The case concerned the question whether the State Secretary had correctly established the date from which the applicant benefits of asylum, how to establish the date of application.

In fact, the State Secretary rejected as inadmissible the first asylum application and did not process it on the merits because it determined that Germany was the Member State responsible to process it, according to the Dublin III Regulation. Since the time limit to transfer the applicant to Germany under Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation expired, Netherlands became responsible to process the application. When the applicant inquired about the next steps of the procedure and the interview, the Stat Secretary answered that the asylum procedure was no longer opened and that he had to submit a new application.  The applicant resubmitted the same information and when he was granted refugee status, the State Secretary stated the effective date for the residence permit on the date of receipt of the second application.

The applicant appealed and contested the starting date of his refugee status. The Court of the Hague seated in Arhen rejected the appeal of the applicant and stated that the first asylum procedure had been terminated by the decision not to examine the application, even though that decision was legally established and had not been withdrawn. The court confirmed the State Secretary approach that the applicant had to submit a new application and that the effective date is the day on which the application is received, namely the second application.

The applicant contested further before the Council of State and argued that the lower court erroneously considered that the first proceedings had been terminated, because the State Secretary did not take a decision on the merits on the first application. The applicant claimed that the effective date of the granted asylum permit should have been the date of receipt of the first application, and not the second.

The Council of State allowed the appeal and clarified that according to the Dublin III Regulation, one Member State is responsible for the examination of the application and the determining of the responsible State does not constitute part of the examination of the asylum application. The Council of State further mentioned that a decision based on the Dublin procedure does not mean that the asylum application ceases to exist, and that the applicant should take steps to revive the application after expiry of the transfer period, on the contrary this is the responsibility of the Dutch authorities.

The Council of State ruled that it is contrary to the Dublin III regulation and the Asylum Procedures Directive to hold that a decision not to process the application under the Dublin procedure has terminated the asylum procedure. It stated that a Member State which is already responsible for examining the application under the Dublin III Regulation cannot refuse the responsibility for examination on the ground that the applicant has not submitted a new application because it would lead to a situation when temporarily there will be no Member State responsible for examining the application, rendering Article 3(1) and Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation without effect.

The Council further clarified that a decision not to process an application does not imply that the State Secretary can request a new application.

The Council of State concluded that, after the Netherlands had become responsible for examining the asylum application on the basis of Article 29(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, the State Secretary had to take a decision based on the original application and that the effective date for the residence permit is linked to the time of submission of the original application.