transfer to the responsible Member State.^[39] Lawyers cannot be present at any procedure at the Immigration Office, including the Dublin interview. They can nevertheless intervene by sending information on the reception conditions and the procedure for international protection in the responsible state or with regard to individual circumstances of vulnerability, presence of family members and relatives or others.^[40] This is important since the CALL has repeatedly demanded from the Immigration Office that it responds to all arguments put forward and all information submitted.

When a request to take back or take charge of an applicant has been sent to another state, this is mentioned in the ‘proof of asylum application’ (‘Annex 26’).

The interview covers elements relevant to determining whether the sovereignty clause should be applied to prevent inhumane treatment in the event of a transfer to another responsible EU or Schengen Associated State. Applicants are asked why they cannot or do not wish to return to that country, whether they have a medical condition, and why they came to Belgium. However, questions about reception conditions, the asylum procedure, and access to effective legal remedy in the responsible Member State are not explicitly included. It is for the applicant to raise these issues and demonstrate that such circumstances apply to their individual situation, or that they belong to a group systematically subjected to inhumane treatment.

When the Immigration Office accepts that Belgium is responsible for the application, it transfers the file to the CGRS.

Since 2018, the Immigration Office also conducts interviews with adult family members in the context of article 8 of the Dublin III Regulation to ensure that the minor’s best interest is considered. Based on their advice, the Dublin Unit of the Immigration Office decides if reunification of the child with the adult involved is indeed in their best interest.

Appeal

Applications for which Belgium is not responsible are subject to a ‘refusal of entry or residence’ decision by the Immigration Office and are not examined on the merits. The appeal procedure against a Dublin transfer i.e. a decision of ‘refusal of entry or residence on the territory’ is a non-suspensive annulment procedure before the CALL, rather than a ‘full jurisdiction’ procedure (see section on Regular Procedure: Appeal). Dublin transfers decisions may be appealed within 30 days.

The ECtHR considered this procedure not to be an effective remedy in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece. However, under the ‘extreme urgency’ procedure, an appeal with short automatic suspensive effect may be provided (see section on Regular Procedure: Appeal). In its C-149/19 judgement of 15 April 2021, the CJEU ruled that an effective legal remedy has to give the opportunity to present any relevant elements that arose after the moment the decision of ‘refusal of entry or residence’ was given.^[41] The Belgian Council of State further clarified the implications of this ruling on the legal remedy of the ‘extreme urgency procedure’ in the context of the Dublin-procedure. The CALL must verify whether new elements, provided by the applicant after the transfer decision has been taken, have a decisive effect on the correct application of the Dublin Regulation.^[42]

The CALL further verifies if the Immigration Office has respected all substantial formalities.^[43]

The CALL also considers whether the sovereignty or protection clauses should have been applied by assessing potential breaches of article 3 ECHR. In order to do this, the CALL considers all the relevant elements concerning the state of reception conditions and the procedure for international protection in the responsible state where the Immigration Office wants to transfer the asylum applicant to; frequently taking into account national AIDA reports. When such information on reception conditions and the procedure for international protection in the country is only invoked in an annulment procedure, the CALL will only determine whether this information should have been known by the Immigration Office and included to its assessment of the sovereignty clause, in which case it will suspend the decision or annul it and send it back to the Immigration Office for additional examination.^[44]

Following the Tarakhel judgment, the CALL not only scrutinises the general reception and procedural situation in the responsible state on systemic shortcomings, but also evaluates the need for individual guarantees from such a state in case shortcomings are not systemic, where the applicant appears to be specifically vulnerable (see the section on Dublin: Procedure).^[45]

There is no information available regarding the average processing time for the CALL to decide on the appeals against Dublin decisions specifically, nor is this available for the annulment or suspension procedures before the CALL in general.

