extent to which Article 94(10) Asylum Code, requiring the submission of a € 100 fee for the registration of each second or further subsequent application, was triggered throughout the year (see below: Second and every following subsequent application). Information on the main nationalities of those that submitted subsequent asylum applications during the year is also not included in the specific publications, nor was it provided instead referencing the aforementioned publicly available data, which despite some improvements, is still lacking. The same applies to information regarding the total number of subsequent applications that were considered admissible and referred to be examined on the merits. From January 2024 until November 2024, a total of 3,037 subsequent applications were dismissed as inadmissible at first instance and 1.693 at second instance.775 Preliminary examination procedure When a subsequent application is lodged, the competent authorities examine the application in conjunction with the information provided in previous applications.776 Subsequent applications are subject to a preliminary examination, during which the authorities examine whether new substantial elements have arisen or have been presented by the applicant that could not be invoked by the applicant through no fault of their own during the examination of their previous application for international protection or appeal. The preliminary examination of subsequent applications is conducted within five days from their lodging to assess whether new substantial elements have arisen or been submitted by the applicant.777 The examination takes place within two days if the applicant’s right to remain on the territory has been withdrawn.778 During this preliminary stage, all information is provided by the applicant in writing.779 Given the purpose of the procedure, elements or claims related either to the applicant’s personal circumstances or to the situation in the applicant’s country of origin that did not exist during the examination of their previous application should be considered new in light of the first asylum procedure. Elements previously available to the applicant or claims that could have been submitted during the first asylum procedure should be considered new when the applicant provides valid reasoning for not presenting them at that stage. Furthermore, such new elements should be considered to be substantial if they lead to the conclusion that the application is not manifestly unfounded, that is to say, if the applicant does not invoke claims clearly not related to the criteria for refugee status or subsidiary protection. In line with the above, the First Instance Administrative Court of Thessaloniki noted in its 433/2024 decisions: “The contested decision accepted that the criminal judgments sentencing the applicant in Turkey were issued before the submission of his initial application. The Commission also considered that it was not bound, in the present case, by the above decisions of the Council of Appeal not to extradite the applicant to his country. However, with the above content, the contested decision does not contain a valid statement of reasons. That is because it does not contain any judgment and does not specify whether in a specific manner the reasons why the Appeals Committee decided that the decisions of the Council of Appeal submitted by the applicant, with the above content, which, although they constitute, as stated above, new evidence, adopted after the applicant's first application for international protection had been rejected, do not constitute, in the opinion of the Committee, material evidence capable of influencing the decision on the application for international protection in order to justify further examination of the applicant's subsequent application. For that reason, which is validly put forward, the contested decision must be annulled and the case referred back to the administration for a fresh legal assessment.” The 14th Appeals Committee noted in its decision IP/96053/2024: (…) the application of ...2023 has the character of a subsequent application in relation to the original application, since it was submitted after the final decision was issued. In her initial application, she claimed that she had left the country for economic reasons, whereas in the first subsequent application she claimed that she had been raped by her half-brother in Morocco, an allegation which she repeated in the second subsequent application. Consequently, the 775 776 777 778 779 MoMA, Statistics, Consolidated Reports - Overview: December 2024 - International Protection | Appendix A, available here, tables 6a and 6b.( new link Article 94 (1) of Asylum Code. Article 94 (2) of Asylum Code. Articles 94(2) and 94 (9) of Asylum Code. Article 94 (2) of Asylum Code. 153