F.B. v Belgium · No. 47836/21
European Court of Human Rights · 6 March 2025 · Article 8
F.B. told Belgian officials she was sixteen when she applied for protection. An official doubted her age. Within days she underwent X-rays of her hand and wrist, collarbone and teeth. A form recorded that she had no objection. Whether anyone had explained that the tests required her consent was a different question.
Why her age mattered immediately
The guardianship service preferred the medical estimate to the birth documents she produced. It ended her support as an unaccompanied minor, and she moved to an adult reception centre. With a lawyer’s assistance she sought a stay and judicial review. Belgium’s Conseil d’État dismissed both requests.
What Strasbourg found lacking
The judges examined the order of events. A specialist from the guardianship service interviewed F.B. only after the X-rays. An earlier conversation might have resolved the doubt without an invasive test. Even the information sheet the government said she received failed to explain the need for consent. Those safeguards were insufficient under Article 8.
The outcome for F.B.
Strasbourg awarded €5,000 for non-pecuniary harm. Belgium’s action report confirms payment on 24 September 2025. The Court did not determine her true age or rule that bone tests are always unlawful. Her refugee status and ability to attend school were already recorded in the domestic file. Neither was a benefit newly granted by Strasbourg.
Judgment and sources
Read the Strasbourg judgment in HUDOC
Belgium’s execution report confirming payment
More Strasbourg cases · Belgium national journal · Individual consultations
