ECHR condemns Belgium for failing to provide sufficient safeguards in age assessment of foreign national
The European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of F.B. v. Belgium, finding that Belgium failed to provide sufficient procedural safeguards in the decision-making process regarding the applicant’s age assessment. The Court concluded that this process violated her right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention. In particular, it highlighted the lack of informed consent and the failure to explore less intrusive methods before conducting medical tests.
On 6 March 2025, the European Court of Human Rights its decision in the case of F.B. v. Belgium. The case concerns a Guinean national who arrived in Belgium on 2 August 2019 and applied for international protection on 5 August 2019, claiming to be 16 years old. She submitted a non-legalised copy of her birth certificate and stated that she had fled her country to escape mistreatment resulting from a forced marriage. The Belgian authorities expressed doubts as to F.B.’s minor status, and she was subjected to a medical age assessment, which concluded she was 21.7 years old. The applicant complained that the decision to terminate her entitlement to support as an unaccompanied foreign minor following an age assessment had interfered with her right to respect for her private life.
The Court reiterated the importance of patients’ free and informed consent to medical procedures and pointed out that there was no indication in the file that the applicant had actually been informed of the need for her consent to the medical test. In addition it emphasised that, given their invasive nature, medical examinations should only be performed as a last resort, where alternative means of dispelling doubts as to the age of the person concerned had yielded inconclusive results. In this connection, it noted that the applicant had been interviewed by an employee of the guardianship office who was specially trained in the reception of minors only after the bone tests had been performed, whereas a preliminary interview could potentially have made it possible to ascertain whether the doubt as to the her minor status could be dispelled by less intrusive means.
The Court found, without ruling on the reliability of the bone tests or on the applicant’s minor status, that the decision-making process that had resulted in the decision to terminate her entitlement to support as an unaccompanied foreign minor had not been surrounded by sufficient safeguards for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court held that Belgium was to pay the applicant 5,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
For further details, please read the press release from the Court (attached below) or the full judgment (in French).