As a follow-up to the 2014 EMN study on the same topic, this EMN study identifies similarities, differences, practical challenges, and best practices in the use of detention and alternatives to detention in the Member States within the framework of both international protection and return procedures between 2015 and 2021.

National study:

The national study focuses on the different processes and practices regarding deten­tion and its alternatives in Belgium.

It gives an overview of the evolution of the Belgian policy regarding detention and its alternatives over the past few years. Recent developments include the establishment of an "alternatives to detention" department in the Immigration Office and the opening of Individual Case Management (ICAM) offices.

The study further provides an overview of the grounds on which a decision for detention can be based, including an overview of the number of detention decisions per year.

Subsequently, an overview is provided of the appeal procedures that the Belgian legislation prescribes. Complementary, a chapter is dedicated to some criticism of national stakeholders on this appeal system. Some of the criticism focuses on the lack of substantial judicial review when appealing a detention decision, as well as on the lack of clarity when applying a detention decision on the basis of a "risk of absconding".

In line with the international and European legislative framework, Belgian practice and policy pays special attention to certain categories of vulnerable persons. The study highlights how these vulnerabilities are taken into account when deciding on the implementation of an alternative to detention or, in turn, when a decision is taken and individuals are detained. Another chapter focuses on which rights individuals – not necessarily vulnerable - can rely upon when they are detained.

Finally, the study provides an overview of how alternatives to detention are implemented in practice. This chapter includes an overview of the actors involved in the procedures, the way in which practical implementation relates to the legal bases, and the specific purposes for which detention alternatives are used.

EU synthesis report:

The EU synthesis report highlights inter alia the following findings:

• The most frequently used alternatives to detention are: reporting obligations; the requirement to reside at a designated location; the obligation to surrender a passport or identity document; the requirement to communicate an address; and release on bail. Other alternatives used include financial guarantees, community management programmes, and compulsory return counselling.
   
• Several alternatives to detention, such as residence requirements, release on bail, surrender of document or compulsory stay in reception facilities, can be difficult to apply in practice, for example because of the limited financial means of third-country nationals, the absence of valid identity or travel documents, and the limited availability of places in dedicated reception facilities.
   
• Several criteria, such as the level of risk of absconding, vulnerability, and the suitability of available alternatives, are considered when deciding whether to apply detention or an alternative to detention.
   
• Limited data are available to measure the impact of detention or alternatives to detention on the effectiveness of Member States’ return policies and international protection procedures.

For further information, please read the Belgian study and the EU synthesis report above, as well as the related Inform and Flash.