The CGRS rejected the applicant's claims for international protection. The applicant contested the decision before the CALL and requested the presence of an interpreter at the hearing. However, the CALL dismissed the applicant's appeal. The applicant then appealed before the Council of State, invoking national law provisions and claiming that their right to a fair trial had been breached as no interpreter was present at the hearing despite having duly filed a request for an interpreter, hence they could not submit their comments. The applicant added that this also meant that the court had not taken into account all the circumstances of the case when making its decision. The Council of State, noting that the applicant's request for an interpreter was indeed duly filed and that neither the CGRS nor the hearing report could prove the presence of an interpreter at the hearing, ruled that the applicant's right to a fair trial was breached and annulled the contested decision.