Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Belgium/ Council of State/ [2019] 244.268

Abdurahman Mohamed, alias Armiyas Tofer vs. Belgian State
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Council of State
Decision date
17/02/2020

Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea

Title III: Equality

Article 24 - The rights of the child

Title VII: General provisions

Article 51 - Field of application

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Belgium/ Council of State/ [2019] 244.268

    Key facts of the case:

    Following the applicant’s declaration to the Guardianship Department that he was born on 5 February 2002 in Ethiopia, he was assigned a guardian on 21 February 2019. On 4 April 2019, the Immigration Office expressed concern about the applicant’s age, because to that service he is known under the alias Tofer Armiyas, who is born on 1 January 1998 in Eritrea. On 5 April 2019, the applicant underwent a medical examination (the so-called triple test, which is highly criticised in the profesional literature and at the supranational level due to the lack of reliability) to determine whether or not he is 18. The exam concluded that the applicant is 20,6 years old with a standard deviation of 2 years on 5 April 2019. The claim before the Council of State seeks to suspend in extreme urgency the implementation of the decision of the Minister of Justice of 12 April 2019 to terminate the applicant’s custody.

    Key legal question:

    The fifth complaint concerns the infringement of article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that stipulates that the best interests of the child must be the ‘primary consideration’ when public authorities or private institutions take decisions relating to a child. The applicant argues that not making use of the possibility of psycho-affective testing provided for in Article 3, last paragraph of the Royal Decree of 22 December 2003 implementing Title XIII, Chapter 6 “Guardianship of unaccompanied minors” of the Programme Law (I) of 24 December 2002 also leads to a disregard of the higher interest of the child.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Council of State does not consider the applicant’s mere allegation (that not making use of the option regarding a psycho-affective test as included in the Royal Decree leads to the disregard of the higher interest of the child, cf. art. 24(2) Charter) to be in itself enough to assume in a sufficiently concrete manner that article 51 of the Charter has been infringed, all the more so since it has been established earlier on in the case that the contested decision does not appear to infringe the principle of care or article 7 of the Guardianship Act (on guardianship of unaccompanied minors, which determines that in case of doubt about the results of the medical examination, the youngest age should be taken into account). The Council of State concludes that the applicant’s plea is not serious to the extent that the infringement of article 24(2) of the Charter is invoked.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    The applicant alleges infringement of Article 7 of Title XIII, Chapter 6 'Guardianship of unaccompanied minors' of the Program Law (I) of 24 December 2002 (hereinafter: the Guardianship Act), of 'the duty to state reasons' contained in Articles 2 and 3 of the Act of 29 July 1991 "on the explicit motivation of administrative administrative acts" (hereinafter: the Act of 29 July 1991), of the duty of care and the duty to state reasons as general principles of good governance, of Article 25 of Directive 2013/32 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 "on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast)", of Article 24 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 17 of the Revised European Social Charter of 3 May 1996. Fifth complaint: infringement of Article 24 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union According to Article 24 (2) of the Charter, the protection of the best interests of the child must be the 'essential consideration' when public authorities or private institutions adopt decisions relating to a child. Irrespective of the question whether, in light of Article 51 of the Charter that provision applies on the present dispute, the applicant's mere assertion that the failure to make use of the psycho-affective test provided for in the legislation also leads to a disregard of the overriding interest of the child, is not sufficient in itself to assume a breach of this provision in a sufficiently concrete manner, all the more so since it has been established above that the contested decision does not appear to infringe the principle of care or Article 7 of the Guardianship Act. To the extent that the infringement of Article 24 (2) of the Charter is invoked, the plea is not serious.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Verzoeker voert de schending aan van artikel 7 van Titel XIII, Hoofdstuk 6 ‘Voogdij over niet-begeleide minderjarige vreemdelingen’ van de programmawet (I) van 24 december 2002 (hierna: de voogdijwet), van “de motiveringsplicht” vervat in de artikelen 2 en 3 van de wet van 29 juli 1991 ‘betreffende de uitdrukkelijke motivering van administratieve bestuurshandelingen’ (hierna: de wet van 29 juli 1991), van de zorgvuldigheidsplicht en de motiveringsplicht als algemene beginselen van behoorlijk bestuur, van artikel 25 van Richtlijn 2013/32/EU van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 26 juni 2013 ‘betreffende gemeenschappelijke procedures voor de toekenning en intrekking van de internationale bescherming (herschikking)’, van artikel 24, lid 2 van het Handvest van de Grondrechten van de Europese Unie en van artikel 17 van het Herziene Europees Sociaal Handvest van 3 mei 1996. Vijfde grief: inzake de schending van artikel 24, lid 2 van het Handvest van de Grondrechten van de Europese Unie De bescherming van het belang van het kind moet volgens artikel 24, lid 2, van het Handvest de „essentiële overweging” zijn wanneer overheidsinstellingen of particuliere instellingen beslissingen in verband met een kind vaststellen. Los van de vraag of in het licht van artikel 51 van het Handvest te dezen op het voorliggende geschil die bepaling toepasselijk is, volstaat verzoekers enkele bewering dat het geen gebruik maken van de in de regelgeving voorziene mogelijkheid omtrent psycho-affectieve test eveneens leidt tot een miskenning van het hoger belang van een kind, op zich niet om op voldoende concrete wijze een schending van deze bepaling aan te nemen, te meer dat hiervoor is vastgesteld dat de bestreden beslissing het zorgvuldigheidsbeginsel noch artikel 7 van de voogdijwet lijkt te schenden. In de mate dat de schending van artikel 24, lid 2 van het Handvestt wordt aangevoerd, is het middel niet ernstig.