Netherlands - District court Zwolle, 24 May 2011 , AWB 11/38687

Facts:

The applicant submitted a subsequent application for asylum. This application was rejected with reference to Art 4:6 of the General Administrative law Act. The applicant claimed that this was a violation of Art 32 of the Asylum Procedures Directive. 

Decision & reasoning:

The District Court held that the procedure of Art 32 of the Asylum Procedures Directive resembles the procedure of subsequent applications of Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act as applied in the jurisprudence. This article requires, just like Art 32 of the Directive, not only that the claimed facts and circumstances of the subsequent application are new, but also that they are relevant and thus contribute to the likelihood that the applicant qualifies for an asylum residence permit. In this, just like the assessment of Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act, the first step is whether or not the claimed new fact is a relevant novelty. Only if this is the case, will the assessment of the subsequent application take place. The court concluded that Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act is in conformity with the Asylum Procedures Directive. 

Outcome:

The appeal of the applicant was dismissed.

Observations/comments:

Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act states:

(1) If a subsequent application is made after the first application has been rejected in whole or in part, the applicant has to state new facts or circumstances.

(2) When the applicant does not state new facts or circumstances, the administrative body can reject the subsequent application with reference to its previous rejection […]