A new law enters into force on 12 June 2026, replacing the entire procedural framework before the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CCE). Some provisions streamline a body of rules that needed updating. Others raise substantive questions under EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights that courts at both the European and Belgian constitutional level will likely be asked to resolve.
What the law does
The law replaces Articles 39/1 to 39/85 of the Act of 15 December 1980 with a self-contained procedural code. It creates a three-track procedure: ordinary (30-day appeal period), accelerated (10 days, covering Dublin transfers, CGRA inadmissibility decisions and return orders combined with removal), and urgent (5 days, covering border procedures, certain inadmissibility decisions accompanied by detention, and refusals of entry). Belgium has chosen, in most cases, the shortest deadline permitted by EU law. AVOCATS.BE, in an unsolicited opinion dated 24 March 2026, noted that Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 expressly allows up to 21 days for appeals against transfer decisions, whereas the new law retains 10.
The main changes in practice
Written procedure becomes the default. Article 2.45 makes oral hearings the exception: a party wishing to be heard must now specifically request it, identifying the precise point of the order on which it wishes to make submissions. Without such a request, the judge may rule without a hearing. The President of the CCE himself had noted, at a parliamentary committee meeting on 12 February 2025, that both the ECHR and the EU Charter guarantee the right to a public hearing and that written procedure should remain exceptional. Nothing in the EU Migration and Asylum Pact required this reversal.
Applications are capped at 25 pages. Beyond that limit, the applicant must append a summary of no more than 10 pages, and grounds not included in the summary are legally deemed abandoned (Article 2.18, paragraph 3). AVOCATS.BE described this as "manifestly disproportionate formalism" in proceedings where applicants are frequently detained, non-native speakers of the procedural language, or dependent on legal aid. No other Belgian administrative court imposes a comparable restriction.
Article 2.11 creates a confidentiality regime under which a lawyer given access to a decisive document may not communicate its content verbatim to the client. The Court of Justice of the European Union held, in ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-300/11, 4 June 2013), that the essence of the grounds must be communicated to the person concerned in a way that fully respects the rights of the defence. Whether Article 2.11 meets that standard remains to be tested.
Age assessment
A new Article 74bis inserted into the Act of 15 December 1980 confirms that appeals against age assessment decisions remain within the jurisdiction of the Council of State. The European Court of Human Rights had already found, in F.B. v. Belgium of 6 March 2025, that the Belgian age assessment procedure did not provide sufficient guarantees under Article 8 ECHR. This reform does not address that judgment.
Decisions notified before 12 June 2026
The Minister clarified in parliamentary committee that the new time limits apply only to decisions notified on or after 12 June 2026. Earlier decisions remain subject to the old regime, regardless of when the appeal is actually filed.
If you have received a decision
Check the date on which the decision was notified to you. Time limits vary according to the type of decision and, from 12 June 2026 onwards, according to the new procedural track. In several situations, you have only 5 to 10 days. Do not delay seeking advice.
ALTEA has been tracking this reform since the bill was tabled in March 2026. Contact us at
Céline Verbrouck
Attorney at the Brussels Bar
Specialised in immigration law, nationality law and international family law
www.altea.be
+32 2 894 45 70