A. The removal operation: preparations and conduct; (Read full CPT report) 7. According to the data provided by the Immigration Office, published by the GeneralInspectorate of the Federal Police and Local Police (AIG)7 in its 2021 Annual Report on forced returnmonitoring, a total of 1 984 persons were subjected to a forced removal from Belgium, […]
Belgium: Covid-19 and Detention
The Belgian NGO Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen reported that during 19-22 October 2021, between 60-150 asylum seekers were being denied access to the asylum registration procedure per day, and in consequence did not have access to reception. As reported on 11 August 2020 on this platform, many asylum seekers were sleeping rough after being released from detention. […]
Belgium: Covid-19 and Detention
According to an international organisation official who asked to remain anonymous, but whose identity was verified by the GDP, while no moratorium on new immigration detention orders was established, fewer detention orders have been issued since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Director-General of the Immigration Office (IO) and the Minister for Asylum and […]
Belgium: Covid-19 and Detention
Global Detention Project Survey completed by Laura Cleton (@LauraCleton), University of Antwerp IS THERE A MORATORIUM ON NEW IMMIGRATION DETENTION ORDERS? There has been no public information on whether new detention orders are still being made. In terms of Orders to Leave the Territory (OLT), the Minister for Social Affairs, Public Health, Migration and Asylum, […]
Belgium: Covid-19 and Detention
Authorities announced that they had expanded access to the labour market for asylum applicants (if they have already submitted their application). Authorities hope that they can help make up for the lack of workforce – particularly seasonal workers – in the country. From 20 March 2020, the Brussels local government will be hosting 100 homeless […]
Belgium: Covid-19 and Detention
Belgium halved its immigration detention capacity (from 609 to 315 spaces) in the weeks after the outbreak of the pandemic. By 19 March, the total number of detainees in the country’s six detention centres had dropped to 304. However, because reception centres for asylum seekers are no longer accepting new arrivals and detainees are being […]
Last updated: March 2020
DETENTION STATISTICS
DETAINEE DATA
DETENTION CAPACITY
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT DATA
PRISON DATA
POPULATION DATA
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA & POLLS
LEGAL & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Detention-Related Legislation
15 DECEMBRE 1980. - Loi sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers mise à jour au 2 juillet 2018
(1980)
2018
Law of 15 December 1980 regarding the Entry, Residence, Settlement and Removal of Aliens (Aliens Act)
(1980)
2016
Additional Legislation
8 OCTOBRE 1981. - Arrêté royal sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers mise à jour au 16 novembre 2018
(1981)
2018
22 juillet 2018. Arrêté royal modifiant l'arrêté royal du 2 août 2002 fixant le régime et les règles de fonctionnement applicables aux lieux situés sur le territoire belge, gérés par l'Office des Etrangers, où un étranger est détenu, mis à la disposition du gouvernement ou maintenu, en application des dispositions citées dans l'article 74/8, § 1er, de la loi du 15 décembre 1980 sur l'accès au territoire, le séjour, l'établissement et l'éloignement des étrangers
(2018)
Royal Decree of 2 August 2002 determining the regime and regulations to be applied in the places on the Belgian territory managed by the AO where an alien is detained, placed at the disposal of the government or withheld, in application of article 74/8 §1 of the Aliens Act (known as Royal Decree on Closed Centres)
(2002)
2014
Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 regarding the Entry on the territory, Residence, Settlement and Removal of Aliens
(1981)
Bilateral/Multilateral Readmission Agreements
GROUNDS FOR DETENTION
LENGTH OF DETENTION
DETENTION INSTITUTIONS
PROCEDURAL STANDARDS & SAFEGUARDS
Types of Non-Custodial Measures (ATDs) Provided in Law
COSTS & OUTSOURCING
Description of Foreign Assistance
During the period 2014-2017, Belgium used funds provided through the EU's Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund (AMIF) for various detention-related activities, including one or more of the following: increased staff at detention facilities; renovation of detention facilities; operational costs of running detention facilities; interpretation and healthcare services; legal assistance for detainees; leisure, cultural and educational activities at detention facilities. Proposed future regulations for this fund include encouraging recipients to consider possible joint use of reception and detention facilities by more than one Member State (see "The Way Forward, p.39).
