X, of Palestinian origin, from Khan Younis in the Gaza Strip, lodged an application for international protection in Belgium on 3 April 2024. The Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) adopted an inadmissibility decision on 10 September 2025 as the applicant had international protection in Greece since 17 August 2023.

The applicant challenged this decision arguing that the personal interview was carried out by an officer of the EU Agency for Asylum (EUAA) who may have Greek nationality, whereas by law it should have been conducted by an official with an appropriate level of training and who must be of Belgian nationality and, second, that there may have been a conflict of interests in so far as the person may have been of Greek nationality.

On appeal, the Council for Aliens Law Litigation (CALL) noted that national law, in Article 57/5ter of the Law on foreign nationals, which transposes Article 14 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, allows the CGRS to temporarily use the staff of another authority to conduct the personal interview (“Where a large number of aliens simultaneously apply for international protection, which makes it impossible in practice for the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons to conduct the interview […] in good time, the Minister may decide, with the agreement of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, to use temporarily the staff of another authority to conduct that interview. In such cases, the staff of that other authority shall receive in advance the relevant training defined by the King for the staff of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons”).

CALL further noted that the conditions under which the personal interview takes place are determined by the Royal Decree of 11 July 2003 and, in accordance with that decree, an ‘Operational Plan 2025-2026 approved by the European Union Agency for Asylum’, valid from 1 January 2025 to 30 December 2026, was signed between Belgium and the EUAA. The plan states that EUAA’s operational and technical assistance activities are in principle governed by EU law, complemented, where necessary, by the national law of the host Member State. These include the safety and security of the persons involved and the resources allocated to the EUAA’s activities.

CALL observed that the operational plan provides in point 1.4.4. for a code of conduct for experts from asylum support teams and explains that experts participating in asylum support teams must respect the highest standards of integrity, ethical behaviour, professionalism and respect for and promotion of fundamental rights and international protection. In carrying out their supporting duties, experts should not discriminate on grounds of sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, age or sexual orientation. All experts are expected to show commitment and respect and take into account the nature of their legitimate activities. In order to carry out their tasks properly, they should serve the public interest and refrain from any activity which may compromise or impair their independence and proper performance. Throughout the implementation of this plan, all experts should apply a zero tolerance policy for fundamental rights violations, they must respect and act in accordance with the EUAA Code of Conduct for experts participating in asylum support teams. In addition, they are invited to sign a declaration of compliance with the EUAA’s Code of Conduct prior to their deployment and they should inform the EUAA without delay, through the reporting channels intended for that purpose, where they have reason to suspect that a breach of the EUAA Code of Conduct has taken place or is about to be breached in the context of the EUAA operational and technical assistance. Finally, CALL highlighted that the Operational Plan provides that, in accordance with Article 8(6) and Article 19(4) of the EUAA Regulation, experts participating in asylum support teams must undergo training covering their tasks and functions and necessary for their participation in operational activities organised by the CGRS, an aspect which was confirmed by CGRS during the court hearing.

CALL concluded that in this case, the temporary deployment of an EUAA expert was strictly limited to the holding of interviews and the examination of the content of the application, while drafting or reviewing decisions remained the exclusive competence of CGRS officials who must hold a diploma giving access to A level posts. CALL also added that the interviews at the CGRS are conducted by individuals who hold a master's degree, which is a requirement at the CGRS in such situations. CALL also noted that the applicant did not adduce any evidence that would question this conclusion.

Regarding the applicant’s argument concerning a conflict of interest as the protection officer may have Greek nationality, CALL held that, unless the applicant is able to substantiate that the person has Greek nationality, it cannot be inferred simply from this allegation that the applicant’s request for protection was not subject to an impartial assessment, especially considering also that protection staff at CGRS may be of Belgian nationality but also of any other nationality of the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland.

