A female applicant claimed to be an unaccompanied minor. She submitted a copy of her birth certificate to the reception centre where she had been residing. An age assessment determined that she was an adult and her biological age fell within an interval very close to the age stated by the applicant. Two special needs and vulnerability assessments determined that the applicant was a vulnerable person. In the administrative procedure, a male officer of the Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior interviewed the applicant, with the assistance of two male interpreters.

By decision of 29 January 2026, the Migration Department refused to grant the applicant international protection. By judgment of 30 March 2026, the Regional Administrative Court annulled the decision and ordered a re-examination of the application. The court held that the Migration Department had failed to assess the applicant's birth certificate, despite being aware of this document, and failed to take into account her vulnerability when she had been interviewed by male officer and interpreters. Therefore, the application had not been properly assessed, as age and vulnerability determine how the interview should be conducted, how the answers and credibility should be evaluated, and whether the benefit of the doubt principle should be applied. The court also stressed that abstract account and inability to remember certain events and details may be related to a vulnerable applicant's state of health, abilities, and orientation in time and space. In fact, the applicant stated that she had no education and struggled with numbers and dates, but the Migration Department had not taken these circumstances into account. The Migration Department appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

By judgment of 3 June 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the Migration Department's appeal and upheld the first instance judgment. The court pointed out that the Description of the Procedure for Granting and Withdrawing Asylum establishes that, as special procedural guarantees, the applicant shall be interviewed by an officer and interpreter of the same sex, and an applicant's vulnerability shall be taken into account when assessing credibility. Given that the applicant had been interviewed by a male officer and interpreters, the Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the Regional Administrative Court's assessment that this vulnerable applicant had been interviewed without special procedural guarantees.

Additionally, the Supreme Administrative Court also considered that – given that the applicant's assessed age fell within an interval very close to the age stated by the applicant, and the age was one of the criteria for determining the applicant's needs and special procedural guarantees – the Migration Department should assess the applicant's birth certificate as part of the evidence.

In conclusion, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the application had not been assessed individually and the applicant's vulnerability and its impact on the administrative procedure had not been properly taken into account. Therefore, the court dismissed the Migration Department's appeal and upheld the judgment of the first instance court, which had ordered a re-examination of the application.