Netherlands - Court of The Hague - NL21.20251

The case concerns the asylum application in the Netherlands of an applicant claiming to be stateless. The court found that the Dutch authorities erred when they assumed the applicant's name, date of birth and nationality, without sufficiently motivating this decision, despite the applicant's consistent statements on statelessness.

Case name (in original language)
Rechtbank Den Haag, Zittingsplaats Utrecht Bestuursrecht zaaknummer: NL21.20251
Case status
Decided
Case number
NL21.20251, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:13109
Citation
Decision Rechtbank Den Haag 3 June 2022
Date of decision
State
Court / UN Treaty Body
Court of The Hague, location Utrecht
Language(s) the decision is available in
Dutch
Applicant's country of residence
Netherlands
Relevant Legislative Provisions
  • Work Instruction IND 2018/19
Facts

In the contested decision, the Dutch authorities (the State Secretary for Justice and Security) granted the applicant an asylum permit. In doing so, the authorities assumed the applicant's name, his date of birth in 2000, and that he had Syrian nationality.

Decision & Reasoning

The court finds that the authorities' determination of the applicant’s age as described was made negligently and was insufficiently reasoned. First of all, the court cannot follow the authorities' reference to the conclusion of the investigations. The official report concluded that the applicant was obviously an adult. However, the officers did not observe any physical characteristics in the applicant that would indicate majority age and the record further shows that the investigators observed that the claimant was very nervous during the hearing, that his story was not clear, that it seemed as if he had rehearsed his story, and that he had difficulty persevering in this narrative. The court does not see how, based on these observations, the investigators could have concluded that the applicant was obviously an adult. Moreover, the court cannot follow the authorities's choice to assumer one date of birth (2000) when there are two registrations in Italy. This is because the authorities' policy states that if the foreigner is registered in one Member State with multiple ages, the authorities will have to find out which date of birth is used in that Member State. The authorities acted in violation of this policy because, according to the explanation given at the hearing, the authorities did not investigate which date of birth is followed by the Italian authorities. The court notes that the applicant is registered in Italy under a certain name with a date of birth in 2004 and under a certain name with a date of birth in 2000. The court fails to see why the authorities follow the applicant in his claimed name, but not in the corresponding date of birth in the Italian registration. The court further finds that the authorities have not given sufficient reasons to explain why the applicant's Syrian nationality was assumed. The court does not see anywhere in the record of the hearing of the investigation and in the reports of the application hearing and the further hearing that the applicant was explicitly asked what nationality he has, nor that the applicant stated of his own accord that he has Syrian nationality. While the asylum application and the report of the further hearing (and alsothe official report and the application hearing) 'schematically' show that the claimant has Syrian nationality, the court considers this insufficient, as it is unclear how this information appeared in those documents. Indeed, the applicant has consistently stated that he is an unregistered Kurd from Syria and that he is stateless. The court refers to the record, the report of the application hearing and the report of the further hearing. The applicant also pointed out in the corrections and supplements to the application hearing that he is not registered in Syria and that he is stateless. The court cannot follow the authorities' position that this cannot be seen as actually opposing the determination of Syrian nationality. After all, the corrections and additions are an important part of the assessment of the asylum narrative, and it is up to the authorities to explain how they are included in the assessment.

Outcome

The conclusion of the authorities about the applicant's Syrian nationality was therefore negligently and inadequately justified. Based on the interviews, the applicant mentioned several times that he was not registered in Syria and that he was stateless. The court found the appeal well-founded and obliged the authorities to do a proper research and take a new decision within 10 weeks.