Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Country of Decision : Poland
Court Name : PL: Supreme Administrative Court [Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny]
Date of decision : 29/01/2020
Type : Judgment
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : no II OSK 3478/19

D.Z. v Refugee Board [Rada do Spraw Uchodźców]

PL: The Supreme Administrative Court ruled on the issue of providing an interview in subsequent applications.

According to the summary provided by the EASO Courts and Tribunals Network:

D.Z.’ second application for international protection was dismissed as inadmissible by decision of the Refugee Board in August 2019 for lack of new evidence.

The applicant contested the decision and the court of first instance dismissed the claim by indicating that in the subsequent application for international protection, the complainant did not indicate any new circumstances significant from the point of view of the grounds for granting the refugee status or subsidiary protection, which he would not have declared previously. In addition to the appeal, the applicant's reference to unspecified information obtained from relatives from his country of origin (from his wife's grandmother) that he was wanted by the local services was, in the court's opinion, improbable. Hence, the questioning of the applicant in the abovementioned circumstance, without him having and indicating the relevant evidence, would have had no evidentiary effect.

The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the court of first instance decision, and stated that failure to hear the applicant in the proceedings before the authority in the circumstances of the case did not affect the outcome of the case. According to the Directive 2013/32/EU, Member States may lay down in national law rules on the preliminary examination of a subsequent application, including allowing a preliminary examination only on the basis of written statements without a hearing, except in the cases referred to in Art. 40 sec. 6 (Article 42 (2b) of Directive 2013/32/EU). In the Act of 13th of June 2003 on granting protection to Aliens on a territory of Poland, the Polish legislator did not introduce separate rules for explanatory proceedings in the case of examining another application for international protection. Article 44 sec. 1 of the Act of 13th of June 2003 implies an obligation to hear the applicant also in the proceedings initiated by the subsequent application. Although, it is true that the failure to interview a party is a breach of the procedural provisions, however the consequences of withdrawing from the interview due to the applicant submitting another application for international protection are subject to evaluation each time due to their impact on the outcome of the case.

Personal Interview/ Oral hearing; Subsequent Application;

Revised Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) and/or APD 2005/85/CE;

EASO Courts and Tribunals Network

Poland, Supreme Administrative Court [Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny], D.Z. v Refugee Board [Rada do Spraw Uchodźców], no II OSK 3478/19, 29 January 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.