The applicant was allegedly born in January 2009 but had no documents proving their identity. The authorities expressed doubts about the applicant's age based on physical appearance, lack of documentation, and the fact that the applicant was considered an adult in Germany. For that reason, the applicant underwent a triple age determination test, which concluded that they were at least 23 years old. Consequently, on 27 January 2025, the Guardianship Service declared that the applicant was over 18 years of age and decided not to appoint a guardian.

On 31 March 2025, the applicant appealed before the Council of State, requesting the suspension and the annulment of the decision by which the Guardianship Service declared them an adult and refused to designate a guardian. Referring to the ECtHR's judgment in F.B. v. Belgium, the applicant claimed that the decision-making process which led to the decision to end their care as an unaccompanied minor was not taken in respect of sufficient guarantees in the light of Article 8 of the Convention. Specifically, the applicant claimed that they were subjected to a bone test without prior interview and without giving free and informed consent. Moreover, the decision to end their care as an unaccompanied minor was based solely on those results, without sufficient procedural safeguards or consideration of less intrusive means.

On the other hand, the Belgian government argued that under Article 7 of the Programme Law (I) of 24 December 2002, a medical test was lawfully carried out due to a legitimate doubt about the applicant's age. It maintained that the judgment in F.B. v. Belgium did not apply in the present case, since the applicant was interviewed by an official trained in receiving minors, informed of the doubts and the test, and accompanied by an officer during the x-rays. Moreover, the government argued that unlike in F.B., no identity document was presented at any stage before the test, and therefore no less intrusive means were available and the contested decision predated the ECtHR ruling.

The Council of State recalled that in F.B. v. Belgium, the ECtHR held that the decision to cease care for a presumed unaccompanied minor lacked sufficient safeguards, particularly because the individual was not properly informed of their rights or the need for consent to undergo a bone test, and because no less intrusive alternatives were considered.

Applying this reasoning to the present case, the Council of State found that although the applicant was interviewed by a qualified professional on 15 January 2025, there was no evidence that the official had examined whether the doubt regarding the applicant's age could be resolved by less invasive means. In that regard, the Council of State held that the fact that the applicant had not produced documents in support of their statements did not exempt the authorities from seeking to ascertain whether there were less intrusive means of age assessment. Moreover, the Council of State found that it was not apparent that the applicant was duly informed of their rights and of the need for their consent for the bone test. According to the record of the interview, the applicant was informed of the doubt regarding their age, they received a document with information on the age test, and they did not express any opposition to the performance of that test. However, the record of the interview did not mention that the applicant was informed of the need for their consent to carry out the medical test and no other evidence in the file showed that they were informed about the need for consent in order to carry out the test.

Consequently, the Council of State concluded that the decision-making process which led to the contested decision was not surrounded by sufficient guarantees to comply with the requirements of Article 8 of the ECHR. Moreover, it considered that the contested decision undermined the applicant's interests in so far as it deprived them, before the time, of all the protection measures and advantages to which minors in Belgium are entitled, and of the benefit of the assistance of a guardian.