During the period 2014-2017, Belgium used funds provided through the EU's Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund (AMIF) for various detention-related activities, including one or more of the following: increased staff at detention facilities; renovation of detention facilities; operational costs of running detention facilities; interpretation and healthcare services; legal assistance for detainees; leisure, cultural and educational activities at detention facilities. Proposed future regulations for this fund include encouraging recipients to consider possible joint use of reception and detention facilities by more than one Member State (see "The Way Forward, p.39).
During the period 2014-2017, Belgium used funds provided through the EU's Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund (AMIF) for various detention-related activities, including one or more of the following: increased staff at detention facilities; renovation of detention facilities; operational costs of running detention facilities; interpretation and healthcare services; legal assistance for detainees; leisure, cultural and educational activities at detention facilities. Proposed future regulations for this fund include encouraging recipients to consider possible joint use of reception and detention facilities by more than one Member State (see "The Way Forward, p.39).
During the period 2014-2017, Belgium used funds provided through the EU's Asylum, Migration, and Integration Fund (AMIF) for various detention-related activities, including one or more of the following: increased staff at detention facilities; renovation of detention facilities; operational costs of running detention facilities; interpretation and healthcare services; legal assistance for detainees; leisure, cultural and educational activities at detention facilities. Proposed future regulations for this fund include encouraging recipients to consider possible joint use of reception and detention facilities by more than one Member State (see "The Way Forward, p.39).
COVID-19 DATA
TRANSPARENCY
MONITORING
Types of Authorised Detention Monitoring Institutions
Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism
(National Human Rights Institution (or Ombudsperson) (NHRI))
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING BODIES
NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS (OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE)
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS (NGOs)
GOVERNMENTAL MONITORING BODIES
INTERNATIONAL DETENTION MONITORING
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & TREATY BODIES
International Treaties Ratified
Ratification Year
Observation Date
OP ICESCR, Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
2014
2018
ICPED, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
2011
2011
CTOCTP, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children
2004
2004
CTOCSP, Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
2004
2004
CAT, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
1999
1999
Ratio of relevant international treaties ratified
Ratio: 17/19
Individual Complaints Procedures
Acceptance Year
ICESCR, Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2008
2014
2014
CRC, [Third] Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child establishing a communications procedure, 2011
2014
2014
ICPED, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, declaration under article 31
2011
2011
CEDAW, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 1999
2004
2004
Relevant Recommendations or Observations Issued by Treaty Bodies
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
Committee against Torture
30. The Committee encourages the State party to take into account the following recommendations when amending the Aliens Act as announced during the dialogue:
(a) The State party should refrain from placing applicants for international protection in detention at the border and should provide alternatives to detention, including by adopting the royal decree mentioned in the Aliens Act. The State party should use detention only in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort, on the basis of an individual assessment of each case and if other less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively;
2021
2021
2021
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
(unofficial translation from French)
27. The Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Develop reliable indicators to determine the extent to which non-citizens are over-represented in prisons in order to be able to assess the situation and take the necessary measures to remedy any problem in this regard;
(b) Take the necessary measures to ensure in practice that irregularly staying migrants can have effective and non-discriminatory access to emergency medical assistance, education, health, housing and to lodge complaints without risk of arrest and forced removal;
c) Ensure that non-nationals of nationality outside the European Union can access the labor market and housing without discrimination on the basis of their nationality or origin;
d) Develop and implement specific strategies to mitigate the socio-economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and stateless persons.
(Original in French)
27. Le Comité recommande à l’État partie de:
a) De développer des indicateurs fiables afin de déterminer dans quelle mesure les non-ressortissants sont surreprésentés dans le milieu carcérale afin de pouvoir évaluer la situation et prendre des mesures nécessaires pour remédier à tout problème à cet égard;
b) De prendre les mesures nécessaires pour garantir dans la pratique que les migrants en séjour irrégulier puissent avoir un accès effectif et sans discrimination à l’aide médicale d’urgence, à l’éducation, à la santé, au logement et à porter plainte sans risque d’arrestation et d’éloignement forcé;
c) Veiller à ce que les non-ressortissants de nationalité hors Union européenne puissent accéder au marché de travail et au logement sans discrimination du fait de leur nationalité ou origine ;
d) De développer et mettre en œuvre des stratégies spécifiques pour atténuer les effets socioéconomiques de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les migrants, les réfugiés, les demandeurs d’asile et les apatrides.
