Belgium is widely recognised as one of the most LGBTQI+-friendly countries in Europe. Public support for LGBTQI+-rights is high, with the 2025 ILGA-Europe Rainbow Map ranking Belgium second in Europe, which reflects strong legal protections and a generally inclusive atmosphere. Events like Antwerp Pride and Brussels Pride are major public celebrations that attract tens of thousands of people and have strong backing from city governments and society. These celebrations do not only celebrate diversity, but also create platforms for awareness, activism, and inclusion. According to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 68% of the LGBTQI+ community in Belgium feels comfortable being open about their identity in most aspects of their lives. 

The openness to the LGBTQI+-community is reinforced by media and political discourse. Belgian mainstream media frequently features characters who are part of the LGBTQI+ community and public broadcasters such as the Dutch-speaking Vlaamse Radio- en Televisieomroeporganisatie (VRT) and the French-speaking Radio-télévision belge de la Communauté française (RTBF) include LGBTQI+ voices in their content, helping to normalise diverse identities. Politically, Belgium has made history by appointing openly LGBTQI+ ministers such as Petra De Sutter, Europe’s first transgender Minister, and Elio Di Rupo, one of the world’s first openly gay prime ministers. On both federal and local level, political support is visible. By way of example, the Brussels government raises the rainbow flag each year on May 17, the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (IDAHOT) and has adopted a dedicated LGBTQIA+ inclusion plan for the Brussels Region. Antwerp has several rainbow flag crossings throughout the city and takes several initiatives to promote inclusion as well. 

Despite this progressive framework, many LGBTQI+ individuals still face discrimination and violence. The Belgian Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities (UNIA) has dealt with around 130 cases related to sexual orientation in 2024 (against 176 cases in 2021), 35% of which were considered as hate crimes. Cases of violence on the basis of sexuality and gender-identity include, among others, violent attacks targeting LGBTQI+ people through dating apps. Victims are lured to meetings and then physically assaulted or robbed. The reporting rates remain low; only 20% report physical or sexual attacks to the police. 

Trans and intersex individuals in particular continue to face challenges related to public visibility and systematic discrimination. One in five trans and intersex people were physically or sexually attacked in the five years before the survey conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in 2019, double that of other LGBTQI+ groups. 

The Belgian police and justice system have made progress, especially in recognising homophobic and transphobic violence as hate crimes. Several police zones (e.g. in Brussels), now have officers trained to support LGBTQI+ victims. Nevertheless, many victims still hesitate to report due to fear of secondary victimisation or disbelief. To counter this, UNIA has proposed a system of contact points, either physical with several local points throughout Belgium, by telephone, or through an online form. 

For LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers, the situation remains complex. While Belgian asylum law does offer protection to individuals fleeing persecution due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, NGOs have pointed out some serious gaps in implementation. A 2025 report by Prisme noted insufficient action against LGBTQI+-related violence by the Belgian federal agency for the reception of asylum seekers (Fedasil) reception centres management, a need for specialised accommodation centres, financial obstacles, lack of professional training, and the excessive delays of procedures. 

Several organisations in Belgium are focused on creating a safe and inclusive environment for the LGBTQI+ community, and are trying to fill the gaps mentioned above. A list of some of these organisations is listed below under the heading “List of organisations/individuals providing support to LGBTQI+ individuals”. The advocacy of several of these organisations has led to increased political attention to the specific vulnerabilities of refugees part of the LGBTQI+ community. 

In conclusion, while Belgium offers a highly supportive legal and social environment for the LGBTQI+-community, challenges remain in everyday safety, social acceptance, and access to protection.

• Togolese man v Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS), Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) (20/01/2025) (available in French)
  The CGRS argued that involvement in LGBTQI+ rights groups and related events alone does not prove the applicant’s sexual orientation. In appeal, the CALL rejected this by stating that the CGRS only conducted a shallow investigation into the applicant’s personal relationship and community involvement. The CALL noted that the applicant submitted a partner’s testimony and multiple documents showing his active role in the LGBTQI+ community, which allowed the conclusion that he was homosexual. Since the CGRS did not dispute the homophobic context in Togo, the CALL concluded that the applicant’s fear of persecution in Togo based on his sexual orientation was well-founded and granted him refugee status.
  
• Iraqi man v Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS), Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) (22/10/2024) (available in French)
  The CALL determined that, even without a personal history of persecution, LGBTQI+ individuals in Iraq may face a well-founded fear of being prosecuted. Because law enforcement and influential societal figures in Iraq are involved in the mistreatment and discrimination of LGBTQI+ individuals, these persons cannot reasonably expect protection from the Iraqi authorities. Thus, the CALL granted refugee status to the applicant based on a well-founded fear of persecution.

