Order;Information — ECLI:EU:C:2021:374
Date: 2021-05-05
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Asylum policy;Justice and home affairs;Area of freedom, security and justice;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Anonymised version 
Translation C-641/20 – 1 
Case C-641/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
26 November 2020 
Referring court: 
Tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
12 November 2020 
Applicant: 
VT 
Defendant: 
Centre public d’action sociale de Liège (CPAS) 
  
… 
Tribunal du Travail de Liège – Division Liège 
(Labour Court, Liège (Liège Section)) 
Judgment of the Ninth Chamber of 12 November 2020 
In the proceedings between: 
… VT, residing at … in … LIEGE 
Applicant … 
and: 
THE CPAS DE LIEGE (PUBLIC SOCIAL WELFARE CENTRE, 
LIEGE), … LIEGE … 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 11. 2020 – CASE C-641/20 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
Defendant, … 
… 
Having heard the parties … at the hearing of 8 October 2020; 
… 
I. THE APPLICATION 
By application of 17 August 2020, … VT contests a decision of the CPAS de 
Liège (Public Social Welfare Centre, Liège (‘the Liège CPAS’)) of 17 June 2020 
refusing the social assistance equivalent to the social integration income at the 
single-person rate with effect from 2 June 2020. 
The reasons formally stated for the decision subject to appeal are as follows: 
‘You have not satisfied the condition related to nationality since 24 April 
2020. 
The Office des étrangers (Immigration Office) has decided to withdraw from 
you the refugee status granted on [Or. 2] 29 May 2018. In addition, you 
have been staying in the country illegally since 23 April 2020. 
You have received notification that you may no longer reside in the country 
been ordered to leave the national territory.’ 
The applicant is seeking social assistance with effect from 2 June 2020 and 
suggests, before a ruling is given, that a question is referred to the Court of Justice 
of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. In the event that the national court 
were to agree to that suggestion, he is seeking the provisional grant of assistance. 
II. ADMISSIBILITY 
The application is admissible … 
III. FACTS 
… VT was born on 3 March 1976 and is of Iraqi nationality. 
On 8 September 2015, he filed an application for asylum, as a result of which he 
was granted the status of political refugee on 24 August 2016. 
The applicant travelled to and stayed in his country of origin from 11 to 
17 December 2017 in order to attend a funeral. 
CPAS DE LIÈGE 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
The status of political refugee was withdrawn from him by decision of 28 May 
2018 of the CGRA (Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons; 
(‘the CGRA’)); that decision was upheld by a judgment of 31 January 2020 of the 
Conseil du contentieux des étrangers (Council for asylum and immigration 
proceedings). 
During the period in which he was in the national territory lawfully, the applicant 
received the income replacement allowance for disabled people and an integration 
allowance fixed at the 9-point level in accordance with the general certificate 
recognising his disability. 
On 24 April 2020, a decision was taken to withdraw his right of residence and 
order him to leave the national territory. An appeal is pending before the Council 
for asylum and immigration proceedings. 
Payment of his disability allowances was stopped on an unspecified date. 
On 2 June 2020, the applicant appeared before the defendant. 
On 8 June 2020, the applicant submitted an application that his residence be 
deemed lawful on medical grounds in accordance with Article 9b of the Law of 
15 June 1980[;] a ruling has not yet been given on that application. 
IV. DISCUSSION 
The applicant draws a parallel between his situation and the, now former, situation 
of an applicant for refugee status appealing against a decision of the CGRA or the 
CPRR (Permanent Refugee Appeals Commission; ‘the CPRR’)) under the former 
procedure. He raises a plea in law based on Article 159 of the Constitution and 
alleging infringement of Article 11(3) of the Law of 15 December 1980. He 
considers that there are serious medical grounds which entirely prevent him from 
complying with an order to leave the national territory, and points out that he has 
submitted an Article 9b application for his residence to be deemed lawful on 
which  [Or. 3] a ruling has not yet been given. 
For its part, the centre is of the view that the applicant is in the country illegally 
within the meaning of Article 57(2) of the Law of 8 July 1976, that he cannot 
benefit from the “Abdida” case-law and that his state of health is not sufficiently 
worrying to prove the existence of serious medical grounds. In the alternative, the 
centre questions the need for assistance. 
In her oral opinion, the Auditeur (Court Official) finds that the applicant’s health 
situation is serious and that there is every reason to believe that it is worsening. 
She is of the view that the need for assistance cannot be seriously questioned. 
