Author
In early 2017, Slovenia adopted amendments to the Foreigners Act which allowed for future restrictions on access to the asylum procedure. Pursuant to the amendments, the National Assembly (Parliament) could vote on suspending the right to asylum and the Police would be able to reject all intentions to apply for international protection as inadmissible as well as remove the individuals concerned to the country from which they entered Slovenia.[1] The adopted amendments were reviewed by the Constitutional Court at the initiative of the Slovenian Human Rights Ombudsperson, prepared with support from civil society organisations.[2] The Constitutional Court ruled that the amendments were in breach of Article 18 of the Constitution (prohibition of torture).[3]
Nevertheless, in 2021, the National Assembly accepted the amendments to the Foreigners Act that established the concept of a “complex crisis in the field of migration”. In line with the new provisions, the Ministry of the Interior regularly monitors the situation in the field of migration in Slovenia. If it detects that the situation regarding migration in Slovenia has changed, creating a “complex crisis”, the Ministry can propose that the government activates the articles of the Foreigners Act that allow the National Assembly to close the border for six months and restrict access to the asylum procedure. The proposal to activate the articles must involve an assessment of the situation and the effects of the “complex crisis” on the security threat level for the protection of fundamental constitutional social values, especially regarding the effective functioning of the legal and welfare state, the protection of public order and peace, the efficient functioning of the economy, the protection of health and the life of the population, and the level of security.[4]
Upon activation of the articles the police would have the authority to determine whether a person can apply for international protection after they express the intention to do so. If the police determine that an individual can be returned to another country, they can return the individual regardless of the provisions of the IPA. Exceptions would apply to unaccompanied minors and individuals whose health conditions prevent a return. The assessment of whether someone is an unaccompanied minor would be made by the police based on the person’s appearance, behaviour, and other circumstances. An appeal against the police order would not have a suspensive effect.[5] Until 2024, the amended provisions of the Foreigners Act were not yet activated.[6]
The Slovenian Human Rights Ombudsperson notified the European Commission of the newly adopted provisions and his position regarding the provisions. The Ombudsperson emphasized that the Government proceeded with the adoption of the amended provisions in disregard of the decision of the Constitutional Court, thereby casting doubt as to the effectiveness of potential other procedures before the latter.[7] The Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission (DG HOME) informed the Ombudsperson that it was conducting a careful preliminary analysis of the situation, which was raising complex questions regarding border control, police powers, asylum and return in case of a potential migration crisis. DG HOME also noted that it would ask national authorities for further explanation and, if needed, propose the initiation of a procedure to establish human rights violations.[8]
In February 2022, opposition parliamentarians submitted again the provisions to the Constitutional Court for constitutional review.[9] In July 2023, the new Government approved the opinion of the Ministry of the Interior regarding the legality of the amendments and lodged the opinion before the Constitutional Court. In the opinion, the Ministry argued that the amendments of the Foreigners act are in line with the Constitution.[10] The opinion and the procedure in which the opinion was approved by the Government was heavily criticised by NGOs and the parliamentarians that lodged the Constitutional review and called on the Minister to resign.[11] The decision of the Constitutional Court was taken in April 2025. The Constitutional Court ruled that the definition of the ’complex crisis on the field of migration’ is not in breach of the Slovenian Constitution. The Court noted that the use of indefinite legal concepts does not, in itself, constitute a breach of the principle of legal clarity as in some cases the legislator cannot foresee all future concrete and real-life events. Since the assessment that the complex crisis has occurred will be made by the Ministry and the Government, the Court emphasized that the assessment must take into account all the crucial circumstances at the time and the legal criteria set in the provision. In addition, the Constitutional Court again annulled Article 10.b of the Foreigners Act, as it considered it was not in line with the prohibition of torture enshrined in Article 18 of the Slovenian Constitution. The Court reiterated that the