A Somali national was granted international protection in Cyprus and subsequently entered Belgium, where he lodged a new application for international protection. The Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) declared the application inadmissible. The applicant appealed to the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL) arguing that, in Cyprus, he had experienced serious hardship, particularly in relation to housing, income and integration. He relied on his particular vulnerability, namely that he had been blind since birth and had mental health concerns.

The CALL upheld the CGRS’s assessment that the applicant’s situation did not meet the particularly high threshold of severity and the cumulative conditions required under the case law of the CJEU. It acknowledged that his blindness since birth had a significant impact on his life and personal self-reliance; however, it held that this did not mean that his rights were not respected in Cyprus. The CALL noted that the applicant had received support from the Cypriot authorities, including accommodation, financial allowances, a medical card covering healthcare costs, and access to language courses. It therefore found that it could not be concluded that he had been in a situation of extreme material deprivation preventing him from meeting his most basic needs or placing him in a condition incompatible with human dignity, nor that there were concrete indications that such a situation would arise upon return. The CALL took account of his blindness and the reported stress and depressive feelings linked to his blindness, the asylum procedure and his stay in Cyprus. In this regard, it confirmed that these issues fell outside the competence of the CGRS as residence on medical grounds has to be sought under Article 9ter of the Aliens Act before the Minister or his delegate. The CALL also observed that the applicant had not demonstrated that medical treatment was unavailable in Cyprus and that, even if there were differences in healthcare levels compared with Belgium, this could not in itself justify the conclusion that he could no longer rely on the international protection granted there. It therefore dismissed the appeal on 4 April 2025. The applicant subsequently lodged a cassation appeal before the Council of State on 12 May 2025.

The Council of State referenced the CJEU judgment 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). It recalled the presumption that Member States comply with EU and international standards in the treatment of asylum applicants, is rebuttable only where systemic deficiencies create a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This arises where, due to state indifference, a person wholly dependent on public support cannot meet their most basic needs and is placed in conditions incompatible with human dignity.

The council confirmed the findings of the CALL and found no infringement of law. It held that the CALL had correctly taken into account the applicant’s blindness and psychological problems, as well as access to treatment in Cyprus, in a concrete manner. It therefore held that the applicant could not validly argue that these elements had been completely disregarded in the assessment of whether, because of his particular vulnerability, he would end up in a situation of extreme material deprivation. Accordingly, the council held that the sole plea in law was manifestly unfounded.