As with all final judgments by administrative and judicial bodies, a non-suspensive cassation appeal before the Council of State can also be introduced against the judgments of the CALL concerning Dublin transfers.^[46]

Legal assistance

Applicants are entitled to a ‘pro-Deo’ lawyer in the context of the Dublin procedure. The lawyer can advise them prior to the Dublin interview and, if useful, write a letter containing certain information and arguments that are relevant in the context of the Dublin-procedure. The Ministerial Decree on Second-line Assistance, laying down the remuneration system for lawyers providing free legal assistance^[47], has not determined specific points for a lawyer’s intervention in the Dublin procedure at first instance with the Immigration Office. However, actions in the context of the Dublin-procedure are covered in analogy with some other categories of the nomenclature, such as a general ‘consultation’ (1.1 of the Nomenclature) or, for a Dublin letter (analogy with a regularisation request – 8.3.4.1 of the Nomenclature). Practices vary between bar associations. For example, the French-speaking Brussels Bar Association allocates 3 points for a normal Dublin letter; exceptionally, if a letter is very well motivated on the basis of individual elements, 5 points can be attributed. Poorly motivated letters are only allocated 1 point (in analogy with a ‘consultation’).^[48]

Concerning the appeal, the general rules for free legal assistance in annulment and suspension petitions with the CALL apply (see the section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance).

Impact of the reception crisis

Single male applicants who do not receive shelter often have their ‘Dublin interview’ within a month after registration. Since these destitute applicants do not have any social assistant (which is provided in the reception centre), they often experience difficulties obtaining second-line legal assistance. As a result, many of these applicants have to go to their ‘Dublin interview’ without having first received second-line legal assistance. The same goes for many applicants who do receive a reception place in a first phase reception centre, where social support is limited and a lawyer is often not yet appointed.^[49] This negatively impacts the applicant’s ability to properly prepare their interview and, if necessary, introduce a timely appeal against a transfer decision. [50]

Suspension of transfers

Sometimes, transfers under the Dublin Regulation are not executed either following:

• An informal (internal) and not explicitly motivated decision of the Immigration Office itself; or
• A suspension judgment (in some rare cases followed by an annulment judgment) of the CALL.

Hungary: In 2025, the Immigration Office applied the Dublin Regulation for Hungary in more cases than in previous years. 42 requests were sent to Hungary, of which the Hungarian authorities accepted 32 take charge requests.[51] In November 2025, the Immigration Office stated that it does not organise forced transfers to Hungary.[52]

Greece: In April 2025, the Immigration Office stated that it had started sending transfer requests to Greece. In total, the Immigration office sent 235 take back requests and 68 take charge requests to Greece in 2025. The Greek authorities accepted only one take charge request, and refused all the other requests. The accepted take charge request resulted in a forced transfer in July 2025.[53]

Bulgaria: After the resumption of transfers towards Bulgaria in 2023, the Immigration Office sent 351 requests to the Bulgarian authorities in 2025 of which 109 were accepted. These resulted in 28 forced transfers.[54]

Italy: In December 2022, Italy communicated it would no longer accept forced Dublin transfers. The Immigration Office continues to give Dublin decisions for Italy, indicating that applicants can still return to Italy with the ‘voluntary return procedure’.^[55] In practice, this means that forced transfers are not organised by the Immigration Office and that article 17(1) is not applied. In 2025 Belgium sent 1,927 requests to Italy, of which 311 were accepted.[56] No statistics are available on the number of applicants that returned voluntarily to Italy.

The situation of Dublin returnees

The procedure applied to Dublin returnees depends on the state of the procedure for international protection that started before they left Belgium. In case the person had not yet applied for international protection in Belgium and the person is transferred based on a take charge request, the person can, upon arrival in Belgium, freely decide to apply for international protection in Belgium. In this case, the application will be considered as a first application. For persons who had already applied for international protection in Belgium and whose procedure is still pending on the moment of their return, the procedure is resumed upon their return. In case the previous procedure was closed because of a final negative decision, or after a implicit withdrawal^[57] a Dublin returnee will have to apply for international protectoin again and this application will be considered as a subsequent application (see Subsequent applications).

When considered as a subsequent applicant, Dublin returnees have no automatic access to reception. They will fall under the general practice of reception for subsequent applications, who are systematically excluded from reception (see Right to reception: subsequent applications).^[58] Applicants who are not considered subsequent applicants suffer the consequences of the ongoing shortage of reception places (see Criteria and Restrictions to Access Reception Conditions). They can register on a waiting list, after which they will be invited to a reception place on a later date, often only months later. In the meantime, applicants do not have any other solution than to sleep rough, on the streets or in squats.

