Subsequent application

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examination where a decision has been taken on the previous application or where a previous application has been withdrawn or abandoned.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.


Derived by EDAL from APD Art. 32

Legislative reference(s): 

Recital 15 and Articles 7(2), 23(4)(h), 32, 34(3)(b) and 39(1)(c) Procedures Directive 2005/85/EC; Article 5 Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC

CJEU: C-239/14 Tall – Advocate General finds preliminary reference on effective remedy inadmissible

Thursday, September 3, 2015

The Labour Court of Liège requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on whether Belgian appeal procedures against a decision not to consider a subsequent claim for asylum was compatible with the right to an effective remedy in Article 39 of the 

Belgium: Council of Alien Law Litigation suspends Dublin transfer to Hungary

Thursday, June 25, 2015

This case relates to an Afghan national who claimed asylum in Belgium in April 2015. His claim was refused by the Aliens Office under the Dublin III Regulation and his transfer to Hungary was ordered. The applicant subsequently lodged a request with the Council of Alien Law Litigation (CALL) to suspend this transfer under the ‘extremely urgent procedure’.

ECtHR - A.M.E. v the Netherlands (no. 51428/10) [Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13] 5 February 2015

Monday, February 9, 2015

The case relates to a Somali national who fled Somalia on account of his refusal to join Al-Shabaab. He later arrived in Italy, subsequently applying for asylum and receiving subsidiary protection in the country.  Travelling to the Netherlands the applicant filed a second application. This was later rejected due to Italy’s responsibility for processing the asylum application, pursuant to the Dublin Regulation and insufficient argumentation presented that a risk of ill-treatment would occur if the applicant were returned to Italy [12].  

Belgian - Council of State quashes CALLs decision for vulnerable asylum applicant

Monday, December 8, 2014

Procedurally the case relates to several (6) asylum applications lodged in Belgium which were refused to be taken into consideration by the authorities and later subject to annulment appeals by the applicant. The last two of these annulment appeals were rejected by the Council of Aliens Law Litigation (CALL) on the basis that the applicant had not provided new elements to the claim.


Subscribe to RSS - Subsequent application