The case concerned a Guinean applicant who stated in his application in the Netherlands that his date of birth was in 2004. The Aliens Police, Identification and Trafficking in Human Beings Department (AVIM) and the State Secretary carried out a separate age assessment, in which the AVIM concluded that the applicant was a minor and the IND had doubts about the stated age. On 28 April 2021, the State Secretary decided not to process the application as Switzerland was considered the responsible on the basis of Dublin III Regulation. The State Secretary considered that Eurodac findings revealed that the applicant had previously submitted applications for international protection in Italy, Germany, France and Switzerland. Exchanges with those countries revealed that the applicant was registered there with different dates of birth and aliases, namely 5 registrations as an adult in Italy, France, Germany and Switzerland and one registration as a minor in Italy. The State Secretary considered as valid the date of birth registered in Switzerland as 1 January 2002. Consequently, the applicant was considered an adult and his application was not processed because Italy was the first country where he applied for asylum.

The applicant contested the decision and claimed that he was a minor and that the State Secretary allegedly failed to consider that the jugement supplétif and the extract from the birth certificate were identifying documents which showed that the registered date of birth in Switzerland was incorrect.

The Council of State reiterated that the State Secretary has the duty to cooperate with the applicant on issues pertaining to identity and evidence related to documents. Moreover, the State Secretary may reply on the principle of mutual trust between Member States and can assume that the registrations in other Member States have taken place with due care.

The Council of State mentioned that the policy of the State Secretary on age assessment is as follows: when there are doubts on the age between the IND and the AVIM, the State Secretary does not conduct a full age assessment procedure due to the fact that the investigation is burdensome for an applicant, but may rely on the interstate principle of mutual trust and may in principle assume that the registrations in the other Member States have been carried out with due care. If there are more registrations in several Member States, the State Secretary will conduct further investigations on whether the source documents form the basis of those registrations and, in the case of more registrations in other Member States, which registration that Member State considers to be the leading one. Moreover, still on the basis of the interstate principle of mutual trust, the State Secretary may in principle not only assume that the registrations in the other Member States have taken place with due care, but that this also applies to the choice of a Member State for the leading registration and personal details.

In light of the policy and the way the State Secretary conducted the investigation, the Council of State confirmed the contested decision. It stated that the State Secretary was correct in assuming that the applicant is an adult and that the applicant registered with six different dates and aliases, creating confusion and it appeared from the inquiries with Switzerland that although the latter was aware of the 'judgement suppletif' and the birth certificate, these documents did not relate to the person of the applicant and could not demonstrate that the registration as adult in Switzerland was not correct.