Author
Act XL of 2020 amended Article 13 of the Procedural Regulations and added the possibility for the Agency to decide that international protection lapsed where the beneficiary of international protection has unequivocally renounced their protection or has become a Maltese national. Unequivocal renunciation of protection includes a written statement by the beneficiary confirming that they are renouncing their protection status; or failure to renew international protection within a period of twelve (12) months from the lapse of the validity of said protection or its renewal.
This provision is now included in Regulation 13A of the law. While the first ground is transposed from the Asylum Procedures Directive (Article 45(5)), the second ground was never foreseen by the Directive. The Government has indicated to interpret the Directive’s term “unequivocally renounced” as being that situation where a protection beneficiary does not renew their protection certificate within a period of one year from the document’s expiry. NGOs have expressed their concerns regarding this interpretation, since whereas the Directive clearly requires an intentional action on behalf of protection beneficiary, such as a written statement or declaration, the IPA attributes such intentionality to a situation of inaction that might in fact lack intentionality.
Article 13A further provides that beneficiaries who have unequivocally renounced their protection must subsequently make a request in person to the Agency to have their international protection status reinstated, the IPA will review the request to determine whether international protection should once again be granted, provided that the person concerned still meets the eligibility criteria and is not excluded from international protection. According to the Government, a dedicated form is now available for this procedure and the assessment is generally desk-based. [1] Submitting a reinstatement request does not grant the status of an applicant and no documentation or reception conditions are provided. As mentioned above, it is not clear whether the ‘reinstatement’ assessment is another form of admissibility, looking the reasons for the lapse, or a full substantive process. Decisions not to reinstate international protection are not subject to appeal and defined as ‘administrative closures’.
This provision also applies to beneficiaries of Temporary Humanitarian Protection.
In an appeal filed by aditus foundation in August 2022 before the IPAT, the applicant requested the Tribunal to refer a preliminary question to the CJEU regarding the legality of provision 13A of the Act. The case is still pending and a decision on the request for preliminary ruling has yet to be issued.
In the meantime, Act XIX of December 2022 amended the International Protection to provide that no appeal shall lie against decisions of the Agency taken in pursuance to Article 13A.[2]
IPA stated that in 2024, the total number of withdrawal decisions was 1,228 and this figure includes lapsed decisions: 12 withdrawn refugee status; 1,204 withdrawn subsidiary protection and 12 withdrawn THP.
Legal practitioners noted the increased use of lapsed decisions in IPA practice throughout 2024, as also confirmed in the provided figures. Persons mostly affected were protection beneficiaries who had travelled and failed to renew their Maltese protection documents, including their children. In most of these cases, IPA was unable to notify them of its intention to withdraw their protection, and they only became aware of their lapsed status once they returned to Malta.
[1] Ministry for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality, Feedback on the 2022 AIDA Country Report on Malta, shared with ECRE in January 2024.
[2] Article 7(1A)(c) of the International Protection Act.