Subsequent applications

Author

Asylkoordination Österreich Visit Website

The AsylG defines subsequent applications as further applications after a final decision was taken on a previous asylum application.[1] If a further application is submitted while an appeal is still pending, the new application is considered as an addition to the appeal. Different legal safeguards apply depending on the previous procedure (in-merit or Dublin procedure) and the time of submitting the application. Usually, a subsequent application is not admitted to the regular procedure and is rejected as inadmissible.[2]

The Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) can either refuse the appeal rejecting the subsequent application as inadmissible or decide to revert it back to the BFA with the binding instruction to examine the subsequent asylum application either in a regular procedure or by conducting more detailed investigations.

An interview must take place within the admissibility procedure, except in the case where the previous asylum application was rejected due to the responsibility of another Member State. Such interviews are shorter than in the first application and focus on changed circumstances or new grounds for the application. The law does not define new elements, but there are several judgments of the Administrative High Court that are used as guidance for assessing new elements.[3]

Reduced legal safeguards apply in case an inadmissibility decision was taken within the previous 18 months (i.e. if the rejection is connected to an expulsion order and a re-entry ban of 18 months). In this case, there is generally no suspensive effect for the appeal nor for the application itself. In many cases the asylum applicant does not even undergo a personal interview except for the preliminary interrogation conducted by the police.[4]

Suspensive effect against the expulsion order may be granted for an application following a rejection of the application on the merits or a safe third country decision if the execution of the expulsion order of the previous asylum procedure could violate the non-refoulement principle. If suspensive effect is not granted, the file must be forwarded to the BVwG for review and the Court has 8 weeks to decide on the lawfulness of the decision.[5] The expulsion may be enforced 3 days after the Court has received the file.

Asylum applicants sent back to Austria by other Member States two years after their file has been closed due to their absence also have to submit a subsequent application. The same applies to cases in which the decision has become final while the asylum applicant was staying in another Member State.

There is no limit on the number of subsequent applications that can be submitted. Different rules apply regarding  suspensive effect of the application, which depends on whether the expulsion order will be executed within the following 18 days or whether the date is not yet fixed. In cases of rejection of subsequent asylum applications, the same rules regarding free legal assistance during the regular procedure apply.

Asylum applicants who submit a subsequent application within 6 months after the previous application has been rejected are not entitled to Basic Care provisions; nevertheless they may receive Basic Care during the admissibility procedure of the subsequent application (see section on Reception Conditions: Criteria and Restrictions to Access Reception Conditions).[6] If Basic Care is not granted, detention or a less coercive measure such as a designated place of living and reporting duties is ordered.[7]

In 2024, 12% (2023: 5%) of all applications came from subsequent applicants. Almost 60% of the subsequent applications came from Afghan (35%) and Syrian nationals. A rise in subsequent applications by Afghan women happened after October 2024 with the announcement of the CJEU decision C-608/22. There was no noticeable significant rise in first time applications by Afghan women.

Source: Ministry of Interior, Annual statistics 2024, March 2025, available in German at: https://shorturl.at/cfnAz.

[1] Article 2(1)(23) AsylG.

[2] Article 68 AVG.

[3] See AsylGH 09 April 2013, C6 408.412-2/2013; VwGH v. 20 March 2003, Zl. 99/20/0480, AsylGH, 10 April 2013, B10 305.993-2/2013.

[4] Article 12a(1) AsylG.

[5] Article 22(1) BFA-VG.

[6] Article 3(1)(3) Basic Care Act (GVG-B).

[7] Articles 76(3)(4) and 77 FPG.