The applicants, nationals of Iraq, requested international protection on 22 December 2020. Their applications were rejected by the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) on 27 July 2023. An appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) on 8 February 2024. The applicants lodged a further appeal before the Council of State.

The applicants alleged violations of Articles 1, 2, 4, 11 and 14 of the recast Qualification Directive (recast QD), Articles 1 and 33 of the Geneva Refugee Convention, as well as a breach of the principle of mutual trust, of the principle of non-refoulement and the jurisdictional duty to state reasons in accordance with Article 149 of the Belgian Constitution. The applicants argued that one of them was recognized as a refugee in Greece, and under the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, Belgium must fully acknowledge this status, which remains valid as long as international protection is required and can only be revoked under exceptional circumstances, in accordance with Articles 11, 14, 16, and 19 of the recast QD.

In its judgment, the Council of State considered whether there was a breach of mutual trust because the CGRS failed to take into account the fact that the first applicant was recognised as a refugee in Greece. In this regard, the council referred to the CJEU judgment in QY v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-753/22, 18 June 2024), which clarified the scope of the principle of mutual trust. The council also referenced CJEU judgments in N.S. and others v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, 21 December 2011) and in Bashar Ibrahim (C‑297/17), Mahmud Ibrahim, Fadwa Ibrahim, Bushra Ibrahim, Mohammad Ibrahim, Ahmad Ibrahim (C‑318/17), Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, Hosam Fattayrji v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, and Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Taus Magamadov (Joined Cases C‑297/17, C‑318/17, C‑319/17, and C‑438/17, 19 March 2019). These rulings established that, in accordance with the principle of mutual trust, save for exceptional circumstances, the treatment of applicants for international protection in each Member State must be presumed to comply with the requirements of EU law, including the EU Charter, the Geneva Refugee Convention, and the ECHR. The council emphasized that under Article 36 of the recast QD and Article 49 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (recast APD), the authority responsible for a new asylum application must promptly exchange information with the Member State that previously granted refugee status. This allows the authority processing the new application for international protection to make informed decisions in the asylum procedure.

In light of the above, the council affirmed that when an applicant submits a new asylum application after previously being granted international protection in another Member State, and the new application cannot be declared inadmissible as the applicant would be at a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment upon return to that Member State, the CGRS must examine the new application individually and fully, taking into account the current state of affairs. This assessment should take place in the context of a new procedure for international protection, in accordance with the recast QD and the recast APD. Moreover, the council highlighted that  the CGRS is also required to take into account the decision of the other Member State to grant international protection and the elements supporting this decision.

The council remarked that the CGRS only referred to the recognition of the applicant by the Greek authorities in the statement of facts, without taking into account the elements on which the decision was based. The council also noted that there was no evidence that the CGRS had exchanged information with the competent authority of Greece. It found that the CGRS failed to fully consider the recognition decision and its supporting elements, thereby neglecting to conduct the necessary verifications in the context of the international protection procedure with full awareness of the facts. Thus, the council ruled that, by judging in the given circumstances that “the CGRS did indeed take into account the fact that the first applicant was recognised as a refugee in Greece”, CALL breached the principle of mutual trust.

The council annulled the judgment of CALL and upheld the appeal.