5.1. Revising the organisation of national reception systems

Table of contents

5.1. Revising the organisation of national reception systems
 

ar2025 s51 revising organisation reception systems icn

Several challenges and critical situations in reception in recent years have catalysed authorities in many EU+ countries to comprehensively review their reception systems (see Table 3).233 The adoption of the recast RCD 2024 spurs further changes for the management of reception, going beyond simple adjustments.234  

The pressure on reception systems decreased in a few countries in 2024, typically due to a decrease in applications – this was for example the case in Austria. Finland decreased accommodation places by not extending contracts for additional reception centres.235 In view of this, the Finnish Immigration Service encouraged some residents in reception centres (typically under temporary protection) to apply for municipality residence.236 Similarly in Sweden, many under temporary protection obtained the right to register in the population registry and transfer from reception to municipalities. Thus, a gradual outflow of persons under temporary protection also contributed to a normalisation of the reception situation. Pressure remained stable in Norway due to a continued number of persons fleeing Ukraine, so the UDI replaced temporary emergency accommodation with regular reception centres in 2024.237 However, in the beginning of 2025, the situation reversed, and the UDI decided to close down several centres hosting Ukrainians.
 
Table 3. Examples of strategic changes in national reception systems in 2024

Belgium
Belgium A legal framework was established for the use of accommodation places for returns and Dublin transfers238
Bulgaria_flag

 

 Bulgaria A comprehensive reception strategy was being drafted.239 
Denmark
Denmark Following the pilot project of the 24-hour procedure in Zürich, this working method was extended to all federal centres with procedural functions. As a result, even though the number of applications increased, the pressure on the reception system was eased, with the average length of stay decreasing as well. Furthermore, this led to fewer security incidents in reception facilities
Ireland
Ireland The government presented a new comprehensive accommodation strategy for international protection applicants. The strategy aims to reform the system over the medium and long term, moving away from a full reliance on private service providers towards a core of state-owned accommodation.240 
Lithuania
Lithuania Following the reorganisation and restructuring of the Refugee Reception Centre, a new Reception and Integration Agency was established, with operations starting in January 2025.241
Luxembourg
Luxembourg A new centre was established for people of the following profiles: i) people in the Dublin procedure; ii) people awaiting a voluntary return after their applications for international protection have been definitively rejected and where all possible appeals have been exhausted; iii) occasionally, irregular third-country nationals who did not apply for international protection.
Netherlands
Netherlands The Distribution Act came into force, aiming to ensure more structural reception places and a more balanced distribution of applicants across the country. The new government announced its intention to withdraw this act, as a way to deter new applications, but the act remained in force in 2024 and its implementation was ongoing, with strong support from COA and the majority of municipalities.242 
Sweden
Sweden Following a government assignment, the SMA prepared for a reformed reception system with accommodation based on collective reception centres or return centres for rejected applicants.243  Since 1 March 2025, applicants are entitled to financial support if they live in the facility they were assigned to. Under certain circumstances exceptions can be made, for example, if an applicant lives with immediate family, assuming they are residents in Sweden. Applicants are also obliged to participate in courses on the Swedish society.244
Switzerland
Switzerland Following the pilot project of the 24-hour procedure in Zürich, this working method was extended to all federal centres with procedural functions. As a result, even though the number of applications increased, the pressure on the reception system was eased, with the average length of stay decreasing as well. Furthermore, this led to fewer security incidents in reception facilities.245


In contrast, reception systems remained saturated in the Benelux and Ireland,246 despite the fact that new places were opened and additional staff were recruited in each country.247 Belgium had a record number of reception places in 2024 but still was unable to meet demand.248 In addition to continuously high numbers of applications and delays in asylum procedures, each country experienced issues with outflow from reception, as several rejected applicants overstayed while recognised beneficiaries could not transfer to their own accommodation due to a general housing crisis. Court judgments condemned national authorities for failing to provide reception to applicants or to abide by agreements with municipalities, and obliged many authorities to pay penalties in these cases.249 In its appeal to one of the judgments, the Dutch Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) underlined that the penalties did not solve the issue of the overcrowded initial reception centre in Ter Apel, and allocating asylum seekers to other crowded reception centres would mean a violation of agreements with these municipalities as well.250