Nævnet stadfæstede i maj 2026 Udlændingestyrelsens afgørelse om overførsel til Belgien i medfør af udlændingelovens § 48 a, stk. 1, 1. pkt., jf. § 29 a, stk. 1, jf. Dublinforordningen, vedrørende en mand, der har indgivet ansøgning om asyl i Belgien. Sagen blev behandlet på skriftligt grundlag.
Advokaten henviste som begrundelse for, at klagerens sag skulle behandles i Danmark, blandt andet til de generelle forhold for asylansøgere i Belgien, herunder risikoen for frihedsberøvelse samt manglende indkvartering. Efter en gennemgang af sagen, udtalte Flygtningenævnet blandt andet: ”Det fremgår af udlændingelovens § 48 a, stk. 1, 1. pkt., at påberåber en udlænding sig at være omfattet af § 7, træffer Udlændingestyrelsen snarest muligt afgørelse om afvisning eller overførsel efter reglerne i kapitel 5 a. Det fremgår videre af kapitel 5 a, herunder § 29 a, stk. 1, at en udlænding kan afvises eller overføres til en anden medlemsstat efter reglerne i Dublinforordningen. I den foreliggende sag har Flygtningenævnet lagt til grund, at klageren [i sommeren] 2023er blevet registreret som asylsøger i Belgien, hvor han har en verserende asylsag, der behandles i appelprocedure efter, at ansøgeren har modtaget afslag på asyl i 1. instans. På denne baggrund finder Flygtningenævnet, at Belgien som udgangspunkt er forpligtet til at modtage klageren, jf. Dublinforordningens artikel 18, stk. 1, litra b, og at Belgien dermed er ansvarlig for at behandle klagerens ansøgning om international beskyttelse. Belgien har i overensstemmelse hermed [i efteråret] 2025 accepteret at modtage klageren i medfør af den nævnte bestemmelse i Dublinforordningen, idet Belgien samtidig som anført ovenfor har oplyst, at man ”cannot guarentee immediate individual reception for the abovementioned person”. Det oplyses endvidere, at der fra den belgiske stats side gøres ”enormous efforts to guarantee the rights set out in the Reception Directive to the best of its ability”. Det fremgår af sagens oplysninger, at klageren under sit tidligere ophold i Belgien har været privat indkvarteret, og at klageren oprindelig har oplyst, at han ved en tilbagevenden til Belgien vil kunne bosætte sig på den samme adresse. Det fremgår endvidere af sagens oplysninger, at klageren har haft arbejde hos slægtninge i Belgien, og at han oprindelig har forventet at kunne vende tilbage til dette arbejde igen. Den bolig, han har haft stillet til rådighed under private former i Belgien, er knyttet til hans arbejde. Det fremgår endvidere, at klageren under Udlændingestyrelsens behandling af sagen i 1. instans har tilkendegivet, at han gerne ville overføres til Belgien. Under behandlingen af klagesagen har klageren tilkendegivet, at han ikke ønsker at vende tilbage til Belgien, idet han frygter at blive udsendt til [land i Mellemøsten], ligesom han ikke ønsker at blive adskilt fra sin kæreste gennem knap halvandet år, der er [europæisk] statsborger, men som bor og arbejder i Danmark. Under behandlingen af klagesagen har klageren endvidere tilkendegivet, at han nu ikke længere kan råde over den bolig, der blev stillet til hans rådighed af slægtninge i Belgien, ligesom han ikke længere har arbejde hos sine slægtninge. Forholdene for Dublin returnees og såkaldte ”subsequent applicants” er behandlet i nærmere i AIDA, Country Report Belgium, juni 2025, hvor det i pkt. E (s. 102 f) anføres: ”The Immigration Office is also competent for registering subsequent applications i.e. the asylum applicant’s declaration on new elements and the reasons why they could not invoke them earlier, and transmit the claim ‘without delay’ to the CGRS. After the application is transmitted, the CGRS first decides on the Admissibility of the claim by determining whether there are new elements which significantly add to the likelihood of the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection. The claim is deemed admissible because the previous application was terminated based on implicit withdrawal. The CGRS should take this decision within 10 working days after receiving the application from the Immigration Office. If the person is in detention, this decision should be taken within 2 working days. If the CGRS declares the application admissible, it examines the merits under the Accelerated Procedure. The final decision should be made within 15 working days. Generally, this delay is not respected. The CGRS indicates it cannot decide within this strict legal deadline but stresses that treating subsequent applications is a priority. If the subsequent