Slovenian Constitution allows the limitation of human rights only in 2 situations – in a state of war or emergency or in ordinary times. The Court first noted that the complex migration crisis as defined in Article 10.a does not constitute a situation that would allow a state of emergency to be declared. Therefore, the Court assessed if the limitations of rights enshrined in the provision were in line with the limitations allowed by the Constitution in ordinary times. The Court reiterated that the rights enshrined in Article 18 of the Constitution (prohibition of torture) cannot be limited and that any interference with this right is inadmissible and, therefore, not in line with the Slovenian Constitution. Therefore, the Court once again annulled the provision.[12]
In its fourth periodic review, the U.N. Committee against Torture also recommended that the authorities consider amending or repealing the provisions. The Committee also noted that Slovenia should ensure that effective and appropriate measures based on individualized consideration and vulnerability screening are in place for properly trained immigration officials to identify, as early as possible, all victims of torture, ill-treatment, gender-based violence and trafficking among asylum-applicants and other persons in need of international protection during border procedures, and provide such persons with access to treatment for urgent conditions and with appropriate support.[13]
In June 2022, the Ministry of the Interior announced that Slovenia would remove its border fence with Croatia.[14] The works began in July 2022, however only 4,142 metres of the fence were removed by the middle of September.[15] By the end of 2024, 81 km of the panel fence and 27 km of the wire fence were removed.[16]
In October 2023, the Government reinstated internal border checks with Hungary and Croatia, while Italy reinstated the border with Slovenia,[17] however this did not result in an increased number of readmissions,[18] meaning that the majority of apprehended individuals were processed in the asylum procedure. In addition to internal border control, Slovenia carries out border control in mixed border patrols with all neighbouring countries. According to the Protocol on mixed patrolling on the Slovenian-Croatian border, mixed border patrols can operate 10km from the border line. If an individual is apprehended for irregular crossing of the border they have to be processed by the police of the country where they are present.[19] In 2024, 1,854 individuals were processed by the mixed border patrols.[20] In January 2025, the Ministry of the Interior signed an additional protocol with the Croatian and Italian police establishing tripartite mixed border patrols at the Croatian external Schengen border.[21]
Pushbacks, illegal police practices and other incidents at the border
In 2024, the police detected 46,192 irregular crossings of the Slovenian border. This is a decrease in comparison to the previous year when the police detected 60,595 irregular crossings. The most common countries of origin of people who were apprehended for irregular border crossing were: Syria (15,065), Afghanistan (7,267), Türkiye (3,973), Morrocco (3,645), Bangladesh (2,377), Pakistan (1,917), Egypt (1,728), India (1,586) and Nepal (1,135) followed by other nationalities.[22] In practice, Ukrainians are allowed entry and are not processed for irregular border crossing even if they do not fulfil the entry requirements (e.g., a valid passport), which is evident from the statistics.
According to the statistics, 44,383 individuals expressed their intention to apply for international protection in 2024 (a decrease from the 58,753 individuals who applied in 2023).[23] Out of these, 8,368 were minors. Data on the number of unaccompanied minors expressing the intention to apply for international protection is not gathered.[24]
Between 2018 and 2022, there was a huge discrepancy between the number of irregular crossings and the number of expressed intentions to apply for international protection due to systematic denial of access to the asylum procedure by the police and subsequent readmission of people to the neighbouring countries from which they entered, mainly Croatia.[25]
Readmission to neighbouring countries was conducted based on readmission agreements Slovenia has with its neighbouring countries – Croatia, Italy, Austria and Hungary. Readmission agreements form a system outside EU law and the CEAS provisions, and do not uphold the standards that these require. The readmission agreements allow the return of migrants in informal procedures in which individuals are not issued a return decision, do not have the right to appeal and do not have the right to free legal aid or representation.[26] The Ombudsperson observed that no assessment of whether the principle of non-refoulement could be violated by a return from Slovenia is conducted.[27] Therefore, there is no possibility for individuals channelled through readmission procedures to argue that they face a risk of violation of the non-refoulement principle, or to challenge the decisions of the police. It is also not evident from the police records if individuals expressed an intention to apply for international protection, and if so, whether the police informed the individual of the right to asylum and how the person responded.[28]
