Title	Opinion of Advocate General Hogan, delivered on 11 February 2021, Case C‑921/19, LH v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Publisher	European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union
Publication Date	11 February 2021
Country	Afghanistan | Netherlands
Topics	Fresh / New claim | Refugee / Asylum law
Citation / Document Symbol	ECLI:EU:C:2021:117
Cite as	Opinion of Advocate General Hogan, delivered on 11 February 2021, Case C‑921/19, LH v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, ECLI:EU:C:2021:117, European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union, 11 February 2021, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECJ,603696914.html [accessed 19 May 2023]
Comments	The maintenance by a determining authority of a Member State of a practice whereby original documents can never constitute new elements or findings for the purposes of a subsequent asylum application if the authenticity of those documents cannot be established is incompatible with Article 40(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted. There is no difference between copies of documents or documents originating from a non-objectively verifiable source submitted by an applicant in a subsequent application in so far as all documents have to be considered carefully and rigorously on an individual basis in order to ascertain whether they significantly add to the likelihood that the applicant qualifies as a beneficiary of international protection and in order to prevent a person from being expelled if he or she faces an individual and real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2. Article 40 of Directive 2013/32, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of Directive 2011/95, cannot be interpreted as permitting a determining authority of a Member State, when assessing documents and assigning probative value to such documents, to distinguish between documents submitted in an initial application and those submitted in a subsequent application. A Member State, when assessing documents in a subsequent application, is obliged to cooperate with the applicant to the same extent as in the initial procedure.
Disclaimer	This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.