Netherlands - District Court Haarlem, 3 March 2009, AWB 09 / 5250; AWB 09 / 5249; AWB 09/5529
| Country of Decision: | Netherlands |
| Country of applicant: | Sri Lanka |
| Court name: | District Court Haarlem |
| Date of decision: | 03-03-2009 |
| Citation: | AWB 09 / 5250 (temporary injunction); AWB 09 / 5249 (asylum appeal); AWB 09/5529 (appeal custodial measure) |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Subsequent application
Description
Where a person who has applied for refugee status in a Member State makes further representations or a subsequent application in the same Member State. Member States may apply a specific procedure involving a preliminary examination where a decision has been taken on the previous application or where a previous application has been withdrawn or abandoned. As with all aspects of the procedures directive, the same provisions will apply to applicants for subsidiary protection where a single procedure applies to both applications for asylum and subsidiary protection. |
Headnote:
This case concerned the submission of evidence for a subsequent asylum application where that evidence could have been submitted in support of the initial application.
It was held that since the applicant could already have produced that evidence in his initial asylum application, the reliance on that evidence could not now be considered as evidence relating to new facts and circumstances that could be relied upon to successfully substantiate a subsequent asylum application. Further, the domestic provision of Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act was not found to be contrary to Art 32 and 34 of the Procedures Directive.
Facts:
The applicant, a Sri Lankan national, submitted the following evidence in support of his subsequent application for asylum: copies of newspapers in the Tamil language and a photocopy of a medical report of his elbow from 1990. The applicant put forward that, after his departure from Sri Lanka, the army enquired after him, with his mother. He also argued that he had been in jail in Jaffna for one year, and that he was forced to build trenches for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Decision & reasoning:
Since the applicant could already have produced the newspaper copies and the photocopy of the medical analysis in his first asylum application, it was held that these documents could not be considered new facts and circumstances that could successfully substantiate a subsequent asylum application. The court further held that a development in case law could not be considered a change in the law either, and would therefore not qualify as a new fact or circumstance for the purposes of a subsequent application.
Finally, the Court decided that Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act (concerning subsequent applications, and the obligation to produce new facts and circumstances, ed.) is not contrary to Art 32 and 34 of the Procedures Directive.
The Court found that the application of Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act does not violate the guarantees on access to asylum procedures as provided for in Art 34 of the Procedures Directive.
Outcome:
The appeal was dismissed.