application is dismissed as inadmissible, the CGRS should determine whether the applicant's removal would lead to direct or indirect refoulement. Recent case law of the CALL concerning Afghan applicants confirmed this. An appeal to the CALL against an inadmissibility decision should be made within 10 days, or 5 days when the applicant is in detention. The appeal has an automatic suspensive effect, except where: a. The CGRS deems that there is no risk of direct or indirect refoulement; and b. The application is either (i) a second application within one year from the final decision on the previous application and made from detention or (ii) a third or further application. Legal assistance is arranged in exactly the same way as concerning first asylum applications. However, in practice, some asylum applicants or lawyers have experienced difficulties obtaining ‘Pro-Deo’ assignments because they are generally not accommodated in a reception centre, which makes the proof of their lack of income more burdensome … . An applicant does not have a right to remain on the territory even before the CGRS pronounces itself on admissibility in cases where: a. The application is a third application; and b. The applicant remains without interruption in detention since their second application; and c. The CGRS has decided in the previous procedure concerning the second application that removal would not amount to direct or indirect refoulement. In principle, all applicants for international protection, including subsequent applicants, have the right to access reception conditions during the examination of their case. However, the Reception Act allows the possibility to refuse reception to subsequent applicants until their asylum application is deemed admissible by the CGRS. Although the Reception Act explicitly states that decisions which limit or withdraw the right to reception should be in line with the principle of proportionality, individually motivated and based on the particular situation of the person concerned, Fedasil almost systematically refuses to assign a reception place to subsequent applicants until their asylum application is declared admissible by the CGRS (see Right to reception: subsequent applications). A total of 6,469 applicants lodged subsequent applications in 2024: …” Herudover anføres det i pkt. A.1.2. (s. 125 f) om Right to Reception: Subsequent Applications: “The Reception Act provides the possibility for Fedasil to refuse reception to asylum applicants who lodge a second or further subsequent asylum application, until their asylum application is deemed admissible by the CGRS. Between the moment of the subsequent application and the admissibility decision by the CGRS, asylum applicants who are refused reception nevertheless have the right to medical assistance from Fedasil and to free legal representation. Once the CGRS has deemed the application admissible, the right to access reception is reactivated. Asylum applicants must then present themselves to the Dispatching service at Fedasil’s arrival centre to be allocated a reception place. If the asylum applicant has not obtained reception from Fedasil during the first stage of the procedure and the CGRS declares the subsequent asylum application inadmissible, they will not be entitled to reception during the appeal with the CALL. If, after a final negative decision in the asylum procedure, a request for a prolongation of reception … was pending or granted and the person lodges a second or further subsequent asylum application, the Dispatching service of Fedasil will take a new decision regarding access to reception conditions in the new procedure. If it decides to refuse reception, the previously pending or granted prolongation is withdrawn. The right to reception is thus linked to the most recent asylum procedure. Article 4 of the Reception Act is aligned with the recast Reception Conditions Directive and explicitly states that decisions which limit or withdraw the right to reception should be in line with the principle of proportionality, individually motivated and based on the individual situation of the person concerned, especially in the case vulnerable persons. Health care and a dignified standard of living should be always ensured. According to the Constitutional Court, the decision to refuse reception in such cases can only be taken in cases of abuse of the asylum procedure, e.g. when the person applies for asylum for the sole purpose of extending the right to reception. In practice, however, Fedasil