The applicant, a Sri Lankan national, arrived in Belgium on 2 April 2023. The same day, she was detained at a police check, subjected to an order to leave and detained in a closed centre in view of her removal. On 5 April 2023, the applicant submitted an application for international protection and she was heard by a return officer a few hours later.

Following this accelerated procedure, the CGRS refused to grant the applicant refugee status or subsidiary protection on 15 May 2023. She appealed against this decision.

In her appeal, the applicant notably argued that the CGRS wrongly treated her case through an accelerated procedure on the grounds that she solely applied to prevent her return or expulsion, as she was not aware she was subjected to a return order before submitting her application.

The Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) noted that it stemmed from the applicant’s file that she barely spoke English, hindering proper communication and showing that although it was signed by her, the applicant was not aware that she was subjected to an imminent decision which would lead to her expulsion or removal. In addition, it appeared from the applicant’s file that she believed she was in France – her chosen destination – when submitting her application, which was incompatible with her supposed intention to apply for international protection in view of postponing or frustrating her expulsion or removal from Belgium. The CALL also observed that the return officer considered statements made by the applicant in Tamil without obtaining a translation in Dutch. Finally, the Council noticed, when reading her file, that the applicant had not been assisted by a sworn interpreter during her personal interview, but only by her nephew over the phone. The CALL accordingly confirmed that the accelerated procedure should not have been applied in this case and that the contested decision was thus vitiated. Consequently, the CALL annulled the CGRS’s decision and sent the case back for re-examination.