Luxembourg - Administrative Tribunal, 3rd Chamber, 39735, 21 June 2017
| Country of Decision: | Luxembourg |
| Country of applicant: | Algeria |
| Court name: | Administrative Tribunal |
| Date of decision: | 21-06-2017 |
| Citation: | 39735 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Credibility assessment
{ return; } );"
>
Description
Assessment made in adjudicating an application for a visa, or other immigration status, in order to determine whether the information presented by the applicant is consistent and credible. |
|
Unaccompanied minor
{ return; } );"
>
Description
“’Unaccompanied minors’ means third-country nationals or stateless persons below the age of 18, who arrive on the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by an adult responsible for them whether by law or custom, and for as long as they are not effectively taken into the care of such a person; it includes minors who are left unaccompanied after they have entered the territory of the Member States.” |
Headnote:
The presumption of minority does not apply when bone testing shows the applicant’s majority and when a doctor does not express doubts on the results. The tribunal did not request further tests.
Facts:
The applicant, who had been stopped by the police that same day, was later escorted to Kirchberg Hospital in order to have a bone examination on 30 May 2017. The test found that the applicant was at least 19 years old.
On 30 May 2017, the authorities decided to remove the applicant and to administratively detain him until said removal.
Decision & reasoning:
The tribunal found that the bone testing followed the Greulich and Pyle Method, which is unable to establish with precision an age between 16 and 18. However, the tribunal found that the doctor was steadfast in his conviction that the applicant had reached the age of legal majority, which left little doubt in the reasoning of the judge.
Although the bones testing method was not fool-proof, the tribunal referred to the position of the doctor (whether the doctor had expressed having any doubts or not) in order to remedy this deficiency. As such, minority cannot be a presumption when a test establishes an applicant’s legal majority and when the responsible medical authority has no doubts about the result.
Outcome:
The tribunal rejected the appeal.
Subsequent proceedings:
The applicant appealed against the decision of the Tribunal before the Court of Appeal. However, the appellate judges agreed with the reasoning of the impugned decision and confirmed the tribunal´s judgment (see Administrative Court, Judgment no. 39799C of 6 July 2017).
Observations/comments:
The original version of this case summary was aritten by Passerell a.s.b.l.
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Luxembourg - Law of 08 March 2017 |