CALL further noted that the applicant did not demonstrate an objective bias, namely that the structural organisation of the CGRS does not offer sufficient guarantees to exclude doubts as to impartiality. On this topic, CALL noted that it is the Commissioner General who formally takes the decision and not the protection officer. While acknowledging that the protection officer plays an important role, CALL highlighted that there are safeguards to remedy a possible bias on the part of this person. In particular, the applicant may request a copy of the notes of the personal interview and send observations in writing to the CGRS or through a lawyer, which must be examined by the Commissioner General before deciding on the application for international protection. In this case, the applicant did not do so, thus it was deemed that the applicant accepted the content of the notes of the interview. CALL further observed that those notes, which are in Dutch and translated in English, did not reveal any irregularity during the interview which may indicate any bias on the part of the case officer.

Similarly, CALL also concluded that the applicant did not prove any subjective bias. There was no indication in the file to suggest that the EUAA case officer had an interest in the case or that they acted in a purely subjective manner during the personal interview.

Regarding the language of the procedure, CALL observed that the language of the proceedings in which the investigation was conducted was Dutch and that the contested decision was taken in Dutch. It further added that, in line with the case law of the Council of State, Article 51/4 of the Law on foreign nationals does not support the conclusion that an interpreter who translates the statements of the applicant for international protection must do so directly into the language of the proceedings or that the language of the examination must be Dutch only. CALL observed that national law does not impose a language obligation on the case officer and interpreters at the personal interview and the fact that the personal interview was conducted in a language other than the language of the case does not constitute an infringement of Article 51/4 of the Law on foreign nationals. Furthermore, no translation problems occurred during the personal interview, the substance of the translation in English by an Arab interpreter was not contested by the applicant and the applicant did not demonstrate that he did not understand the questions properly, that he was prevented from making certain statements or that the eTranslation service of the European Commission was not designed in accordance with the obligations of the Commissioner General. On the contrary, CALL noted that this service provides the necessary guarantees in terms of security, data storage and data processing within the European Union.

Thus, considering that Commissioner General made use of the documents in the administrative file and that the applicant was heard, with the assistance of an Arab interpreter and in the presence of a lawyer, and that he had the opportunity to set out his account in detail and to submit additional supporting documents, CALL concluded that the Commissioner General carried out an individual assessment of the application for international protection and took the decision by considering all the relevant facts of the case, so that the principle of diligence was not breached.

On the applicant’s arguments concerning his protection in Greece, CALL noted that the international protection status of the applicant in Greece and the residence permit were still valid, and there was no indication that the applicant could not return to Greece and that he would not be able to benefit from the protection granted there. As for the current situation of beneficiaries of international protection in Greece, CALL observed that it remains difficult as regards housing, employment and access to social and health services. CALL analysed in detail these aspects and concluded that the situation remained particularly problematic due to significant bureaucratic obstacles, lengthy procedures for issuing or renewing documents giving access to fundamental socio-economic rights, the Greek political and socio-economic environment, shortcomings in the implementation of existing integration programmes, lack of interpretation services in public and health institutions, and discrimination in access to different social security benefits.

However, CALL also reminded that, in line with the CJEU judgment in Ibrahim and others (19 March 2019, Joined Cases C-297/17, C-318/17, C-319/17 and C-438/17), deficiencies which are either systemic or generalised or which affect certain groups of persons must reach a particularly high threshold of seriousness, which depends on all the elements of the case.

In the applicant’s specific case, CALL noted that it cannot be inferred from the statements that the alleged psychological and medical problems have significant negative consequences in terms of his autonomy and that his state of health makes access to health care, housing and employment in Greece excessively difficult, if not impossible. It was noted that he did not explain specifically to what extent his state of health, which also lacked objective documents accompanied by a diagnosis, prevented him from asserting his rights in Greece, or what would be the extent of those problems with regard to his ability to exercise his rights in Greece since there was no document to attest his incapacity to work. Furthermore, the applicant stayed only a short period in Greece and there was no evidence that he attempted to seek work and accommodation or learn the language, from which CALL concluded that the applicant had never actually intended to build a long-term existence in Greece and to assert his rights there. Therefore, CALL concluded that the applicant has not adduced any evidence capable of demonstrating that he would face a serious and real risk of being exposed to acts of torture or inhuman treatment if returned to Greece.

Thus, CALL dismissed the appeal and confirmed the inadmissibility decision.