Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 24/14 Luxembourg, 27 February 2014 Judgment in Case C-79/13 Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers v Selver Saciri and Others. CLICK HERE.

 

https://curia.europa.eu › jcms › jcms Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 24/14



Court of Justice of the European Union 

PRESS RELEASE No 24/14

Luxembourg, 27 February 2014

Judgment in Case C-79/13

Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers v Selver Saciri and 

Others

The financial allowances granted to asylum seekers must enable them to find, if 

necessary, accommodation on the private rental market

The financial aid may be paid by bodies forming part of the public assistance system, provided that 

they meet the minimum standards of EU law as regards the material reception conditions

On 11 October 2010, the Saciri family applied for asylum in Belgium. On the same day, the 

Federaal agentschap voor de opvang van asielzoekers (‘Fedasil’) informed the Saciri family that it 

was unable to provide reception and directed it to the Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschappelijk 

Welzijn van Diest (Diest public centre for social welfare; ‘the OCMW’). Having been unable to find 

housing, the Saciri family turned to the private rental market. Being unable to pay the rent, it lodged 

an application for financial aid with the OCMW, which was rejected on the ground that the Saciri 

family ought to have stayed in a reception facility managed by Fedasil.

The Belgian courts then (on 21 January 2011) ordered Fedasil to offer reception facilities to the 

Saciri family and to pay it a sum of almost €3 000 for the three months during which it was not 

possible for Fedasil to house the family. An EU directive

provides that, where housing (amongst 

other material reception conditions) is not provided in kind, it must be provided in the form of

financial allowances or vouchers. With regard to the period during which the Saciri family was 

given neither housing in kind nor a financial allowance sufficient to pay its rent (October 2010 to 

January 2011), Fedasil and the Saciri family appealed to the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Brussels 

Higher Labour Court, Belgium). That court has therefore referred a number of questions to the 

Court of Justice.

Firstly, the referring court wishes to know (a) whether a Member State which grants the material 

reception conditions in the form of financial allowances (and not in kind) is bound to award those 

allowances from the time of the introduction of the asylum application and (b) whether it must 

ensure that the amount of those allowances is such as to enable asylum seekers to obtain 

accommodation. In that regard, the Court recalls that the period during which the material 

reception conditions must be provided is to begin when the asylum seeker applies for asylum, as is 

apparent from the terms, general scheme and purpose of the directive.

Furthermore, the Court also deduces from the directive that the financial aid granted must be 

sufficient to ensure a dignified standard of living and adequate for the health of applicants and 

capable of ensuring their subsistence, it being understood that the Member State must adjust the 

reception conditions to the situation of persons having specific needs, in order, in particular, to 

preserve family unity and to take account of the best interests of the child (accordingly, the amount 

of the allowances must enable minor children to be housed with their parents). Where the housing 

is not provided in kind, the financial allowances must enable the asylum seekers to obtain housing, 

if necessary, on the private rental market, without their being left to make their own choice of 

housing suitable for themselves.

The referring court also asks whether, where the accommodation facilities for asylum seekers are 

overloaded, the Member States may refer the asylum seekers to bodies within the general public 

 

1 Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Image

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH & FLEET STREET FINANCIAL DISPATCH LONDON — SEPTEMBER 2025 — SPECIAL ECONOMIC INVESTIGATION THE ARCHITECTURE OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM AND THE MECHANICS OF UNIVERSAL DEMAND An Analytical Examination of the Post-War Industrial Order, the Fallacy of Unfettered Laissez-Faire, Mechanisation, and the State-Guaranteed System of Participatory Remuneration BY OUR SPECIAL ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT IN FLEET STREET, Warren A. Lyon with Cheuy Leon Stephen Lam Tom. LONDON — In the tenth year following the cessation of European hostilities in 1955, as the Western world navigates the transition from wartime economic controls to the mid-century industrial consensus, thoughtful observers in Fleet Street, Westminster, and the City must confront a fundamental problem of political economy. The modern capitalist apparatus—stretching across the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, North America, and Western Europe—operates upon a single, immutable law: the imperative equilibrium between Supply and Demand. Yet, despite the vast expansion of mechanized production, factory automation, and electronic computation, our financial architectures continue to suffer from a crippling structural defect: the systemic failure to guarantee requisite consumer purchasing power (ability to pay/ATP) across the whole of the populace. I. THE LESSONS OF THE POST-WAR CONSCIOUSNESS: SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND THE ELECTRIC CIRCUIT To comprehend the crisis of modern industrial organization, one must discard the antiquated Victorian dogma that human existence is defined solely by manual toil. Under the classical doctrine of laissez-faire, labour was treated as an elastic commodity, hired when factories required muscle and cast aside into poverty when machines replaced handiwork. In an age dominated by automatic machinery, conveyor systems, and early electronic computing, such a doctrine is not merely obsolete; it is actively destructive to the civic health of the realm. Consider the macro-economic structure as an electrical power grid carrying a constant current of thirty amperes. Under a rational and balanced order, this current is bifurcated equally along two parallel conductors: fifteen amperes are directed to energise the lamp of Industrial Supply (the manufacturing apparatus, capital investment, and technological innovation), while the remaining fifteen amperes flow uninterrupted to power the lamp of Demand—the Ability to Pay vested within the consumer public. In an unregulated laissez-faire system, however, an artificial blockage is introduced along the conductor powering Consumer Demand. It acts as a deliberate obstruction—resembling a corkscrew jammed into the brass fittings of a ship's engine room. The electrical energy, unable to reach the lamp of Demand, encounters extreme resistance; heat builds rapidly within the circuit, insulation scorches, and the entire socio-economic edifice is threatened with catastrophic conflagration. Energy in an economic system, like energy in physics, is never destroyed; if it is denied its proper outlet in legitimate consumer spending, it manifests as market collapse, civil unrest, shoplifting, and social decay. Click here.

Post a Comment