2021
2021
2021
Human Rights Committee
§ 30. The State party should: (a) Prohibit the detention of migrants, especially families, pregnant women and children, and develop alternatives to detention, in conformity with its obligations under the Covenant and the principles of the best interests of the child and family unity; (b) Adopt legislation on statelessness for the granting of citizenship or residence permits to persons recognized as stateless in the State party.
2019
2019
2019
Committee against Torture
§ 30: The State party should: (a) Prohibit the detention of migrants, especially families, pregnant women and children, and develop alternatives to detention, in conformity with its obligations under the Covenant and the principles of the best interests of the child and family unity; (b) Adopt legislation on statelessness for the granting of citizenship or residence permits to persons recognized as stateless in the State party.
§ 32: The State party should take all necessary measures to ensure that an individual assessment is carried out for each case of asylum, deportation or expulsion, with full respect for the principles of non-refoulement and safe third countries, in accordance with its obligations under the Covenant. The State party should also ensure the effective and independent monitoring of deportation operations.
§ 34: The State party should: (a) Continue its efforts to reduce overcrowding in prisons, including through the use of alternatives to detention, and improve living conditions at detention facilities, pursuant to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules); (b) Provide for alternatives to the deprivation of liberty of persons with mental disorders at prisons; (c) Ensure implementation of Act No. 2019011569 of 23 March 2019 on the organization of the prison service and the status of prison staff, so as to ensure the minimum staffing levels at prisons, including during strikes.
2019
2019
2019
Committee on the Rights of the Child
§ 39. "Recalling joint general comments No. 3 and No. 4 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families / No. 22 and No. 23 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the human rights of children in the context of international migration, the Committee urges the State party to:
(a) Develop a legislative framework on undocumented children;
(b) Establish status determination procedures to ensure the identification and protection of children in situations of migration, including unaccompanied children and separated children;
(c) Develop a standard protocol on age-determination methods that is multidisciplinary, scientifically based, respectful of children ’ s rights and used only in cases of serious doubt about the claimed age, consider documentary or other forms of evidence available and ensure access to effective appeal mechanisms;
(d) Integrate the principle of the best interests of the child in legislation and regulations concerning migration, ensure that this principle is given primary consideration in asylum and migration-related procedures, including age and status determination and deportation, and that children ’ s views are duly taken into account therein, and provide support to families with migration backgrounds to prevent family separation;
(e) Build the capacity of the authorities to determine and apply the best interests of the child in asylum and migration-related procedures;
(f) Ensure that all children in situations of migration, including undocumented and separated children, receive appropriate protection, are informed about their rights in a language they understand, have access to education and health care, including psychosocial support, and are provided with interpretation and free legal aid; and develop comprehensive referral, case management and guardianship frameworks for unaccompanied and separated children;
(g) Prohibit immigration detention of children and ensure non-custodial solutions, including foster care and accommodation in specialized open reception centres serviced by trained professionals and providing access to education and psychosocial support, ensure the periodic and independent review of the care and ensure access to complaint procedures...
42. With reference to the Committee ’ s general comment No. 6 (2005) on the treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin, the Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Develop a uniform protocol on age-determination methods that is multidisciplinary, scientifically-based, respectful of children ’ s rights and used only in cases of serious doubt about the claimed age and in consideration of documentary or other forms of evidence available, and ensure access to effective appeal mechanisms;
(b) Effectively investigate cases of abuse with regard to unaccompanied children;
(c) Strengthen immediate protection measures for all unaccompanied children, and ensure systematic and timely referral to the guardianship service;
(d) Improve the provision of shelter to unaccompanied children, including by ensuring the availability of the youth welfare system and foster care for all unaccompanied children, regardless of their age."
§ 44. With reference to joint general comments No. 3 and No. 4 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families/No. 22 and No. 23 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the human rights of children in the context of international migration, the Committee reiterates its previous recommendation (CRC/C/BEL/CO/3-4, para. 77) and urges the State party: (a) To put an end to the detention of children in closed centres, and to use non-custodial solutions; (b) To ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration, including in matters relating to asylum and family reunification; (c) To develop and disseminate child-friendly tools to inform asylum-seeking children about their rights and the ways to seek justice.
2019
2019
2019
Committee against Torture
§21 The Committee urges the State party to ensure that the detention of asylum seekers is used only as a last resort and, where necessary, for as short a period as possible and without excessive restrictions. It also urges the State party to establish and use arrangements other than the detention of asylum seekers.
