The law provides the opportunity given by the recast Asylum Procedures Directive to consider subsequent applications as inadmissible based on a preliminary examination whether new elements or findings have arisen or been presented by the applicant relating to his or her personal situation or country of origin. 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 provided in the recast Asylum Procedures Directive.
Within the hypotheses adopted in national legislation, subsequent applications are not examined and the applicants are stripped from the right to remain when the first subsequent application is considered to be 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. The competent court is the territorially competent regional administrative court, 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 2022, 87 asylum seekers in total submitted subsequent applications. Out of them, 48 (55%) were declared inadmissible and 29 (33%) were granted access to further determination, the rest 23 (26%) subsequent applications were still pending as of 31 December 2022. A breakdown per country of origin is as follows:
|Subsequent applications: 2022|
|Country of origin||Number|
|Central African Republic||2|
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.
 Articles 75a to 76c LAR; Article 76d in conjunction with Article 13 (2) LAR.
 Article 42(2)(b) recast Asylum Procedures Directive.
 Article 84(6) LAR.
 Article 84(20 LAR.