In the Netherlands, the Council of State ruled on 23 July 2025 that the principle of mutual trust towards Belgium could not be guaranteed for single men who are return under the Dublin Regulation. The Council of State found that the access to accommodation was not guaranteed for this category of Dublin returnees, due to the overall shortage of reception places for single men.[59] In March 2026, the Dutch government stated that it would resume Dublin transfers to Belgium for single men. The Belgian government would have given assurances that the ‘reception situation has improved’.[60] Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen strongly opposes this analysis, since all single men (including Dublin returnees) are systematically denied access to material reception conditions on the day of their application. They can register on a waiting list for reception, which has an average waiting time of three to four months. During this waiting time, they are not automatically given a place in the homeless network in Brussels. Places in homelessness accommodation are very limited and largely insufficient. If applicants do not find their own solution or fail to find a place in the homeless network, they are forced to sleep rough (see Criteria and Restrictions to Access Reception Conditions).

[1]          Immigration Office, ‘Procedure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, January 2026 available in French here.

[2]          “Most of the published statistics refer to individuals. Therefore, if the same application involves more than one person from the same family, each family member is counted individually. Thus, the number of requests, the number of decisions and the number of transfers means the number of persons affected by these requests, these decisions and these transfers. In addition, the same person may be counted more than once during the same reference period if multiple requests or decisions were sent or received for that person”, Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, 28-29.

[3]          Art. 16 Dublin III Regulation.

[4]          Art. 17 Dublin III Regulation.

[5]          Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, January 2026, available in French here and information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2026.

[6]          Art. 17(1) Dublin III Regulation.

[7]          Art. 29(2) Dublin III Regulation.

[8]          Information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2026.

[9]          Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, January 2026 available in French here and Dutch here.

[10]         See, for example, the reports in French available here.

[11]         Information provided by the Immigration Office, April 2026.

[12]         Information provided by the Immigration Office, April 2026.

[13]         Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, Contribution externe dans le rapport annuel de Myria 2018 : ‘Le droit à la vie privée et familiale dans le cadre du règlement de Dublin. Comment faire correspondre la pratique à la réalité des relations familiales?’, available in French at https://www.myria.be/files/MIGRA2018_FR_Contribution-Baeyens.pdf  and Petra Baeyens and Eva Declerck, ‘Welk recht op een gezins- en familieleven binnen het Dublin-systeem’, Tijdschrift Vreemdelingenrecht, 2017/4, 389-400 ; CALL, Decision 297920, 2 November 2023 ; CALL, Decision No 297849, 28 November 2023.

[14]         Based on exchanges of Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, the NGO responsible for writing this AIDA-report, with lawyers and practitioners, March 2026.

[15]         CALL, Decision No 234423, 25 March 2020; CALL, Decision No 230767, 22 December 2019

[16]         Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, december 2024 available in French here and Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, december 2022 available in French here.

[17]         CJEU, Case C-578/16, C. K. and Others, Judgment of 16 February 2017.

[18]         See for example CALL, Decision No 215 169, 15 January 2019; CALL, Decision No. 223 809, 9 July 2019.

[19]         CALL, Decision no 245144, 30 November 2020.

[20]         CALL, Decision No 206588, 5 July 2018.

[21]         Information provided by the Immigration Office, March 2025.

[22]         Article 51/3 Aliens Act.

[23]         Article 57/6/1(i) Aliens Act.

[24]         Myria, Contact meeting, 16 January 2019, available in French here, para 290.

[25]         CJEU, Case C-670/16 Mengesteab, Judgment of 26 July 2017.

[26]         Myria, Contact meeting, 22 November 2017, para 10.

[27]         Article 71/3 Royal Decree 1981.

[28]         See e.g. CALL, Decision No 144544, 29 April 2015; No 155882, 30 October 2015; No 176192, 12 October 2016; CALL, Decision No 201167, 15 March 2018; for further examples of case law, we refer to the previous versions of the AIDA report.

[29]         This desk is situated in the main building of the Immigration Office at Boulevard Pacheco 44, 1000 Bruxelles.

[30]         Article 74/22 §1 4° Alien Act.

[31]         Article 4 §1, 2° Reception Act.

[32]         CALL, Decision No 203684; CALL, Decision No 203685, 8 May 2018 and Council of State, Decision No 245 799, 17 October 2019.