2014
2014
2014
Committee against Torture
§14 The Committee invites the State party to take measures to implement the provisions of the Principles Act aimed at establishing an effective, independent complaints mechanism specifically devoted to monitoring and processing complaints in detention centres. The State party should take the necessary measures to ensure that all allegations of misconduct by detention centre and prison staff are duly examined and thoroughly and impartially investigated.
2014
2014
2014
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
§20 [...];Recalling its general recommendation No. 30 (2005) on discrimination against non citizens,;the Committee recommends that the State party ensure that non-custodial;measures are used whenever possible and that detention of asylum seekers at borders is used as a measure of last resort.
2014
2014
2014
Committee on the Rights of the Child
§77 The Committee urges the State party to put an end to the detention ofchildren in closed centres, create alternatives to detention for asylum-seeking families and take the necessary measures to urgently find temporary housing solutions forfamilies whose asylum request has been rejected and who live on the streets.
2010
2010
2010
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
§17 The Committee,recalling its generalrecommendationNo. 30 (2004) on discrimination against non-citizens, recommends that the State party adopt all necessary measures to use non-custodial measures for asylum-seekers and, when detention is required, that conditions meet international standards.
2008
2008
2008
> UN Special Procedures
> UN Universal Periodic Review
REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS
Regional Legal Instruments
Year of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
Observation Date
ECHRP1, Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11)
1995
1995
2017
ECHRP7, Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11)
2012
2012
2017
ECPT, European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment
1991
1991
2017
CPCSE, Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
2013
2013
2017
Relevant Recommendations or Observations of Regional Human Rights Mechanisms
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
20. In light of these remarks, the CPT recommends that the Belgian authorities take the
necessary steps, including of a legislative nature, to review and strengthen the legal remedies against the removal order, to ensure no-one is sent back to a country where they run a real
risk of ill-treatment when removed. Further, the specific information on removal provided
upon arrival in a detention centre should include information on legal remedies against the
removal order, to ensure that they are made more accessible in practice.
23. the CPT would like to receive a confirmation that an assessment of the risk of ill-treatment had been carried out with respect to all eight persons removed to the DRC, based on their individual circumstances at the time of removal. Further, it would like to receive additional information concerning the functioning of the specialised legal unit and the role played by the EUR-LO in the assessment of the risk of ill-treatment.
25. The CPT recommends that the Belgian authorities ensure that a “last call procedure”
is put in place and effectively implemented in practice during all future removal operations
by air to guarantee that the escort leader and/or representative of the Immigration Office
onboard are always fully informed of the state of pending legal proceedings with suspensive
effect, up to the moment of handover.
26. The CPT would like to encourage the Belgian authorities to consider developing a system of
post-return monitoring and collecting relevant data and information on whether foreign
nationals removed by force to their countries of origin were exposed to treatment contrary to
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights upon their return. It also encourages
the Belgian authorities to bring this matter to the attention of Frontex32 and the other EU
member states organising or participating in return operations supported by Frontex.
28. The CPT recommends that the Belgian authorities take the necessary measures, including of
a legislative nature, to ensure that all persons held in detention with a view to their removal
(irrespective of the number of previous removal attempts) are notified of their scheduled
removal at least several days in advance, to allow them to collect their personal belongings,
including documents and money, and be able to make the necessary arrangements to
prepare for their return.
31.The CPT encourages the Belgian authorities to provide information more systematically to
all persons subjected to forced removal on possible assistance and support upon their
return.
33. The CPT would like to receive the comments of the Belgian authorities. It would also
like to encourage the Belgian authorities to bring the issue of timely provision of information
about persons with vulnerabilities and/or disabilities being removed to the attention of
Frontex and the other EU member states organising or participating in return operations
supported by Frontex.
35.The CPT recommends that the Belgian authorities actively facilitate the right of returnees to
inform a relative, or third person of their choice, of their removal, including by granting
access to their mobile phones, if required.
40. In light of the previous paragraph, the CPT recommends that the Belgian authorities take
the necessary measures to ensure that:
All returnees are physically examined by the doctor of the detention centre on the day
when the “fit-to-fly” certificate is issued (that is a maximum of 72 hours prior to the
departure of the removal flight);
The cover sheet intended for transmission to the relevant administrative and police
authorities be revised accordingly and also no longer contains any information that is
covered by medical confidentiality;
The common standardised form “Medical report and information for return
operations”, which contains information that is covered by medical confidentiality, is
only transmitted to the healthcare staff accompanying the removal flight;
Both parts of the “fit-to-fly” certificate (namely the cover sheet and the common
standardised form) are systematically issued and thoroughly completed by the
doctors of the detention centres in which the returnees are detained.
