ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
Luxembourg - Administrative Tribunal, 3rd Chamber, 39735, 21 June 2017
Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
21-06-2017
Citation:
39735
Court Name:
Administrative Tribunal
Keywords:
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Luxembourg - Law of 08 March 2017
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
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.
