X. and X., Congolese applicants, beneficiaries of international protection in Greece, appealed against the rejection of their asylum applications in Belgium, arguing that the living conditions in Greece were harsh, that their applications should be examined with regards to Greece and that they feared upon return to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) of persecution by the family due to alleged refusal to comply with the Yansi tradition, the « Kitsuidi », and opposition to the marriage of their daughter with an uncle. The applications were essentially based on the same facts and alleged fears, and the Council of the Aliens Law Litigation (CALL) decided to join them and adopt a single ruling.

The Council of the Aliens Law Litigation (CALL) noted that the Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) decided to assess the applications on merits on basis that the protection granted in Greece was ineffective. The first applicant, married with a man of Yansi ethnicity, alleged to have fled DRC after she refused to allow the marriage of one of her daughters with the uncle of her spouse, this resulting into a serious incident in the family. The applicant and her children travelled to Belgium via Turkey and were victims of a shipwreck. The CGRS rejected the claim, finding that the applicant did not invoke a risk of personal threat, but facts related to a risk of forced marriage of her daughters according to the Yansi tradition. The CGRS noted that the applicant’s spouse was unaware of such tradition and that the applicant herself was unable to provide details of the concrete risks for her daughters, the differences between normal marriage and traditional marriage, rendering the claim unsubstantiated, lacking authenticity for the claim of a risk of forced marriage. Her allegations on medical grounds were rejected as not having a direct link with the reasons for asylum. For the second applicant, Congolese national married and having three children, alleged similar risk of forced marriage of her young daughter (5 years at the time of the alleged facts) with an uncle and a risk of being killed for refusal to follow the Yansi forced traditional marriage, the « Kitsuidi ». The CGRS found the claims unsubstantiated due to major discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of facts, rendering the claim not credible. The CGRS noted that the applicant failed to prove knowledge of the Yansi tradition, particularly of the “Kitsuidi”, she was unable to provide detailed information on the actual ritual for the marriage, its consequences and related risk for her daughters. The CGRS concluded that the applicant did not demonstrate to have been exposed to or to be at any risk due to opposition to this tradition.

The CGRS negative decisions of 5 April 2024 were overturned by the CALL on 29 August 2024 on grounds that the CGRS must proceed to an exchange of information with the Greek authorities, to fulfil the requirements of the CJEU judgment in QY v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-753/22, 18 June 2024). Consequently, the CGRS conducted a new, complete and updated assessment of the facts, after having received information from the Greek authorities on the decision granting refugee status in Greece. The CGRS rejected again the applications, finding that the applicants did not substantiate a well-founded fear of persecution on any of the grounds in the Geneva Convention. The applicants lodged appeals against these decisions, requesting an assessment for international protection against a difficult situation in Greece.

Based on the Geneva Convention, the CALL reiterated that the applications must be assessed against the situation in their country of origin, thus the developments and information related to the living conditions in Greece and the general situation there were dismissed as irrelevant since the applicants do not explain the nexus between these elements and their request concerning DRC.

The CALL noted that the applicants were recognised as refugees in Greece before applying for international protection in Belgium and cited the CJEU judgment in QY to underline the duty of the Belgian authorities to exchange information with the Greek authorities on the decision granting protection in Greece and the elements supporting it. The CALL noted that the cases were already sent back for the CGRS to comply with this requirement, following which the CGRS contacted the Greek authorities with a request for information. It resulted from this exchange of information that the applicants submitted before the Greek authorities the same facts and allegations, that the Greek authorities considered the vulnerability of the second applicant as victim of a shipwreck, and that international protection was granted on grounds of membership of a particular social group. The CALL affirmed that the CGRS fulfilled its obligation to consult the Greek decision which did not contain details on the reasoning or the assessment and that there were no reasons to contest the validity of the Greek decision since the principle of mutual trust between Member States applied.

Based on the facts exposed by the applicants, the CALL concluded that their statements were contradictory on many aspects, that even if of Yansi ethnicity, the applicants failed to demonstrate sound knowledge of Yansi customs which they claimed to be at the core of their fear to return. The fact of being a victim of shipwreck could not explain the incoherencies and deficiencies of the claims and the medical certificate submitted by the second applicant could not establish the cause of her bruises and the link with her claim. The CALL dismissed the applicant’s allegations of insufficient assessment by the CGRS, noting that the latter took due account of the Greek decision, but this information did not adduce elements to confirm a need for protection. In the absence of a specific request to hear the children of the applicants before the CGRS, the CALL dismissed this plea by noting that the young age of the children at the time of the alleged facts (2 and 5 years old) rendered a personal interview irrelevant. The CALL concluded that the applicants did not fulfil the requirements for being granted refugee protection. Similarly, it found that the applicants did not demonstrate that their return would expose them to a serious risk of death, to inhuman or degrading treatment, or that that the context in their country is characterised by indiscriminate violence of such intensity as to entail a risk of being exposed to serious harm.