42. The CPT recommends that the Belgian authorities take the necessary steps to ensure
that medical examinations prior to removal are conducted in a dedicated examination room
or space, and out of the hearing and – unless the healthcare professional concerned
expressly requests otherwise in a particular case – out of the sight of police officers and
custodial staff.
47.The CPT recommends that all escort officers of the Federal Police wear a visible identification
tag on their safety vests to ensure that they can be individually identified
(either by their name or an identification number
50.The CPT recommends that these precepts are effectively implemented in practice when
strip-searches are performed by the Federal Police in the context of removal operations.
60. The CPT recommends that the Belgian authorities take the necessary steps to improve
coordination with other member states participating in removal operations by air to ensure
that medical information on the returnees is complete and transmitted in a confidential
manner to the accompanying medical doctor in advance (see also the recommendation made
in paragraph 61). It would also like to encourage the Belgian authorities to bring this matter
to the attention of Frontex and the other EU member states organising or participating in
return operations supported by Frontex.
Further, the CPT would like to receive the comments of the Belgian authorities on the above,
and particularly on how they ensure the proper transmission of medical information to the
accompanying doctor.
61. The CPT recommends that the Belgian authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that
medical confidentiality is always strictly respected during return operations organised and
carried out by Belgium. It would also like to encourage the Belgian authorities to bring this
matter to the attention of Frontex and the other EU member states organising or participating
in return operations supported by Frontex.
74. The CPT recommends that the Belgian authorities ensure that all persons removed in
the context of removal operations supported by Frontex are provided with information on the
Frontex complaint mechanisms, both orally and in writing, in a language they can
understand. To this end, information leaflets and/or a poster should be made available to all
returnees prior to or during the removal operation to ensure that the complaints mechanism
is rendered accessible and effective in practice. The Committee would also like to encourage
the Belgian authorities to bring this matter to the attention of Frontex and the other EU
member states organising or participating in return operations supported by Frontex.
76.The CPT recommends that the Belgian authorities ensure that the AIG is provided
with the necessary resources to effectively carry out its mandate as the
national forced return monitoring system. In the long term, the Belgian authorities
should set up a national forced return monitoring system that is truly independent
(namely that is not operating under the authority of the FPS Home Affairs).
79.The CPT wishes to receive data on the number of detention orders that have been renewed
beyond five months in 2021 and 2022. Further, it would like to be informed of the safeguards
in place to avoid situations of prolonged detention due to frequently renewed detention
orders in practice.
2022
2022
2022
HEALTH CARE PROVISION
HEALTH IMPACTS
COVID-19
Country Updates
The Belgian NGO Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen reported that during 19-22 October 2021, between 60-150 asylum seekers were being denied access to the asylum registration procedure per day, and in consequence did not have access to reception. As reported on 11 August 2020 on this platform, many asylum seekers were sleeping rough after being released from detention. Now, some are sleeping in front of the “Petit Chateau” arrival centre due to lack of spaces in the reception facility. Fedasil reported that the lack of capacity is due to an increase in asylum applications, the resettlement of Syrian refugees, the extension of the length of stay in the country’s reception centres, as well as the repatriation mission from Afghanistan. COVID-19 has also compelled reception centres to reserve spaces for isolation in case of possible COVID-19 outbreaks.
On18 October 2021, the staff at the “Petit Chateau” reception centre went on strike to denounce the conditions and overcrowding. According to news reports, the number of monthly asylum applications in October 2021 was at the highest level since the refugee “crisis” towards the end of 2015. The centre’s director said she wanted to avoid a “Dutch situation,” referring to the overcrowded asylum seeker centres in the Netherlands, which led to hundreds of asylum seekers having to sleep on camp beds and chairs due to lack of space earlier in October 2021. On 26 October 2021, a second 24-hour strike at the “Petit Chateau” facility in Brussels took place. This led to the suspension of new asylum applications there until the following day. The director general of Fedasil said that he understands the frustration of the staff and that new measures were put in place including: “more staff being hired, new registration centres being open, and asylum services have been reinforced.”
According to ECRE, the lack of reception capacity in Belgium is a recurring concern and similar situations of asylum seekers being unable to access the asylum and reception systems have taken place in 2018, 2019, and 2020.