In February 2022, the practice changed, and the number of individuals readmitted dropped in comparison with the previous year. Although individuals continued to be readmitted on a monthly basis the number of readmissions continued to drop in comparison with 2021. In 2022, 2,361 individuals were readmitted which is a 41% decrease in comparison to 2021. In 2021, 39% of individuals who irregularly crossed the border were readmitted to a neighbouring country while in 2022, 7.4% of individuals who irregularly entered were readmitted.[29] This decrease can be mainly attributed to the change of practice of the Croatian authorities who in the beginning of 2022 started to refuse to accept readmitted people back to Croatia. In 2024, only 144 individuals were readmitted to another country.[30]
Out of 144 readmitted individuals, 11 were from Albania, 10 were from Iraq, 10 were from Syria, 9 were from Morocco, 7 were from Serbia, 7 were from Türkiye, 5 were from Kosovo, 4 were from Bosnia and Hercegovina, 4 were from Macedonia and 9 were from Pakistan. Out of 144, 89 individuals were readmitted to Croatia.[31]
In 2024, Slovenia also accepted readmissions into its territory for 286 individuals under readmission agreements. This is a decrease from the 377 individuals it readmitted in 2023. 185 were readmitted through the airport, 11 from Italy, 70 from Austria, 12 from Croatia and 8 from Hungary. Out of 286 individuals, 68 were from Morocco, 30 from Algeria, 24 from Syria, 18 from Kosovo, 15 from Afghanistan, 12 from Tunisia, 10 from Türkiye, 7 from Azerbaijan, 6 from China and 6 from DR Congo.[32]
In January 2021, the Italian Court of Rome ruled that the 1996 readmission agreement with Slovenia breached Italian and EU law and, therefore, could not form a legal basis for returns to Slovenia.[33] Whereas most readmissions from Italy stopped following this ruling, 65 readmissions took place nonetheless in 2022 according to the official statistics.[34] Reportedly, at the end of 2022, the Italian authorities had started to strongly urge Slovenia to resume the use of readmission agreements between the countries.[35] The pressure from Italian authorities to resume the use of the readmission agreement continued during 2023.[36] In 2024, Slovenia readmitted 11 persons from Italy.[37]
In August 2020, individuals started to report collective expulsions from the Austrian border to Slovenia. The number of people returned based on the readmission agreement[38] between Slovenia and Austria increased from 23 people being returned by the end of July to 98 people being returned by the end of August. A total of 176 people were returned from Austria to Slovenia in 2020.[39] In 2021, 70 persons were readmitted from Austria on the basis of the readmission agreement.[40] Individuals’ testimonies show that some were returned to Croatia by the Slovenian authorities after being readmitted from Italy or Austria.[41] In 2022, 58 individuals were readmitted from Austria to Slovenia. [42] 62 were readmitted from Austria to Slovenia in 2023 and 70 in 2024.[43]
At the beginning of 2022, the PIC and other organisations in Slovenia regularly detected pushbacks at the Slovenian border.[44] While lodging the application before the Ministry, asylum seekers stated that they have reached and tried to ask for asylum in Slovenia several times before being able to lodge the application for international protection. In February, the practice changed as the Croatian police refused to accept people based on the readmission agreements. Since then, reports on pushbacks and the use of readmission agreements have dropped significantly.
In the second half of 2022, ECCHR together with CRIN filed a complaint in the case of U.F. against Croatia and Slovenia with the Committee on the Rights of the Child. U.F is a Rohingya child who was a victim of a chain pushback from Slovenia to Bosnia.[45]
During the year 2024, the Slovenian Ombudsperson received 7 complaints regarding asylum and migration. The Ombudsperson finished 6 investigations in 2024. The complaints were lodged regarding the lengthiness of the Dublin procedure, lack of legal possibilities to apply for different residence permits during or after the conclusion of the asylum procedure, and limitations to access the asylum procedure.[46]
Border monitoring
There is no systematic border monitoring in Slovenia. Border monitoring is conducted by UNHCR. In 2024 UNHCR conducted 5 visits to police stations Obrežje, Črnomelj and Metlika where they checked police records and conducted talks with the police.[47] In order to conduct border monitoring, UNHCR must notify the police station prior to the visit. UNHCR can only check police documentation regarding individuals who applied for international protection.
