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

By FSJ 16/09/2025. The Housing and the Affordability issue: The architect said lets reason together as we build and design an energetic future with financially energized people; a discussion. By Mary Godwhen. Click here. BW Where would it go if I reverse engineer a "BAPE" shoe logo? Charles cares. He has vowed to have the most able and responsive Tiger economy in Europe and North America and the most safe and ably funded citizens in those regions; his citizens, his people. It is that we will be the economic winners; not losers; at the top and not the bottom...in front and not at the back. It would only take him a day to get it going. We can design anything. Certainly, anything we design demands and requires people with money for us to enjoy it; if it's a restaurant, an amusement park, a shopping centre or a town or city in general. The Bugatti sellers will have more sales and the Vauxhall owners will finally make full payment for the shopping and vacations; for their vehicles also. We do not enjoy suffering, lack or insufficiency. But maybe a vengeful bum might. Money is important. It has to be important. So, why are we incessantly brought to have this conversation about income support rather quite often when observing the economies west of Calais as run by; whom? Laissez Faire is not an economic policy but the policy of no policy in light of industrial mechanization of labor and the social problems it occasions when the families do not have enough money to buy their coal for heat, milk, bananas and vegetables. They would usually just take what they need; wherever they can take it. The economy is run by whom? The income support in Vermont, Minnesota and Massachusetts exceeds $70000.00 per year. This should be so for the whole, entire continent. But, some states and provinces, not all, are being run by income support benefit men touring boxes of undistributed emergency debit cards that they can now hand out to people in those camps. They seek public attention more than public efficacy. They have had enough time to solve the obvious. Money is the obvious issue but you wouldn't be waiting for an God fearing man to come and campaign on this issue when we know you can see the problem and solve it for us. We do not enjoy suffering, lack or insufficiency. But maybe a vengeful bum might. They are experimenting with money in terms of crypto or bit coin and its definition before they would agree to just HAVE MONEY. Money is the most important weapon in spite of all your Oppenheimer detonators that can't read help during peace time and for what when you would still need money?

Post a Comment