According to an international organisation official who asked to remain anonymous, but whose identity was verified by the GDP, while no moratorium on new immigration detention orders was established, fewer detention orders have been issued since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Director-General of the Immigration Office (IO) and the Minister for Asylum and Migration both reported in June that they expect the number of persons in detention to rise again, depending upon the evolution of the pandemic and the capacity in the centres (see the 27 March Belgium update on this platform).
As previously reported on this platform (see 6 May Belgium update), some immigration detainees have been released from detention. On 9 June, it was reported in the Parliament’s Commission for Home Affairs (and Migration) that about half of the people in detention had been released since the beginning of the health crisis. In mid-March, some 300 persons out of the 630 persons who were in detention were released so as to make space in the detention centres and be able to better implement social distancing. On 17 June, 202 people remained in immigration detention in Belgium. Persons to be released are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and are released when there is no legal basis to keep them in detention. In Belgium, detention is only possible for a limited period of time and under the condition that the Immigration Office is able to remove them, an outcome hampered by border closures and limited air traffic.
According to the source, no specific measures have been implemented by authorities for people released from detention. Thus, those released may reside with family or acquaintances or, in some cases, be left homeless. People released from detention and who are still entitled to shelter/reception facilities, can present themselves at the information desk of the Immigration Office to be reintegrated into the reception network.
The source also reported that immigration detainees were being tested for Covid-19. As reported on 9 June by the Director General of the IO and confirmed on 17 June by the Minister for Asylum and Migration, no detainees had tested positive for Covid-19, but 3-4 staff members tested positive. However, detainees already present in detention centres at the start of the health crisis were not systematically tested. In cases of suspected infection, detainees are placed in medical isolation as a precautionary measure. All new arrivals at a detention centre are tested upon arrival, in line with the guidelines set by the Risk Management Group regarding testing protocols for people residing in collective residence. Despite the police requesting systematic Covid-19 testing of detainees for fear of infection, persons who are released from detention and about to be removed are not tested.
According to the source, removals have not been suspended during the Covid-19 crisis (see the 6 May Belgium update on this platform for related information). The Director General of the IO nonetheless reported that “removal capacity” has been limited because of the health crisis. According to statistics released by the IO, fewer persons were forcibly removed from the country during the crisis: 239 in March; 22 in April; 28 in May; and 72 in June. Most of the returns were to countries of origin and others took place in application of the Dublin Regulation, which resumed on 22 June. Removals took place to Brazil; Rwanda; Ukraine; Bulgaria; Romania; the UK; the Netherlands; France; Ireland; and Italy.
Also, the number of refusals of entry at the Belgian border have decreased compared to the months before the crisis. In January 214 people were refused entry into Belgium; 190 were refused in February; and 111 in March. However, in April, only 5 people were refused entry; 1 in May and 6 in June.
Between 18 March and 31 May, 5,421 orders to leave the territory were issued. Yet, where leaving the country is impossible due to the pandemic, there is a possibility to request an extension of the order.
Furthermore, the source reported that applicants for international protection must now be done online, by filling out an online form and uploading copies of documents. Following this, an invitation for a first interview will be sent to the person. In order to avoid having too many people at the same time for these interviews, there is a waiting list. Applicants for international protection have to wait for the first interview before receiving accommodation.
As regards Belgium’s borders, non-essential travels to Belgium from EU countries were not allowed until 15 June. Non-essential travel to Belgium from countries outside the EU are not permitted until 31 August as provided by the Ministerial Decree of 30 June. In addition, people in need of international protection or travelling for humanitarian reasons are considered as having an ‘essential need’ and are, in theory, allowed to travel to Belgium. Belgian authorities continue to carry out active checks and several border crossings remain closed.
Global Detention Project Survey completed by Laura Cleton (@LauraCleton), University of Antwerp
IS THERE A MORATORIUM ON NEW IMMIGRATION DETENTION ORDERS?
There has been no public information on whether new detention orders are still being made. In terms of Orders to Leave the Territory (OLT), the Minister for Social Affairs, Public Health, Migration and Asylum, Maggie de Block, mentions that she has not completely suspended them. If persons get an OLT, they have to leave Belgium and the EU whenever that is possible. Return/removal is still possible for certain countries. Also, individuals can ask for an extension of their OLT’s deadline.
HAVE IMMIGRATION DETAINEES BEEN RELEASED?
