Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Slovakia
Country of Decision : Slovakia
Court Name : SK: Supreme Court [Najvyssi Sud]
Date of decision : 15/11/2019
Type : Judgment
ECLI : ECLI SK: NSSR: 2019: 1019200479.1
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : 10Sžak/17/2019

V.Y. and others vs Ministry of Interior (Ministerstvo vnútra)

According to the national contribution to the EMN Annual Report on Migration and Asylum 2019 (information provided by the MO MoI SR):

With respect to the plaintiff’s objections, the Court of Cassation states that these are unjustified. It is clear from the defendant’s administrative file that the plaintiff’s legal representative was allowed to be present during the interview and she was given an opportunity to comment as stipulated in Art. 23 of the 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 (recast) and of the Art. 6 par. 7 of Act on Asylum. The Court of Cassation is of the opinion that the proposed additional interview would have been redundant, as the previously conducted interview and subsequent evidence included in the administrative file (e.g. country of origin information) did not result in any inconsistencies that it would be necessary to remove by the additional interview.

Effective remedy; Personal Interview/ Oral hearing; Second Instance determination;

Revised Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) and/or APD 2005/85/CE;

EASO Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the EU

Slovakia,SK: Supreme Court [Najvyssi Sud], V.Y. and others vs Ministry of Interior (Ministerstvo vnútra), 15/11/2019, ECLI SK: NSSR: 2019: 1019200479.1
The Supreme Court ruled on the removal of an additional interview as the previously conducted interview and subsequent evidence included in the administrative file did not result in any inconsistencies

https://caselaw.easo.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=970