almost systematically refuses to assign a reception place to subsequent applicants until their asylum application is declared admissible by the CGRS, mostly through standardised refusal decisions. On multiple occasions, labour tribunals have ordered Fedasil to motivate such decisions individually and consider all case elements. In certain cases, subsequent applicants obtained reception after challenging such decisions before the courts. This means that the access to the right to reception in these cases often depends on whether the applicant is supported by an experienced lawyer. The Federal Mediator has received many complaints about this issue in the last years, including from families with minor children, having been refused reception after lodging a subsequent application for international protection. In several cases, Fedasil has reviewed its decision after intervention by the Federal Mediator and has granted the applicants reception.” Det hedder videre i samme publikation pkt. A.1.3. (s. 128) om Dublin returnees: ”Depending on the situation of their procedure in Belgium at the moment they left Belgium, asylum applicants sent back to Belgium following a Dublin procedure in another country can be considered subsequent applicants …In such a case, they mostly only get shelter after their asylum application is taken into consideration by the CGRS … . Applicants who are not considered subsequent applicants suffer the consequences of the ongoing reception crisis, in the context of which they are often deprived of shelter for several months before receiving access to the reception network … .” Modtagelsesforholdene for Dublin returnees i Belgien, herunder særligt for enlige mænd, er mangelfulde, men der har efter nævnets hidtidige praksis ikke været væsentlige grunde til at antage, at der er sådanne generelle systemfejl i asylproceduren og i modtage- og indkvarteringsforholdene i Belgien, at enhver overførsel til Belgien i medfør af Dublinforordningen vil medføre en risiko for umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling som defineret i Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonventions (EMRK) artikel 3 og Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheders (EU-chartret) artikel 4. De generelle forhold og levevilkår for asylansøgere i Belgien har således efter nævnets hidtidige praksis ikke haft en sådan karakter, at Danmark er afskåret fra at overføre asylansøgere til Belgien, jf. Dublinforordningens artikel 3, stk. 2, 2. led. Siden 2023 har det imidlertid i en række sager vedrørende enlige mænd været forudsat, at der fra de belgiske myndigheder indhentes en individualiseret garanti om, at man ved modtagelsen af den konkrete udlænding vil stille specifikke modtageforhold til rådighed, der sikrer, at klageren ikke kommer i en situation omfattet af EMRK artikel 3 og EU-chartrets artikel 4. Flygtningenævnet finder, at de seneste baggrundsoplysninger om modtageforholdene i Belgien, herunder en rapport af 23. april 2026, ”Juillet-Décembre 2025, Politique de non-acceuil, Etat des lieux”, udgivet af en række NGO’er og den af den beskikkede advokat fremhævede dom af 9. april 2026 afsagt af den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol (sag 52836/22) ikke giver anledning til en generel ændret vurdering af ovenstående udgangspunkt. Belgien har ikke i den foreliggende sag stillet den forudsatte garanti. Flygtningenævnet finder imidlertid, at der som anført af Udlændingestyrelsen må lægges særlig vægt på klagerens individuelle omstændigheder. Det må således som anført ovenfor lægges til grund, at klageren under sit hidtidige, forholdsvis langvarige ophold i Belgien har haft både arbejde og bopæl, og at han i kraft af sit familiemæssige netværk i landet også i øvrigt må anses for ressourcestærk. Under disse omstændigheder tiltræder Flygtningenævnet, at der ikke er en reel risiko for, at ansøgeren ved en overførsel til Belgien vil komme i en situation omfattet af EMRK artikel 3 og EU-chartrets artikel 4. Flygtningenævnet er i den forbindelse opmærksom på, at Menneskerettighedsdomstolen i den ovennævnte dom af 9. april 2026 i præmis 106 har anført, at adgangen til hjælp og bistand under private former ikke fritager staten for ansvar. Herefter, og da der heller ikke foreligger hensyn, herunder af humanitær karakter, som nævnt i Dublinforordningens artikel 17, stk. 1, der i øvrigt kan føre til, at klagerens asylsag skal behandles her i landet, stadfæster Flygtningenævnet Udlændingestyrelsens afgørelse.” dub-belg/2026/2/Sael
