An Algerian national unsuccessfully contested the decision of the Ministry of the Interior of 8 July 2025 before the Administrative Court (Court of First Instance). The Ministry's decision dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s subsequent application on grounds that the request did not reveal new facts and evidence which would significantly increase the likelihood of being eligible for international protection. The applicant further appealed before the Supreme Court alleging procedural violations.

The Supreme Court cited the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment in LH v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (C-921/19) to reiterate that a subsequent application can be rejected as inadmissible if no new elements and facts are presented by an applicant on the conditions of being granted international protection. The court also refers to the CJEU judgment A.A. v Federal Republic of Germany (C-216/22) from 8 February 2024 to state that, in view of Articles 33 (2) (d) and (3) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (APD), the possibility to reject a subsequent application as inadmissible constitutes an exception and must be applied narrowly, whereas for the cases where a subsequent application can be considered admissible the interpretation is broader.

The Supreme Court clarified that the admissibility examination must be conducted in two stages: First, to determine whether the applicant has submitted new elements or findings related to the eligibility criteria for international protection, and second, whether those elements would significantly increase the likelihood of being granted protection. In view of the CJEU jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruled that the competent authority and the Administrative Court may conclude that a subsequent application is inadmissible only after having conducted a substantive assessment of both conditions of inadmissibility of the application.

The Supreme Court noted that the applicant has submitted a second summon issued for compulsory military service in Algeria. The determining authority and the lower court deemed this summon as constituting a new fact in the assessment, but not as significant enough to increase the likelihood of being granted protection. The lower court considered the applicant’s statements regarding poor conditions in the army as too general and not supported by evidence.

The Supreme Court noted that the applicant’s claim was rejected primarily due to alleged general and unclear statements and not based on an actual assessment of reasons for which those new elements were found as having low or no probability of increasing the likelihood of eligibility for protection. The court emphasised that, if it considered that the new facts were unclear or unspecific, the Ministry of the Interior, should have carried out a substantive assessment to allow the applicant to clarify his statements on the alleged poor conditions in the army. The Supreme Court also affirmed that only an assessment of the circumstances based on which the applicant refuses compulsory military service can clarify whether those reasons would be relevant for international protection.

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that a higher burden of proof lies with the applicant to substantiate his claim and to submit relevant evidence, but affirmed that the administrative authority has the important duty to ask specific questions for clarifications. The Supreme Court found that the lower court erroneously rejected the appeal since the lack of a substantive assessment constituted a violation of administrative procedural rules.

The Supreme Court annulled the contested decision and remitted the case for a new procedure before the administrative court.