THE BOTTOM LINE
- Existing EU Protection is a Bar: An individual who already has international protection (like a residence permit) in one EU member state (e.g., Bulgaria) cannot apply for asylum in another (the Netherlands). The application will be deemed inadmissible.
- The Burden of Proof is High: The responsibility falls entirely on the applicant to provide concrete evidence that their protection status has been officially revoked. Simply claiming it or possessing an expired document is not sufficient.
- “Inter-State Trust” Prevails: Dutch courts continue to operate on the principle that other EU member states are safe and will meet their human rights obligations. Overcoming this legal presumption requires showing systemic failures or extreme personal hardship, a very high threshold.
THE DETAILS
This case centered on an individual who, despite holding a residence permit in Bulgaria since 2010, applied for asylum in the Netherlands in April 2024. The Dutch immigration authorities promptly declared the application inadmissible, citing a key provision in the Dutch Aliens Act that prevents processing applications from individuals already protected by another EU member state. This decision aligns with the EU’s common asylum procedures, which are designed to prevent “asylum shopping” and ensure responsibility is handled by the first country of protection.
The applicant challenged this decision on two main grounds. First, he claimed his Bulgarian residence permit had been revoked and that the physical document had expired, leaving him without legal status. Second, he argued that returning to Bulgaria would subject him to inhuman or degrading treatment, violating Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), due to a lack of housing, work, and medical care. He claimed he was in “evidentiary distress,” unable to obtain official proof of the revocation from the Bulgarian authorities.
The District Court of The Hague firmly rejected these arguments. It found the applicant had failed to provide any documentation to substantiate the claim that his protection status was revoked. The court referenced established case law, clarifying that an expired residence document does not equate to a revoked legal status. The underlying protection is presumed to remain intact unless formally withdrawn. Furthermore, the court upheld the foundational principle of inter-state trust, stating that the Netherlands must presume Bulgaria will adhere to its legal obligations. The applicant’s claims of potential hardship were not supported by evidence and were further weakened by his long history of living, working, and running a business in Bulgaria.
SOURCE: Rechtbank Den Haag
