Author
The Aliens Act defines as vulnerable persons: minors (accompanied and unaccompanied), disabled persons, pregnant women, elderly persons, single parents with minor children and persons having suffered torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence.[1]
The Reception Act mentions more profiles, and reflects the non-exhaustive list contained in Article 21 of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, referring to ‘children, unaccompanied children, single parents with minor children, pregnant women, disabled persons, victims of human trafficking, elderly persons, persons with serious illness, persons suffering from mental disorders and persons having suffered torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence, such as victims of female genital mutilation’.[2] However, there is no common policy nor practice, both regarding the asylum procedure and reception, to address the situation of all vulnerable applicants.[3]
Screening of vulnerability
Both the Immigration Office and the CGRS have own arrangements in place for the identification of vulnerable groups.
The Registration Unit of the Immigration Office screens all applicants upon registration on their potential vulnerability and in view of special procedural needs. The employees of the Registration Unit receive training in the detection of vulnerabilities and can ask assistance of the Vulnerability Unit,[4] which consists of officials who are trained to identify vulnerabilities and to conduct interviews with persons with a vulnerable profile.[5] The Immigration Office uses a registration form in which it is indicated if a person is a (unaccompanied) minor, + 65 years old, pregnant, a single woman, LGBTI, a victim of trafficking, victim of violence (physical, sexual, psychological), has children, or has medical or psychological problems.[6] These categories offer a broader definition than the one provided in the Aliens Act and the Reception Act. The form further offers an empty space for additional information, often used in practice to indicate urgent needs, e.g. medical needs.
At the CGRS level, the identification and assessment processes is not limited to detecting vulnerabilities as such but rather lies in identifying and assessing the need for special procedural guarantees arising from one or more vulnerabilities (see Special procedural guarantees). Two vulnerability-orientated units have been established that render support to protection officers dealing with such cases:
- A ‘Gender Unit’ trained following the EUAA module on Gender, Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation helps ensure that gender-related applications for international protection are adequately addressed. Gender-related asylum applications include claims based on sexual orientation, gender identity or sexual characteristics (LGBTI), fear of undergoing Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), honour crimes, forced marriages, domestic violence, sexual violence;[7]
- A ‘Minors Unit’, headed by an appointed coordinator, ensures a harmonised approach, information exchange and exchange of best practices. Unaccompanied minors are only interviewed by specially trained protection officers, who follow the EUAA training module on Interviewing Children.[8]
Since 2023, the CGRS is implementing a project with financial support from the EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) which particularly addresses vulnerabilities and special procedural needs of a medical or psychological nature[9]. The project examines possibilities regarding early identification and provision of information to applicants with medical and/or psychological vulnerabilities, the development of trainings and tools for protection officers and the elaboration of the possibility for the CGRS to request medical recommendations from a healthcare professional. In the context of this project and with input fr the Superior Health Council and the medical service of Fedasil, the CGRS published recommendations on the use of medical elements in the asylum procedure in July 2024. The recommendations enumerate the situations in which elements relating to the medical situation of the applicant can be relevant, and contains recommendations related to the form and content of the medical reports that are drawn up. [10] The CGRS has organised several online information sessions for professionals in the (mental) heath care sector and other stakeholders to inform about these recommendations and gather input for further finetuning. Further, the CGRS compiled several practical information sheets for its protection officers. These sheets address emotional and physical reactions related to trauma that may occur among applicants and that can affect the personal interview. In addition, the CGRS has developed two internal workshops for protection officers: one focusing on the practical application of the information sheets, and another on the interpretation of medical and psychological documents submitted during the asylum procedure. The CGRS also regularly organizes information sessions for protection officers, to which external experts are invited to speak on topics related to vulnerability in the asylum procedure. Finally, the CGRS coordinates two thematic working groups aimed at improving the participation of applicants with physical and/or mental vulnerabilities during the personal interview and at strengthening the framework used to assess their applications. The CGRS aims to continue this work within the framework of a new AMIF‑funded project in 2026–2027.[11]
At the moment of registration, unaccompanied children applying for asylum are handed the brochure ‘Guide for the unaccompanied Minor who applies for asylum in Belgium’, published by the CGRS in different languages. The Aliens Act also has specific provisions on the procedures for unaccompanied children when they do not apply for asylum. Unaccompanied children should always be accompanied by their guardians during interviews. In contrast, accompanied children who apply separately or who request to be heard by the CGRS during the procedure of their parents should only be accompanied by the lawyer and person of trust during the first interview. If there are more interviews at a later stage, the CGRS can also interview the child alone.[12]