Yes, people have been released from immigration detention as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The ministry says that there are two reasons for people to be released from detention. First, because forced removal was no longer possible as a result of the closing of international airspace and limitation on flights. According to law, in certain cases, detention could therefore not be prolonged. Second, detainees were released to guarantee safety of other detainees and personnel. There needed to be less people in the facilities to guarantee the social distancing measures.
On April 8, the minister said that 297 detainees were released from detention, whereas 204 were still residing in detention. This selection was made by the Immigration Services (Dienst Vreemdelingenzaken). Decisions on who gets released and those whose detention is continued are made on an individual basis, file by file. In the first place, the Immigration Services look as to whether removal is still possible within the official term. All elements in the individual file are taken into account, most certainly those having to do with public order. Also those persons in detention whose nationality/identity still need to be established, which can take months, can stay in detention for longer. The current situation, according to Maggie de Block, therefore does not automatically lead to the conclusion that there is no “reasonable prospect of return”. Following the guidelines from the European Commission, detention of the aforementioned groups can be prolonged. There are still judicial procedures in place to check if requirements for (prolonged) detention are still lawfully permitted.
On 19 March, a Belgium newspaper mentioned that at least 200 detainees were released. In the article, the immigration authorities mentioned that people released were mainly “vulnerable persons” and those whose removal could not take place as a result of the closing of airspace. The first group included people with chronic diseases, diabetes or heart conditions. Also people who were detained on the basis of a Dublin claim were released from detention, as removing them is currently not possible. Other people who were released were those who had not committed “offences against public order”. A spokesperson for immigration authorities said that migrants with criminal convictions would remain in detention; this was later reiterated by the Minister for Interior and Migration in a parliamentary debate on 8 April.
On 27 April, there were still 162 detainees in detention centres – 15 in Bruges, 62 at Merksplas, 36 at Vottem, 18 at Steenokkerzeel, 25 at Caricole and 6 at Holsbeek. Minister De Block mentioned that this occupation rate causes no problems for guaranteeing social distancing. She mentions that in some instances, people also sleep in small dorms alone, instead of together.
WHAT MEASURES TO PREVENT FORMER DETAINEES FROM BEING INFECTED?
A 19 March newspaper article reported that there was no reception for those who had been released and “it is unclear where the 200 released detainees reside at this moment.” Maggie de Block said that if detainees are released, staff asks them if they have reception with family or friends. She said that this is the case for the majority of cases. If this is not the case, the Belgium government will “look for reception,” though no details were provided. Detainees can be picked up by family members in the proximity of the centre, or released in proximity to public transportation. In principle, local governments are responsible for providing reception for individuals without papers. Minister De Block mentioned the possibilty of demanding that hotels or campsites give up their rooms to accommodate undocumented migrants and other homeless persons.
ARE DETAINEES BEING TESTED FOR COVID-19?
Detainees are only tested when they show symptoms. On 8 April, there were no known COVID-19 cases among detainees in the detention centres. Similar procedures are followed in regular reception centres for asylum seekers (see Q6) – they are isolated and get the necessary medical attention. On 8 April, there were two people in medical isolation, and there were four known cases among detention centre personnel. On 29 April, Minister de Block confirmed that tests remained available in detention centres but that there were still no confirmed cases among detainees.
The minister said on 8 April that measures taken in detention centres were mainly directed to limiting contact between detainees/staff, and enhancing hygiene. For example, detainees are spread out more evenly through common rooms such as dining halls and dorms. Also, the number of persons who can take part in one daytime activities is limited, all to ensure limited contact between different residents. Visits for detainees are also temporarily suspended, but not for all: parliamentary members and attorneys still have the possibility to visit their clients. Detention centres have the possibility of digital visits, offer more flexible use of telephones and expand internet capacities in the centres. Staff in detention centres also wear mouth masks when the required distance cannot be respected. Detainees have also been offered mouth masks.
On 27 April, there were still 162 detainees in detention centres – 15 in Bruges, 62 at Merksplas, 36 at Vottem, 18 at Steenokkerzeel, 25 at Caricole and 6 at Holsbeek. De Block mentioned that, apart from the centre in Bruges, that this occupation is no problem for guaranteeing social distancing, also not in the dorms. She mentions that in some instances, people also sleep in small dorms alone.
HAVE DEPORTATIONS/REMOVALS BEEN STOPPED?