[33]         For an extended overview of the interpretation of the concept of ‘absconding’ by the Immigration Office and the CALL before the introduction of a definition of this concept in the Aliens Act by the Law of 12 May 2024 on a proactive return policy, see the previous update of AIDA Belgium 2023, available here.

[34]         Law of 12 May 2024 on a proactive return policy, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[35]         CJEU 19 March 2019, C-163/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:218, ‘Jawo’.

[36]         MOVE, ‘Avis de move sur le project de loi relatif à la politique de retour proactive’, 6 November 2023, available in French at https://movecoalition.be/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Loi-de-retour-Note-Technique-Nov-23-1.pdf, p. 11-12.

[37]       Information provided by the Immigration Office, April 2026.

[38]       Immigration Office, ‘Procédure Dublin, Application du règlement (UE) n° 604/2013’, January 2026 available in French here.

[39]         Article 10 Royal Decree on Immigration Office Procedure.

[40]         Article 18 Royal Decree on Immigration Office Procedure.

[41]         CJEU, case C-194/19, H. A. v. Belgium, 15 April 2021, available here.

[42]         Council of State, Judgement No 252.462, 7 December 2021.

[43]         Article 39/2(2) Aliens Act.

[44]         See e.g. CALL, Decision No 116 471, 3 January 2014 (suspension, Bulgaria) available in Dutch here; Decision No 117 992, 30 January 2014 (annulment, Malta), available in Dutch here.

[45]         See e.g. CALL, Decision No 201 167, 15 March 2018; CALL, Decision No 203 865, 17 May 2018; CALL, Decision No 203 860, 17 May 2018; CALL, Decision No 207 355, 30 July 2018; CALL, Decision No 215 169, 15 January 2019; CALL, Decision No. 217 932, 6 March 2019; CALL, Decision No. 224 726, 8 August 2019.

[46]         Article 14(2) Acts on the Council of State.

[47]         Ministerial Decree establishing the nomenclature of points for services provided by lawyers in charge of partially or totally free second-line legal assistance, 26 July 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here.

[48]         Information provided by the Brussels Bar Association.

[49]         Based on observations by Startpunt, a team of the NGO Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen that is present every day at Pacheco, the office of the Immigration Office where applicants come for their Dublin-interview, to inform these persons about the course of this interview and their rights.

[50]         Based on observations by Startpunt, a team of the NGO Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen that is present every day at Pacheco, the office of the Immigration Office where applicants come for their Dublin-interview, to inform these persons about the course of this interview and their rights. Startpunt also provides legal information in the ‘Refugee Legal Helpdesk’, a collaboration of Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and the Brussels Bar Association to provide free first-line legal assistance to applicants without reception and to ensure the assignment of a second-line lawyer. In total, more than 10,000 applicants were given free legal assistance between April 2022 and April 2025 in the context of this project. Applicants often arrive at the helpdesk after having received a Dublin transfer decision without having ever had access to legal information or second-line legal assistance.

[51]         Immigration Office, ‘Application of the Dublin Regulation – Requests sent, decisions received and transfers from Belgium 2026’, available in French and Dutch here.

[52]         Immigration Office, ‘Contact Meeting for International Protection’, 19 November 2025, available in French and Dutch here, 9.

[53]         Immigration Office, ‘Application of the Dublin Regulation – Requests sent, decisions received and transfers from Belgium 2026’, available in French and Dutch here.

[54]         Ibidem.

[55]         Myria, Contact Meeting, 20 September 2023, p. 14, available in French and Dutch here.

[56]         Immigration Office, ‘Application of the Dublin Regulation – Requests sent, decisions received and transfers from Belgium 2026’, available in French and Dutch here.

[57]         The asylum instances can stop the assessment of an asylum application in case an applicant has not responded to a request for further information or if they did not show up for the interview; see article 57/6/5 Aliens Act.

[58]         Myria, Contact meeting, 21 June 2016, available here, para 9.

[59]         Council of State, ‘The Netherlands is not allowed to return single male asylum seekers to Belgium’, 23 July 2025, available in Dutch here.

[60]         NOS, ‘The Netherlands resumes transfers of single asylum seekers to Belgium’, 18 March 2026, available in Dutch here.