Age assessment of unaccompanied children
The Guardianship service has the general mission to streamline a system of tutors (guardians) intended to find a durable solution for unaccompanied children who are not EU citizens in Belgium, whether they apply for asylum or not (see Legal representation of unaccompanied children). The service must first check the identity of the person who declares or is presumed below 18. If the Guardianship service itself or any other public authority responsible for migration and asylum, such as the Immigration Office, has any doubt about the person concerned being underage, a medical age assessment can be ordered at the expense of the authority applying for it.[13]
Age assessment in Belgium consists of scans of a person’s teeth, wrist, and clavicle. These scans determine the developmental stages of a person’s bones and teeth. Thus, when the applicant’s age is unknown, it is estimated by comparing their development stage to that of persons in the reference study population.[14] Following critiques around the accuracy of the medical test to establish the age of non-Western children by order of Physicians,[15] a margin of error of 2 years is considered.
An applicant may challenge an age assessment before the Council of State through a non-suspensive appeal. However, the court is not competent to review elements such as the reliability of the medical examination results or the evidentiary value of identity documents. It can only check if the competent authorities had the right to conduct an age assessment according to the law. This procedure is lengthy, often taking longer than a year, so the person often becomes an adult before the Council of State has reached a final decision. Accordingly, the procedure is not an effective appeal and has been met with criticism.[16]
The systematic use of medical tests in the context of the age assessment procedure and the prevalence of this method over other methods to determine the age of self-declared minors, has been subject to criticism for a long time.[17] In 2022, an expert committee tasked with the evaluation of the medical methods used during the age assessment published 17 proposals on optimising these methods and on how to come to a uniform age assessment procedure.[18]
Different courts have recently confirmed that age assessments cannot solely be based on medical tests, and that these should even only have a subsidiary role in the age assessment procedure. If an original birth certificate is produced, the authenticity of which is not questioned, the Court of First Instance in Liège found that the results of the medical tests, due to their unreliability, cannot prevail above the information in the birth certificate.[19] The Court of First Instance of Namur confirmed that, when several official identity documents all indicate the same date of birth, they have more evidential value than the results of the medical tests. The court again refers to the unreliable character of the tests.[20] Finally, the Council of State stated in 2024 that age determination based on medical tests should be thoroughly motivated. In this case, the medical report on which the determination was based did not clearly explain how the different medical tests, which each led to different results, were combined to arrive at the final age determination.[21]
On 6 March 2025, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8 ECHR on the grounds that the age assessment procedure in Belgium lacks adequate procedural safeguards. The Court held that the applicant had not been given the opportunity to consult with a guardian or legal representative before undergoing the medical examinations and that she had been insufficiently informed about the tests and the necessity of her explicit and informed consent. Moreover, the authorities had failed to assess whether alternative, less intrusive methods could have been used which could have allowed for a preliminary assessment of her age based on other available evidence.[22] Following this judgment, as of April 2025, a representative of the Guardianship service is present in the registration centre for asylum applications. In case of doubt about an applicant being underage, they will question the applicant, verify available documents and other elements and ask the applicant to sign an attestation indicating that they have been informed about the age doubt, the medical age assessment and the possibility to refuse this. In case of refusal, the Guardianship service bases the age assessment on other elements in the file, such as declarations made before the Immigration Office or in another country, as well as the assessment made by the representative of the Guardianship service (visible aspects, alias, …).[23]
In 2025, 3,328 unaccompanied children were registered in the country, a decrease of 18% compared to 2024.[24] 1,673 applicants declared themselves unaccompanied minor on the moment of their application for international protection, a decrease of 35,5% compared to 2024.[25] The top 5 nationalities (among those applying for asylum) were[26]:
| Unaccompanied children applying for asylum: 2025 | |
| Country | Number |
| Eritrea | 595 |
| Afghanistan | 306 |
| Guinea | 139 |
| DRC | 77 |
| Palestine | 73 |
Source: Immigration Office[27]
In 1,647 cases (around half of the cases – this relates to all registered unaccompanied children, not only those applying for asylum), doubt was expressed about the age of the declared minors. In 1,224 cases, an age assessment was conducted. Of these assessments, 973 found the declared minor to be over 18 years old, 282 under 18 years old.[28]
[1] Article 1(12) Aliens Act.
