On 14 and 15 May 2026, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will meet in Chișinău (Moldova) for its 135th session. On the agenda is the adoption of a political declaration on the interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of irregular migration and the situation of foreign nationals convicted of serious offences.
The text under preparation is based on an outcome document adopted on 20 March 2026 by the Council of Europe's Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) (ref. CDDH(2026)R3_EXTRA_Addendum). The document proposes elements for the political declaration, structured around five themes: expulsion of convicted foreign nationals, mass arrivals of migrants, instrumentalisation of migration, decision-making in migration cases, and "innovative solutions" (processing asylum claims in third countries, "return hubs").
The process was launched following an Informal Ministerial Conference held in Strasbourg on 10 December 2025, itself preceded by an open letter from several European heads of State on 22 May 2025.
Belgian human rights institutions have responded
On 27 May 2025, six Belgian public human rights institutions published a joint call in response to that letter. The Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (FIRM/IFDH), the Central Council for Prison Oversight (CCSP), the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men (IEFH), Myria, the Service for Combating Poverty, Insecurity and Social Exclusion, and Unia called on the Belgian federal authorities to reaffirm their support for the Court and the Convention.
Their call rested on four observations. The open letter from heads of State fits into a growing tendency to fail to execute or to challenge judicial decisions, including in Belgium (conditions of detention, reception of applicants for international protection, length of proceedings). The letter relies on a misrepresentation of the ECtHR's case law: the Court does not prevent expulsions; it prohibits the expulsion of a person to a country where they would risk torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The prohibition of torture is absolute and non-derogable, including for convicted persons. Political authorities may not exert pressure on the courts tasked with monitoring compliance with fundamental rights.
The signatories highlighted a paradox: Belgium, a founding country of the Convention 75 years ago, was joining an initiative questioning the independence of the Court, while the federal coalition agreement itself reaffirms the country's commitment to the rule of law.
The rule of law: when the executive refuses to submit to judicial authority
The debate surrounding the Chișinău session goes beyond migration policy. It concerns the very foundations of the rule of law in Europe.
In a state governed by the rule of law, court decisions are executed. Courts, whether national or international, cannot be subjected to political pressure. The European Convention on Human Rights was adopted precisely to shield the protection of fundamental rights from the vagaries of political power. The independence of the Strasbourg Court is not an institutional privilege: it is a guarantee for every individual within the jurisdiction of a State Party.
Yet these principles are being eroded. In Belgium, the Minister for Asylum and Migration, Anneleen Van Bossuyt, has repeatedly and publicly displayed her intention not to comply with the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Council of State regarding the reception of asylum seekers.
The facts are well documented. The Minister refuses to allow Fedasil to accommodate persons who have been granted international protection in another EU Member State (so-called "M-status" holders). Knowing that the instructions issued by her predecessor, Nicole de Moor, had been annulled by the Council of State, she had a new law passed in July 2025. The Constitutional Court suspended certain provisions of that law on 26 February 2026, while simultaneously referring preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Minister then issued new instructions to Fedasil based on the former legislation. On 27 March 2026, the Council of State suspended those instructions, finding that they constituted a regulatory act similar in substance to the 2024 instructions that had already been struck down.
On the very day of that judgment, the Minister issued a press release asserting that the refusal of reception remained "perfectly possible", distorting the scope of the Council of State's decision. As observed by Jean-François Gérard, administrator of Avocats.be, in Tribune No. 288: "Reduced to its legal dimension, this amounts to saying 'I am the law'. Frightening."
Meanwhile, families with minor children are knowingly being left on the street. Respect for the rule of law is not an abstract question. It determines the concrete protection of the most vulnerable.
The problem is not only political. It is also structural. National asylum systems are chronically underfunded, including in Belgium. Delays in processing applications, the shortage of reception places and court backlogs are not the consequence of excessive fundamental rights: they result from a lack of resources. Asking the Strasbourg Court to "revisit" its interpretation of the Convention without investing in domestic systems amounts to treating the symptom while ignoring the cause.
The member States of the Council of Europe had made commitments in this regard. The Reykjavik Declaration, adopted on 17 May 2023 at the 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe, reaffirmed their "deep and abiding commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights as the ultimate guarantors of human rights across our continent, alongside our domestic democratic and judicial systems". Less than three years later, the political momentum appears to be moving in the opposite direction.
Any political declaration adopted in Chișinău should, at the very least, recall that the interpretation of the Convention is a matter for the Court and not for the political branches, and that the credibility of the Convention system depends on adequate funding for domestic courts and for the Court itself.
Why the Chișinău session matters for immigration law in Belgium
If the political declaration is adopted along the lines proposed in the CDDH document, it could shape the interpretation of the Convention in migration-related matters for years to come.
On Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), the document insists that the minimum severity threshold must "remain high and constant". This reminder comes at a time when several political voices advocate for a relaxation of that threshold in the migration context.
On Article 8 (right to private and family life), the document emphasises the margin of appreciation available to national authorities and the principle that the Court should only substitute its own assessment for that of domestic courts where there are "strong reasons" to do so.
These orientations are directly relevant to practice in Belgium, where questions of expulsion, family reunification and medical residence are the subject of regular litigation before the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CCE) and before civil courts.
Recent developments in Belgian nationality law provide a concrete illustration. The Act of 8 February 2026 "on drug testing in transition houses and on the deprivation of Belgian nationality" (published in the Belgian Official Gazette on 18 February 2026) broadens the grounds for deprivation of nationality to dual nationals convicted of organised crime (where a decisive or leading role was played), homicide or sexual offences, provided the custodial sentence exceeds five years. For terrorism convictions, the court must now rule on deprivation of its own motion.
The Council of State noted that the bill lacked justification and raised questions of constitutional compliance, particularly with regard to the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The joint opinion of Myria and FIRM/IFDH (late 2025) denounced a disproportionate extension of scope, the removal of procedural safeguards and an encroachment on judicial discretion. The ECtHR itself recalls that deprivation of nationality constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the Convention) and that it must be neither arbitrary nor disproportionate.
The fact that this Act was adopted despite the Council of State's criticism illustrates the climate in which the Chișinău session is being prepared: a climate in which warnings from courts and advisory bodies struggle to alter the course of legislative and executive action.
It is to be hoped that the declaration adopted in Chișinău will take into account the reactions of Belgian public human rights institutions and the criticism voiced by bar associations. The protection of fundamental rights, including for persons in a situation of migration, cannot rest on a judicial system whose independence is weakened by political declarations.
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