Belgian Constitutional Court Issues Ruling on Videoconferencing in Asylum Interviews

The Belgian Constitutional Court issued a significant ruling on June 18, 2026, regarding the use of videoconferencing for personal interviews in asylum cases. The court examined specific articles of the Belgian Aliens Act to determine if they complied with national constitutional protections and European data privacy standards. This legal review was prompted by concerns over how digital data is handled during the asylum process. The court's decision provides a clear framework for how government agencies must manage sensitive information when conducting remote interviews. It emphasizes the necessity of transparency regarding data usage and storage. The ruling specifically references Article 22 of the Belgian Constitution, which protects the right to privacy. This is read in conjunction with the General Data Protection Regulation, known as the GDPR, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court found that the previous legal language was insufficient because it failed to specify what metadata was being collected or how long that data would be kept. It also noted a lack of clarity regarding which individuals or departments would have access to this digital information. By failing to address these points, the court determined that the articles in question constituted a breach of privacy rights. However, the court provided a specific interpretation that allows for the continued use of videoconferencing under strict conditions. If the government ensures that these interviews are conducted in a way that respects the identified privacy standards, the practice is considered lawful. This interpretation effectively avoids a total prohibition on digital interviews while mandating higher levels of data protection. The ruling coincides with the implementation of the Act of 16 June 2026, which aligns Belgian law with the European Union’s broader Migration and Asylum Pact. This new legislation was published in the Belgian Official Gazette on June 19, 2026. The Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, or CGRS, has expressed its agreement with the court's interpretation. By following these new guidelines, the agency aims to balance the efficiency of digital tools with the fundamental rights of asylum seekers. This case highlights the ongoing global challenge of integrating modern technology into legal and administrative systems while maintaining rigorous privacy safeguards. It serves as a reminder of the role courts play in ensuring that digital transformation does not come at the expense of constitutional protections.