The applicant, Chinese national, applied for international protection in Belgium but following the examination of fingerprints in the VIS application, it was found that he previously applied in France. On 25 October 2019 the Belgium authorities submitted a take back request that was approved by the French authorities. In January 2020, a decision was taken by the determining authority to refuse residence permit to the applicant and ordered him to leave the territory. In the decision, the applicant’s allegations regarding the right to respect for family and private life alongside with any potential risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of destination. The determining authority has thoroughly analysed the situation in France based on various reports to conclude that there is no risk of treatment contrary to the article 3 ECHR. The applicant was detained and later transferred to France. He appealed against the decision and claimed that the authority did not sufficiently reasoned the decision and that there was a violation of his private and family life because he wanted his application to be treated by Belgium because he resided with his friend in the same house. The CALL rejected the appeal as unfounded and reiterated that an applicant does not have the choice of his/her place of residence, otherwise the Dublin system would be devoid of purpose. In addition, the mere fact of living under the same roof with a person does not equal to family life withing the meaning of Article 8 ECHR. The applicant invoked to have family relation with the partner in Belgium and his mother and sister since August 2019, but the Council considered that prima facie there is no genuine proof of such relation, as they were living under the same roof for 5 months prior to the contested decision.  The applicant failed to demonstrate concrete family life to justify an infringement of article 8 ECHR.

The applicant opposed to the transfer to France based on the fact that he knows nobody there but this reason has no legal basis in the Dublin III Regulation and no other reasons justify the application of the Article 17 (1) Dublin III Regulation.