Case summaries
This case was an appeal against the decision of the Polish Refugee Board on refusal to accord refugee status on the grounds that the application was manifestly unfounded application, and on granting a permit for tolerated stay. The lack of grounds for an application does not mean that the case should not be examined on its merits.
When assessing a subsequent application, the authority may find that, in the framework of the new assertions of the interested party, the application is manifestly unfounded. The authority has the right to reach such a conclusion provided that the application is first examined in the context of its contents and in the context of the evidence cited by the Applicant.
The authority is also obliged to examine the case initiated by the subsequent application in light of the progress made, if any, in the case concerning the previously submitted (first) application for refugee status.
This case concerned subsequent applications for asylum. The CALL ruled that the principle of res judicata (matter already judged) is not applicable in a case where the subsequent application is not based on the same set of facts as the earlier application.
Under Art 4 of the Qualification Directive the applicant is obliged to substantiate his application. No obligation exists on the State, if the applicant failed to do so, to provide an expert who can establish the authenticity of the submitted documents.
The Council also found that the Immigration Department can only reject, at the phase of taking into consideration of an application, the elements that are not new in the sense of Art 51/8 or that are manifestly irrelevant.
This case concerned subsequent applications for asylum. The Constitutional Court ruled that Art 50, (3) and (4) of the Belgian Aliens Law (current Art 51/8) should be interpreted in such a way that the possibility to lodge an appeal for suspension of that decision is only excluded in cases where the following three conditions are met:
(1) the applicant has filed an earlier asylum application that was refused;
(2) the applicant has had the opportunity to appeal this decision and to exhaust his legal remedies;
(3) the applicant is making an identical asylum application without submitting any new elements.