The applicant, S.A., is a Somali national who has applied for international protection as an unaccompanied minor on 31 October 2018, without any identity documents and claiming that his birthday is 1 January 2001. On 25 January 2019, an interview was held with the applicant for purposes of family reunification with his sister in Sweden as well as an interview to determine his age. A representative/guardian of the Social Welfare Services was present during the interview and an interpreter from Somali to English and vice versa was also present during the interview. Both the applicant and his representative have consented to family reunification and the applicant, and his representative gave their consent for the former to be referred for age verification medical examinations.    

On 19 February 2019, the Asylum Service received a letter from the Department of Dental Services, enclosing a relevant report concluding after the medical examination that the applicant is an adult. Consequently, by decision of 25 February 2019, the Asylum Service, taking into account the result of the medical examinations, decided that the applicant will be considered as an adult throughout the application process and the next day the decision was communicated and explained to the applicant.

 On the same day, the certificate of application granted to him when his application was registered, which indicated a date of birth identifying the applicant as a minor, was cancelled and a new certificate of asylum application was issued which indicated the Applicant's new date of birth.

The applicant and his representative contested before the Administrative Court of International Protection the decision of the Asylum Service to consider the applicant as an adult and required it annulment jointly with other documents deriving from this decision. The applicant claimed that the age assessment procedure was illegal and wrongly conducted and that he was not duly informed about the consequences of the procedures, including that of age determination and the one for family reunification.

The Administrative Court of International Protection reiterated the requirements and safeguards provided by the recast Qualification Directive and the recast Reception Directive including the basic principles governing the determination of their age where doubts arise as to their age as well as the EASO Practical Guide on Age Assessment, including the best interest of the child.

The Court assessed the procedure followed in the case and noted that the applicant had provided a copy of his birth certificate translated into English and that this document was not evaluated, that the applicant was not extensively provided with the reasons why a medical examination was deemed necessary and in the minutes of the interview it appears that the applicant was informed of the fact that, if revealed that he is an adult, he will no longer be allowed to live in the shelter for minors and that the family reunification application will be terminated. Moreover, the Court noted that the applicant was only informed about the need for him to undergo a medical examination without the possibility for him to submit comments. The choice of the medical method to be used, i.e. medical method with the use of X-ray over the other methods, does not appear from anywhere and the need to resort to this method is not justified by the Asylum Service. 

The Court referred to the CJEU judgement A. and S. v Secretary of State for Security and Justice (Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie) and explained that the date of filing the application for international protection is the one decisive in order to assess the refugee's age with regard to the application of the family reunification procedure, and the authorities should have referred to the applicant's age at the time of submitting/filing his application and not at the time of the medical examinations. Thus, the medical examinations were conducted on the applicant on 1 January 2019 and based on the second method carried out, the applicant was considered to be at least 19.2 years old with a constant deviation of ± 1.2 years. Therefore, the lower age of the Applicant was determined to be 18 years although it is noted that the applicant submitted his application on 31 October 2018, with about two months before the medical examinations were conducted. Consequently, according to the minimum assessment limit of the method in question, the applicant may have been a minor at the time of the submission of his asylum application and the doubt has to be in favour of the minor, according to the refugee law. Based on these considerations and the deficiencies identified, the Court annulled the contested decision of the Asylum Service.