However, she does observe that the applicant benefited from a social security 
scheme – disability allowances about which nothing is known – and notes that, 
although subsidiary, that scheme is at a lower rate than social assistance. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 11. 2020 – CASE C-641/20 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
V. DECISION OF THE COURT 
Leaving aside the applicant’s serious illness, which is incontestable, and the 
consequences that that illness may have on his residence status[,] in particular in 
the light of the judgment of 30 June 1999 of the Cour constitutionnelle 
(Constitutional Court), [which was] at the time [the] Cour d’arbitrage (Court of 
Arbitration), or even of the “Abdida” case-law or the recent judgments of the ECJ 
of the 30 September 2020, it is still necessary to determine whether the applicant 
is actually being prevented from residing legally in the country not within the 
meaning of the Law of 15 December 1980[,] but in fact within the meaning of 
Article 57(2) of the Law of 8 July 1976. 
If, in order to continue to receive social assistance, it is a legal requirement that a 
foreign national is suffering from a serious illness and/or has applied for his 
residence to be deemed lawful grounds at such or such a stage in the procedure, 
that finding remains a requirement to determine, if not the right of residence, then 
at least the right to social assistance. 
In addition, although that is clear that the applicant no longer has the status of 
political refugee, that his residence permit has been withdrawn from him and that 
he has been ordered to leave the national territory, such that he is exercising a 
remedy which, as a matter of law, is not suspensory, it must be observed that, as 
far as the unsuccessful (applicant for) political refugee (status) is concerned, the 
abovementioned Article 57(2) provides that: 
‘By derogation from the other provisions of this Law, the functions of the 
public social welfare centre shall be limited to: 
1. the grant of urgent medical assistance, in respect of a foreign national 
residing illegally in the Kingdom; … 
A foreign national who has claimed to be a refugee and applied to be 
recognised as such is residing illegally in the Kingdom if the application for 
asylum has been rejected and an enforceable 1 order to leave the national 
territory has been notified to the foreign national in question.’ 
[Or. 4] 
The Law of 15 July 1996 had inserted the word ‘enforceable’, which replaced the 
word ‘final’ that had appeared in the provision previously. 
By its judgment 43/98 of 22 April 1998, cited by the applicant, the Constitutional 
Court declared the word ‘enforceable’ void, ruling as follows: 
‘By providing that a person who has received a final order to leave the 
national territory on a specified date will not, if he has failed to comply, 
 
1 Emphasis added by the referring court. 
CPAS DE LIÈGE 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
receive any further social assistance, with the sole exception of urgent 
medical assistance, the legislature had used, as the Court found in its 
judgment No 51/94, a method the effects of which enable the objective 
pursued to be achieved, that is to say to encourage the person concerned to 
comply with the order received. That method was not disproportionate to 
that objective since it guaranteed that a person who wished to leave the 
national territory on his own initiative and who made clear that intention 
would receive social assistance over the period, limited to one month, 
“strictly required to allow the foreign national to leave the national 
territory” as well as urgent medical assistance without delay. 
B.32.  However, since, in order to put an end to differences in 
interpretation, the legislature replaces the word “final” with the word 
“enforceable”, the foreign national is denied social assistance even if he has 
brought an action for annulment, whether or not accompanied by an 
application for suspension, which is pending before the Conseil d’État 
(Council of State). 
B.33.  It is for the Court to examine whether such a provision is not 
discriminatory in that it is prejudicial, to the detriment of one category of 
persons, to the right to social assistance and the right to the effective 
exercise of a judicial remedy. 
B.34.  The rules of procedure applicable before the Council of State allow 
applications for suspension and actions for annulment that are manifestly 
inadmissible or manifestly unfounded to be rejected forthwith (Articles 12 to 
15 of the arrêté royal du 5 décembre 1991 déterminant la procédure en 
référé devant le Conseil d’État (Royal Decree of 5 December 1991 
governing interlocutory proceedings before the Council of State); 
Articles 93 and 94 of the arrêté du Régent du 23 août 1948 déterminant la 
procédure devant la section d’administration du Conseil d’État (Decree of 
the Regent of 23 August 1948 governing the procedure before the 
administrative section of the Council of State)). Such a procedure allows 
proceedings brought solely with the objective of prolonging unduly the 
receipt of social assistance to be rejected within a shorter timeframe than 
that provided for in Articles 11, 22, 58 and 59 of the Law of 15 July 1996. 
B.35.  In view of the fact that there is a procedure that allows actions 
brought to delay matters to be filtered out, it is excessive to provide, in 
addition, that all asylum applicants whose application has been rejected and 
who, on that ground, have received an order to leave the national territory 
are denied the right to social assistance, even though they have challenged 
before the Council of State the decision of the Commissioner General for 
Refugees and Stateless Persons, adopted pursuant to Article 63/3 of the law, 
or that of the Permanent Refugee Appeals Commission. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 11. 2020 – CASE C-641/20 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
B.36  Given the nature of the principles at issue, the contested measure 
appears to restrict disproportionately the exercise of the [Or. 5] 
fundamental rights referred to in B.33. It therefore infringes Articles 10 and 
11 of the Constitution. 