Deporations still take place on a case by case basis. Between 13 March and 8 April, 93 removals took place, according to the minister, however the specific destinations were not provided. A minority of those are Dublin transfers. Escorts on removal flights are not possible anymore, but people are sometimes accompanied until they board the plane. Removal to countries which have “great difficulties,” like Greece, are not possible.
NEW IMMIGRATION AND/OR ASYLUM POLICIES AS WELL AS BORDER CONTROLS IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 CRISIS
On 17 March, the government decided to temporarily stop admitting applications for international protection and postpone them until further notice. The reason given for this was that at the main asylum application centre called ‘Klein Kasteeltje’ in Brussels, there was too little space to uphold the social distancing measures while continuing the necessary proceedings. At the same time, Caritas Belgium mentioned that there was no alternative reception in place for these new asylum seekers, and hence that they were forced to live on the streets, also in case of extremely vulnerable persons, or families with minor children.
During a parliamentary debate on 8 April, it was reported that registration had resumed, yet in a different format: appointments for hearings had to be made via the internet, and asylum seekers could only enter the Immigration Office’s building if they had made an appointment, to prevent waiting-spaces and queuing. Preference is given to vulnerable people, unaccompanied minors, families with minor children, pregnant women, and persons with severe medical complications. Several members of parliament feared that this application procedure might disproportionately impact illiterate asylum seekers, or those without access to the internet. Other measures taken in the application procedure to guarantee safety are altering the rooms in which asylum hearings take place, by amongst others placing Plexiglas. Employees assessing applications for international protection first try to make decisions on cases which already had hearings, and then also look for possibilities via video conference. The minister added that those who come to the Immigration Office for their appointment get a medical screening upon their arrival, and are isolated if an infection is suspected. In the period of 3 – 27 April, 962 questions for an appointment with the Immigration Office were made, and more than 600 still are awaiting a date for their appointment. In the same period, 154 requests for asylum were made.
From mid-April onwards, new asylum seekers can be received in a military base in Sijsele and the reception centre in Marcinelle, which were also in use in 2015, when Belgium received significantly more asylum seekers during the refugee “crisis.” There is a maximum capacity of respectively 300 and 174 persons in these reception facilities. Persons admitted to the facilities will need to reside in pre-registration reception for 7 days first (at Klein Kasteeltje in Brussels), where registration for asylum happens and they are tested for covid-19 symptoms. Only after examination, if they do not show any symptoms, they can move to Sijsele or Marcinelle. They are not all tested – only those who fit the nation-wide “case definition” (risk groups) are tested. The medical services in the reception centres also take preventive measures to limit spreading of the virus, and giving necessary medical attention. All non-essential medical attention is postponed for now.
Several members of parliament questioned whether it was possible to uphold the social distancing measures at place in these facilities. Minister de Block said that all residents of reception centres follow the rules in force in Belgium at large. Persons with symptoms are immediately placed in isolation, and if necessary seen by a doctor. Those with severe complications are sent to a hospital, where it is decided if the person needs to be tested and hospitalized. This procedure is similar to other collective reception structures. Residents are being notified on the measures in place through information in their own language.
Minister de Block also announced that migrants with legal status, but whose right to reside in Belgium is about to expire, can ask for a prolonging of their residence.
Authorities announced that they had expanded access to the labour market for asylum applicants (if they have already submitted their application). Authorities hope that they can help make up for the lack of workforce - particularly seasonal workers - in the country.
From 20 March 2020, the Brussels local government will be hosting 100 homeless people, including migrants, in a hotel in Brussels. Médecins Sans Frontières will provide medical care for those accommodated in the hotel.
Belgium halved its immigration detention capacity (from 609 to 315 spaces) in the weeks after the outbreak of the pandemic. By 19 March, the total number of detainees in the country’s six detention centres had dropped to 304. However, because reception centres for asylum seekers are no longer accepting new arrivals and detainees are being released without access to support, many released migrants and asylum seekers reportedly have limited options other than to live on the streets. A Belgian NGO has qualified this measure as “unacceptable” and urged the state to use “vacant holiday parks, hotels and sports halls to provide shelter for anyone who is homeless.” They also requested that the government provide undocumented migrants with temporary stay for three months based on their non-reparability and / or other humanitarian reasons.” Family and NGO visits to detention facilities were also suspended, and on 17 March 2020, the Belgian Immigration Office temporarily halted the registration of new asylum seekers.
