The case concerned an applicant from DRC whose application was rejected as inadmissible. He had lawyer appointed during the procedure, U.C. whom the applicant decided to dismiss by notification to the Migration Court on 24 April 2006. The court assumed that the applicant was no longer in need of public assistance, but the applicant argued that he was still in need of public counsel but his former public counsel U.C. was unbale to provide legal services to support him in the asylum claim and thus the public counsel was not suitable for the activities of safeguarding his rights as asylum seeker.

The Migration Court of Appeal reiterated the legal provision of Chapter 18 of the Aliens Act with regard to appointing public counsel and legal aid. The court noted that the case concerned the question of whether the Migration Court was justified in its decision to dismiss the lawyer U.C. as a public counsel for the applicant.

The court reiterated the presumption that a foreign national must be entitled to the assistance of a public counsel in a case in which a question of expulsion arises. Therefore, the Migration Court of Appeal considered that the Migration Court should have interpreted the applicant's withdrawal of the power of attorney for the public counsel as a request to change the public counsel. The decision of the Migration Court on the dismissal of the public counsel should therefore be annulled and the case returned to the Migration Court for a new handling of the assistance question.