Case summaries
The court confirmed in this case that the assessment framework of Art 4:6 of the General Administrative Law Act, in relation to subsequent asylum applications, is in conformity with the Asylum Procedures Directive.
Even if the conditions for considering a subsequent application as inadmissible are fulfilled, the Ministry of Interior is still obliged to consider whether the applicant is in danger of serious harm upon return to his or her country of origin.
The applicant could not provide sufficient proof of her claims that she had been subject to honour-related violence. The information was not found credible and did not constitute a permanent impediment for the enforcement of an expulsion order.
Documents that only serve to prove facts and situations that have been invoked in earlier procedures and/or to refute the reasons for rejection in earlier decisions, are not new elements within the meaning of Art 51/8 of the Belgian Aliens Law (please see comments section below).
(1) be new, i.e. not have been subject to examination in an earlier procedure;
- Refugee status was recognised because of a risk of persecution in case of return to Vietnam due to “exposed” political activities in exile.
- Recognition as a refugee was not excluded by Section 28 (2) of the Asylum Procedure Act. Contrary to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court, political activities in exile do not constitute “circumstances which the applicant has created by his own decision” within the meaning of Art. 5.3 of the Qualification Directive , but fall under Art. 5.2. Therefore, Member States have no competence to regulate the meaning of such "activities" by applying Art 5.3. This is also demonstrated in the differentiation in Art. 4.3 (c) and (d). Art. 5 (2) of the Qualification Directive which essentially corresponds with the new Section 28 (1a) of the Asylum Procedure Act, although the term "activities" has not been adopted in the latter provision.
Article 29(1), introductory paragraph and (b) of the Foreigners Act (2000) (which provides protection in the Netherlands against a potential breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) provides for the same protection as Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. The latter article therefore does not amend the law.
Article 29(1), introductory paragraph and (b) of the Foreigners Act (2000) (which provides protection in the Netherlands against a potential breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights) provides for the same protection as Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. The latter article therefore does not amend the law.
If re-examination of a case under the Aliens Act Chapter 12 Section 19 (provides for re-examination of a claim on the presentation of information supporting a need for international protection) has been granted, the Migration Board cannot deny a residence permit without an oral healing having been held.
The Council of State ruled that new evidence submitted in a subsequent application for asylum that is relied upon to prove facts and circumstances in the first application and/or to refute grounds of refusal of the first asylum application, is not to be considered a new element within the meaning of Art 51/8, Belgian Aliens Law (please see comments section below).