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