B.37  The word “enforceable” in the third and fourth subparagraphs of 
new Article 57(2) of the loi organique des centres publics d’aide sociale 
(Basic Law on Public Social Welfare Centres) must be declared void.’ 
The CPAS has not stated its position on this matter. 
In now longstanding judgment 51/94 of 29 June 1994, the Constitutional Court 
held: 
‘By thereby providing that a person who has received a final order to leave 
the national territory before a specified date knows that, if he has failed to 
comply, he will cease to receive, one month after that date, any further 
assistance from the public social welfare centres, with the sole exception of 
urgent medical assistance, the legislature adopted, with a view to 
encouraging the person concerned to comply with the order received, a 
method the effects of which allow the objective pursued to be achieved. That 
method is not disproportionate to that objective since it guarantees for the 
person concerned the material assistance necessary to leave the national 
territory, for one month, and urgent medical assistance without delay.’ 
On the basis of a combined reading of those two judgments, it may be concluded 
that[,] although it is not unreasonable to deny social assistance to an unsuccessful 
candidate for refugee status, in the present case a political refugee whose status 
has been withdrawn and who is in a similar situation since his order [to leave] the 
leave territory has become final, it is, however, unreasonable to proceed thus as 
soon as that order has become enforceable[,] that is to say on expiry of the 
deadline to enforce it. 
Although ‘final’ means that the order to leave the national territory is no longer 
appealable, or at very least not by ordinary avenues of appeal, ‘enforceable’ 
means that the deadline to enforce voluntarily the order to leave has expired such 
that, theoretically, the office may proceed with an enforced repatriation. 
The applicant’s situation is therefore fairly similar to that which existed, before 
2007, for unsuccessful asylum applicants who were appealing, before the Council 
of State, a decision by the CGRA that the relevant application was inadmissible or 
a decision of the CPRR that it was unfounded. 
There are, however, limits to the comparison of the situations. This is the case a 
fortiori since, given the developments in legislation and in case-law, the view 
certainly cannot be taken that the applicant’s situation is entirely identical with 
that of an unsuccessful asylum applicant under the former procedure, and nor – 
incidentally – does the applicant claim that this is so. 
CPAS DE LIÈGE 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
It therefore appears appropriate to refer the question for a preliminary ruling as 
suggested. 
The question is thus raised of the grant of social assistance on a provisional basis 
until the Court of Justice has replied to the question referred for a preliminary 
ruling, or even until the Council for asylum and immigration proceedings has 
ruled on the appeal. 
[Or. 6] 
Contrary to the centre’s contention, the need for assistance is scarcely contestable. 
The grant of social assistance on a provisional basis is all the more appropriate 
given that winter has begun and the applicant’s state of health is hardly great. 
The court draws the attention of the applicant and of the applicant to the fact that 
the grant of provisional assistance will be conditional upon developments in the 
applicant’s residence status. 
Thus, a decision in the negative by the Council for asylum and immigration 
proceedings on the withdrawal of the residence permit may, as stated above, entail 
the end of the grant of assistance, just as, conversely, a decision ruling positively 
on the Article 9b application that the applicant’s residence be deemed lawful will 
mean that the situation has to be reviewed. 
The court does not consider it wise, at this stage, to address the subsidiary aspect 
of the application, namely the serious medical reasons, which may be considered 
as part of a second stage in the light of the decision taken by the Immigration 
Office or of any appeal against a decision in the negative by that office. 
In addition, the applicant is urged to appeal against the decision denying him the 
disability allowances. 
Finally, the court can only deplore the applicant’s arrogant, if not aggressive, 
attitude to the social workers, who are merely doing their job – a job that is far 
from easy – and are in no way responsible for the situation in which the applicant 
finds himself, which is solely the result of his inconsistency. The court cannot 
draw from such conduct any conclusion having a bearing on the right to social 
assistance, but does however warn the applicant that failure to cooperate may be 
prejudicial to the right to social assistance. 
ON THOSE GROUNDS, 
THE COURT, after hearing the parties’ arguments, 
… 
Refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 
preliminary ruling: 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 11. 2020 – CASE C-641/20 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
‘Where a Member State decides to withdraw from a refugee his status as such, 
pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2011/95, and then to withdraw his [right of] 
residence and order him to leave the national territory, are Articles 7 and 13 of 
Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for 
returning illegally staying third-country nationals[,] read in accordance with 
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be 
interpreted as meaning that the person concerned retains a [Or. 7] provisional 
right of residence and his social rights while the judicial remedy brought against 
the decision to end his residence and to return him is being examined?’; 
Orders the Liège CPAS to grant, from the date of this judgment, and subject to the 
conditions set out in the grounds, provisional social assistance equivalent to the 
social integration income at the single-person rate to the applicant; 
Reserves its decision as to the remainder of the application; 
Declares the judgment enforceable subject to the conditions laid down in 
[judgment] 197/2009 of the Constitutional Court; 
…