Author
The law provides, in line with the opportunity provided by the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, to consider subsequent applications as inadmissible based on a preliminary examination of whether new elements or findings have arisen or been presented by the applicant relating to their personal situation or country of origin.[1] The inadmissibility assessment can be conducted on the sole basis of written submissions without a personal interview. The national arrangements, however, do not envisage the related exceptions of this rule as established in the recast Asylum Procedures Directive.[2]
Within the hypotheses adopted in national legislation, subsequent applications are not examined and the applicants are stripped from the right to remain when it is considered that the first subsequent application was submitted merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a removal decision; or where it concerns another subsequent application, following a final inadmissibility / unfounded decision considering a first subsequent application.
If the subsequent application is declared inadmissible within the preclusive 14 days deadline, this decision can be appealed within a deadline of 7 days. The appeal has no suspensive effect; however, the court is obligated ex lege to consider whether the appellant should remain in the country until the judgement is delivered.[3] The competent court is the territorially competent regional administrative court,[4] which hears the appeal case in one instance. If the court rules the admission of the subsequent application, the SAR has to register the applicant within 3 working days from the date the admission has taken place (entered into force).
In 2023, 94 asylum seekers in total submitted subsequent applications. Out of them, 64 (68%) were declared inadmissible and 30 (32%) were granted access to further determination. A breakdown per country of origin is as follows:
| Subsequent applications: 2023 | |
| Country of origin | Number |
| Syria | 28 |
| Iran | 12 |
| Afghanistan | 10 |
| Morocco | 6 |
| Iraq | 7 |
| Stateless | 5 |
| Algeria | 3 |
| Russian federation | 5 |
| Uzbekistan | 2 |
| Venezuela | 2 |
| Lebanon | 1 |
| Zimbabwe | 1 |
| Cote D’ivoire | 1 |
| Armenia | 1 |
| Yemen | 1 |
| Cameroon | 1 |
| Somalia | 1 |
| Kazakhstan | 1 |
| Türkiye | 1 |
| Nigeria | 1 |
| Bangladesh | 3 |
| Myanmar – Burma | 1 |
Source: SAR.
Subsequent applications supported by individualised evidence have been admitted to determination at the first instance. Albeit encouraging, this approach of the SAR can still not be considered as a common practice.
[1] Articles 75a to 76c LAR; Article 76d in conjunction with Article 13 (2) LAR.
[2] Article 42(2)(b) recast Asylum Procedures Directive.
[3] Article 84(6) LAR.
[4] Article 84(2) LAR.