• Nigerian man v Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS), Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) (10/01/2024) (available in Dutch)
  The CGRS initially rejected the asylum application, finding the applicant’s claimed sexual orientation not credible. It concluded that his statements did not demonstrate he was homosexual or would be perceived as such in Nigeria (i.e. prior to his arrival in Belgium), and therefore found no real risk of persecution. The CGRS also noted a lack of depth and consistency in his account, no knowledge of LGBTQI+ organisations in Nigeria or Belgium, and that regional violence in Nigeria was not severe enough to pose a real risk of serious harm solely due to presence in those areas. On appeal, the CALL overturned the CGRS decision, finding the applicant’s explanations about accepting his sexuality in Belgium sincere and plausible. The CALL also considered the applicant’s message exchanges with other homosexual individuals and found his account consistent and detailed. As the CGRS did not dispute the enforcement of anti-homosexuality laws or lack of protection in Nigeria, the CALL granted refugee status.
• Lebanese man v Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS), Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) (26/10/2022) (available in Dutch)
  The CGRS did not dispute the applicant’s homosexual orientation. The applicant’s partner, E.A., had already been granted refugee status. The applicant and E.A. fled Lebanon because E.A.’s father, a high-ranking military intelligence officer, posed a threat. In an earlier case relating to the same applicant, the CGRS found inconsistencies in the statements about E.A.’s father’s role, but the CALL annulled that decision and ordered further investigation. In this case, the CGRS accepted the father as a persecuting actor but argued that recent violence in Lebanon was limited and targeted, so the situation did not amount to “generalised violence” under Belgian asylum law (Article 48/4, §2, c). The CGRS also noted that asylum cannot be granted solely on the basis of family ties to a refugee; a personal, credible fear of persecution is required. On appeal, the CALL annulled the decision again, finding that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Lebanon due to his sexual orientation and relationship with E.A. The CALL found it likely that E.A.’s father and other family members were aware of the relationship, forcing the applicant to live discreetly. Given the discrimination and mistreatment faced by LGBTQI+ individuals in Lebanon, including from authorities, and the lack of effective internal protection, the applicant qualified for refugee status.
• Brazilian men v Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS), Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) (14/07/2022) (available in French)
  The CALL held that, in line with EU law and CJEU rulings (C-199/12, C-200/12, C-201/12), violations of the fundamental rights of homosexual asylum applicants can amount to persecution, and the criminalisation of homosexual acts constitutes an act of persecution. In this case, the applicants were HIV-positive homosexual men from Brazil. The CALL reviewed Brazilian laws and regulations on homosexuality, as required by the CJEU, and found they did not justify a general presumption of persecution for all homosexual persons returning to Brazil. However, given then-President-elect Jair Bolsonaro’s openly homophobic rhetoric and the legitimisation of homophobic acts, the CALL concluded that the applicants, due to their specific profile as HIV-positive homosexual men, faced a real risk of discrimination if returned.
• Colombian man v Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS), Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) (11/06/2021) (available in Dutch)
  This case concerned a male homosexual applicant from Colombia whose stepfather had been granted refugee status due to the risk of being targeted by criminal groups for his political convictions, and whose aunt was recognised as a refugee in Belgium because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on her sexuality. The CGRS found that the applicant’s own fear of persecution on the basis of his homosexuality could not be inferred from his family members’ situations. On appeal, the CALL held that the applicant’s close ties to family members already recognised as refugees established his vulnerability to acts of persecution. The CALL further found that it could not reasonably be expected that the Colombian authorities would provide effective protection. Consequently, the applicant was granted refugee status.
• Cameroonian man v Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS), Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) (20/05/2020) (available in French)
  The central issue in this case was whether the applicant’s claim of persecution based on his sexual orientation was credible. The CGRS rejected the application, finding the applicant’s narrative inconsistent and unconvincing, and concluding he was not homosexual nor had suffered the alleged persecution. On appeal, the CALL disagreed, determining that the evidence – including testimonies, documents, and a medical report confirming scars consistent with past violence – substantiated both the applicant’s homosexuality and the link to ill-treatment. While the CALL acknowledged inconsistencies regarding the applicant’s timeline, it found the proven violence in 2014 sufficient to trigger the presumption of persecution for homosexuals under Article 48/7 of the Alien Act. The CALL therefore granted refugee status.