[2] Article 36 Reception Act.
[3] In this regard see: Saroléa, S., Raimondo, F., Crine, Z., ‘Exploring Vulnerability‘s Challenges and Pitfalls in Belgian Asylum System – Research Report on the Legal and Policy Framework and Implementing Practices in Belgium’, 2021, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5n87tacv.
[4] Information provided by the Immigration Office in the context of their right of reply, May 2025.
[5] CBAR-BCHV, Trauma, geloofwaardigheid en bewijs in de asielprocedure’ (Trauma, credibility and proof in the asylum procedure), August 2014, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1MiiYbk, 66-69.
[6] Fedasil, Study into vulnerable persons with specific reception needs, February 2017, available at: http://bit.ly/2jA2Yhj.
[7] Information provided by the CGRS, 21 December 2022.
[8] Information provided by the CGRS, 24 August 2017.
[9] CGRS, ‘CGRS Project ‘Vulnerability and asylum: applicants for international protection’’, available in English here.
[10] CGRS, Recommendations on the use of medical elements in het context of an application for international protection, June 2024 (updated October 2024), available in Dutch here and in French here.
[11] Information provided by the CGRS, April 2026.
[12] Article 57/1(3) Aliens Act.
[13] Article 7 UAM Guardianship Act.
[14] Myria, Contact Meeting September: answer provided by Guardianship Service, 15 September 2021, available in French and Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3AMqXOR.
[15] Order of Physicians, Age assessment tests for foreign unaccompanied minors, 20 February 2010, available in French at: http://bit.ly/1MBTGpj and Dutch at: http://bit.ly/1HiSvex.
[16] Platform Kinderen op de vlucht, Leeftijdsschatting van NBMV in vraag: probleemstelling, analyse en aanbevelingen, September 2017, available in Dutch at: http://bit.ly/2GyEJsd.
[17] See inter alia previous updates to this country report, available here.
[18] De Tobel, J. & Thevissen, P., Adviesraad medische leeftijdsonderzoeken, 30 June 2022.
[19] Court of First Instance Liège, Decision n° 22/1560/B of 16 June 2023, available in French here.
[20] Court of First Instance Namur, Decision n° 24/147/B of 17 April 2024, available in French here.
[21] Council of State, Decision n° 260.988 of 10 Octobre 2024, available in French here.
[22] ECtHR, Decision n° 47836/21 of 6 March 2025, available in French here.
[23] Myria, Contact Meeting November 2025, available in French and Dutch here.
[24] Myria, Contact Meeting January 2026, p. 46-47, available in Dutch and French here.
[25] Immigration Office, Applicants for International Protection – Monthly Statistics, December 2025, available in Dutch here and in French here, 7-9.
[26] 400 persons with the Ukrainian nationality were registered as an unaccompanied minor in 2025; Myria, Contact Meeting January 2026, p. 46-47, available in Dutch and French here.
[27] Immigration Office, Applicants for International Protection – Monthly Statistics, December 2025, available in Dutch here and in French here, 7-9.
[28] Myria, Contact Meeting January 2026, p. 46-47, available in Dutch and French here.