IThe foreign national has submitted a subsequent asylum application. The decision on that application was taken on behalf of the State Secretary by the employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (hereinafter: the IND) who heard the alien and also issued the intention. The foreign national argues that the objectivity of decision-making is at stake and that the state secretary has acted in violation of the so-called four-eyes principle.

According to the Court,  there is no legal provision stipulating that in asylum cases it is not permitted that one and the same employee of the IND hears the alien, issues the intention and takes the decision. Pursuant to Article 10: 3 (3) of the General Administrative Law Act, a primary decision and a decision on an objection against it cannot be taken by the same person. As the Department has previously considered, the legal history does not provide any clues for the opinion that this article applies analogously to the issuing of an intention and the making of a decision (see the ruling of 14 March 2003, ECLI: NL: RVS: 2003 : AH9817 ). There is no reason to judge differently now.

Contrary to what the foreign national argues, it does not follow either from the Procedural Directive or the due care principle that the four-eyes principle must be applied. In view of the above, and contrary to what the foreign national argues, the District Court has rightly considered that the State Secretary was right to take the view that the circumstance that the same person heard the foreign national, intended to make the decision and made the decision, did not contradict is with a legal provision or the due care principle.