The applicant stated his date of birth upon arrival to the Netherlands, upon which he was considered to be a minor (DOB 1). Following the age assessment procedure and a hit in Eurodac, the State Secretary for Justice and Security considered another date to be correct, which showed he was an adult, and his date of birth was changed to this second one (DOB 2). On 26 July 2022, the State Secretary for Justice and Security notified the Aliens Police, Identification and Human Trafficking Department (AVIM) and the applicant about this change. The applicant objected against this on the same day. He submitted a population register from Damascus to the authorities, and the State Secretary for Justice and Security changed his date of birth, based on this, before the extract was verified (DOB 3). However, upon verification of the document, it was concluded that the document was not drafted and issued by an authorised person. The State Secretary for Justice and Security changed back the date of birth to DOB 2, but no notifications were sent to the applicant.

The applicant was granted international protection, assuming his date of birth was DOB 2. The decision noted that the objection against changing the date of birth will be handled separately. The State Secretary for Justice and Security then declared the objection inadmissible, stating that a notification cannot be regarded as a decision within the meaning of the General Administrative Law.

The first instance court ruled that the applicant's appeal was well-founded, and a notification should be regarded as a decision, as it changes the legal position of the applicant from minor to an adult, with several consequences for the asylum procedure and for example for family reunification as well. The court did not accept the reasoning of the State Secretary for Justice and Security, that the notification contributed to a decision on international protection, and thus, is not an independent decision in its own.

The Council of State concluded that the notification qualifies as a decision under the General Administrative Law. The change in the registry and the notification thereof changes the legal position of the applicant, and the fact that other stakeholders (such as the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA)) acts based on this notification does not alter this.

However, the Council of State found that the notification - even though it is a decision - cannot be appealed separately within the meaning of the General Administrative Law. The identity and the age of the applicant is part of the process to prepare for the asylum decision. The notification of the age registration pending the asylum decision is not a final decision in itself. The applicant may, upon a decision granting international protection, appeal the decision only related to the part on age assessment. The notification, in itself, does not change the legal situation of the applicant. It is acts of other stakeholders, that may do so. If there is an actual act or decision by another authority, the applicant can object to that. For example, the appointment of a guardian is not immediately terminated upon notification. This can only be terminated, if a decision on an asylum application, which considered the applicant to be an adult, is validated by a court. The notification changes the fact that correspondence is then directly sent to the applicant - but he/she can at any point give permission to the authorities to involve the guardian again in the correspondence.

Thus, the State Secretary for Justice and Security rightly considered the objection to the notification inadmissible. However, in the asylum application, the State Secretary for Justice and Security stated that it will decide separately on the objection, giving the impression that it would deliver a decision on its substances. Still, it declared the objection inadmissible later, when the possibility to appeal the asylum decision - and challenge the findings of the age assessment - had already elapsed. In these circumstances, the court found that the applicant should now be given the possibility to challenge his age determination in court and instructed the State Secretary for Justice and Security to substantively address the objections raised by the applicant.