Identification

Author

Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen Visit Website

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, 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 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, there are few specific provisions regarding the screening, processing and assessing of vulnerabilities of asylum applicants. There is a general obligation to consider the asylum applicant’s individual situation and personal circumstances, particularly the acts of persecution or serious harm already undergone, which could be regarded as a specific vulnerability.[7] In case of a gender-related claim, applicants can refuse being interviewed by a protection officer from the other sex or with the assistance of an interpreter from the other sex.[8] Whether unaccompanied or accompanied, children should be interviewed in appropriate circumstances, and their best interests should be decisive in the examination of the asylum application.[9]

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.[10]

At the CGRS, 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;[11]
• 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.[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] The impact of this judgment on the Belgian practice related to age assessment remains to be seen.

In 2024, 4,068 unaccompanied children were registered in the country, a decrease of 6.83% compared to 2023.[23] 2,345 applicants declared themselves unaccompanied minor on the moment of their application for international protection.[24]

The top 5 nationalities (among those applying for asylum) were:

Source: Immigration Office[25]

In 2,168 cases (related to all registered unaccompanied children, not only those applying for asylum), doubt was expressed about the age of the declared minors. In 1,713 cases, an age assessment was conducted. Of these assessments, 1,154 found the declared minor to be over 18 years old.[26] Regarding unaccompanied minor applicants for international protection, of the 2,345 persons who claimed to be unaccompanied minor upon applying, 1,522 were confirmed after undergoing age determination assessments.[27]

During the reception crisis in December 2021 (see Country Report: Belgium – 2021 Update), Fedasil and the Immigration Office briefly conducted a screening of minors waiting in line at the arrival centre based on physical appearances. If a young man waiting in line did not look like a minor, he was sent to the line of single men resulting in a denial of reception. This practice being in clear violation of the legal framework, it was promptly stopped after an intervention from the Flemish Children’s Rights Commissioner[28].[29]

Also, in the context of the reception crisis, no age assessments were conducted between 16 October and 13 December 2022. According to the Guardianship Service, asking minors without access to reception to undergo an age assessment was not justified. As a result, these minors were not given access to the reception network and could not dispute the doubt about their minority. In the second week of January 2023, Caritas International Belgium reported that 24 of these minors were gone missing. No similar reports were made in 2023 and 2024.

[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 Ayslum 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] Article 27 Royal Decree on CGRS Procedure.

[8] Article 15 Royal Decree on CGRS Procedure.

[9] Article 14 Royal Decree on CGRS Procedure.

[10] Article 57/1(3) Aliens Act.

[11] Information provided by the CGRS, 21 December 2022.

[12] Information provided by the CGRS, 24 August 2017.

[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 Myria, Contact Meeting 29 January 2025, p. 60, available in Dutch and French here.

[24] Immigration Office, Applicants for International Protection – Monthly Statistics, December 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here, 7-9.

[25] Immigration Office, Applicants for International Protection – Monthly Statistics, December 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here, 7-9.

[26] Myria, Contact Meeting 29 January 2025, available in Dutch and French here, 60.

[27] Immigration Office, Applicants for International Protection – Monthly Statistics, December 2024, available in Dutch here and in French here, 7-9.

[28] Flemish Children’s Rights Commissioner, Standpunt Opvangcrisis: dringend oplossingen voor niet-begeleide minderjarige vreemdelingen, available in Dutch here.

[29] The Immigration Office, in the context of their right to reply to the 2024 AIDA update, notes that this did not consider a screening but merely a prioritisation of groups in view of access to the building.