Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Slovenia
Country of Decision : Slovenia
Court Name : SI: Supreme Court [Vrhovno sodišče]
Date of decision : 30/09/2020
Type : Judgment
ECLI : ECLI:SI:VSRS:2020:I.UP.53.2020
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : 53/2020

Ministry of the Interior v Applicant (no. 2)

SI: Supreme Administrative Court held that no extraordinary appeal is admissible if administrative court fulfilled the requirements for effective legal remedy on a decision for restricted movement of an asylum applicant

By order of 31 January 2020, the Office for Support and Integration of Migrants restricted the movement of the applicant to the premises of the reception centres where he was allocated to, between 29 January 2020 at 12:20 pm until the termination of the reasons for which the restriction was imposed, and for a maximum of three months, with the possibility of one month extension. The applicant appealed before the first instance court (administrative court) who held that the determining authority did not prove that the applicant lodged an asylum application solely to delay or obstruct the removal procedure from Slovenia. Moreover, the decision to restrict movement was not issued during a removal procedure, as the return was suspended pending a decision in a Dublin procedure. The court of first instance ruled that the requirements for such a measure were not met in the applicant’s case. The Ministry of the Interior appealed.

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal as inadmissible extraordinary remedy, because legal requirements for admission were not met. The Supreme Court did not find a different factual situation and did not amend the contested administrative act. The applicant had arbitrarily left the asylum centre in Slovenia on 29 February 2020 and the administrative court correctly identified that no constitutional rights are disputed in the case, consequently no extraordinary appeal can be allowed.

The Supreme Court applied the constitutional principle of equality, noting that it would be against the Constitution Acts if the applicant would have only a possibility to lodge and exceptional legal remedy (revision) against the judgment of the Administrative Court, which upheld the administrative decision on detention, while the Ministry of the Interior would have a right to appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court by which the Administrative Court quashed the detention order and released the applicant from detention. 

Effective remedy; Reception/Accommodation; Second Instance determination;

National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR);

EASO IDS

Slovenia, Supreme Court [Vrhovno sodišče], Ministry of the Interior v Applicant (no. 2), 53/2020, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2020:I.UP.53.2020, 30 September 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.

https://caselaw.easo.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=1375