Border monitoring is also conducted by the Slovenian Ombudsperson within the National Preventive Mechanism framework.[48] The Ombudsperson can make unannounced visits to police stations and has the authority to check all the police records regarding migrants in the police procedures. Based on these visits, observations and recommendations are given to the Ministry of the Interior and the police station. In 2024, the Ombudsperson visited 11 police stations. During the visit of the police station Brežice, close to the Slovenian-Croatian border, the Ombudsperson noted that unaccompanied minors were placed with adult foreigners and observed that some foreigners did not have sleeping pads and had to sleep on the floor, some had to share beds while several sleeping pads were not appropriate for accommodation. In addition, the sanitary conditions were insufficient. All the processed foreigners had expressed the intention to apply for international protection and were waiting to be transferred to the Asylum home or its branch. The Ombudsperson observed that foreigners were processed at different hours during the night and some were waiting for more than 10 hours at the Police station. Because they had expressed their intention to apply for asylum, they were not formally detained, however they could not leave the premises of the Police station meaning that they were de facto detained for several hours before being transported to the asylum facilities. During the visit of the Police station Črnomelj, close to the Slovenian-Croatian border, the Ombudsperson similarly observed insufficient conditions, lack of assistance of interpreters during police procedures and de facto detention due to the delays in transportation.[49]
In 2023, the Ombudsperson highlighted the extremely poor reception conditions at the Police station for Compensatory Measures Novo mesto, where the majority of individuals irregularly crossing the border are processed. The Ombudsman noted that the hall in which individuals are processed and accommodated, before being transferred to the asylum home, is dysfunctional and extremely inappropriate considering that a large number of foreigners is processed there and that they stay there for a long period of time (from 5-6 hours). The Ombudsman noted that the structure of the hall does not guarantee respect for personal safety and human dignity, especially for vulnerable groups, families with small children and unaccompanied children. The premises are also not adapted to the needs of people with mobility impairments. During the visit the premises were not sufficiently cleaned or regularly disinfected. The hall is equipped with air conditioning but does not ensure adequate ventilation as the air in the room when a large number of people is accommodated is very poor. There is also a risk of the spread of infectious diseases. Unaccompanied children are accommodated together with other foreigners.[50] In January 2023, the Government adopted the decision to install additional temporary facilities on the premises for the purpose of processing foreigners. The additional facilities will be installed for maximum 3 years. In the first phase, the fence and 2 sanitary containers will be built. In addition, 3 containers for accommodation and 3 tents will be installed. In the second and third phase, additional 2 tents will be built while additional sanitary containers will be installed if needed.[51] According to the police, 3 containers that are already installed but were not yet operating during the Ombudsman’s visit will be used for accommodating vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied children. The Ombudsman noted that such accommodation is inappropriate for vulnerable groups and recommended that suitable facilities for processing vulnerable groups are established.[52] During 2024, 84% of irregular crossings were detected and processed by the Police station in Novo mesto.[53] This Police station was not visited by the Ombudsperson in 2024. In 2024, access to the facility was denied to a reporter stating that the procedures and information gathered in the facility are marked as classified. The newspaper for which the reporter in question worked lodged a subsidiary judicial review claiming that freedom of the press includes access to such facilities as it is in the interest of the public that the media covers the way authorities process and treat migrants in such facilities. The judicial review was rejected as inadmissible by the Administrative Court, stating that other legal remedies should be used by the media company. The media company appealed the decision, which was annulled by the Supreme Court, ruling that the police should assess the public interest in conducting a journalistic investigation against the rights and legitimate interests of the police. The Supreme Court instructed the Administrative Court to assess the request of the media company and decide in line with the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the ECHR. A new decision by the Administrative Court has not yet been issued by June 2025.[54]
Litigation and case-law on incidents occurring at the border
In 2019, the Administrative Court of Slovenia issued its judgement in the case of a Moroccan citizen who applied for international protection in Slovenia and was rejected. Upon completion of the asylum procedure, he was returned to Croatia under a bilateral readmission agreement, and subsequently to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The applicant started a subsidiary judicial procedure by filing a complaint before the Slovenian Administrative Court alleging a violation of his human rights. The Administrative Court ruled that the applicant had not been able to object to his return based on the prohibition of non-refoulement, and did not have an effective legal remedy, since he was not issued a written decision.[55] The Ministry of the Interior appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court,[56] which found that the fact that a written decision was not issued was not unlawful. The case was referred to the Constitutional Court on the initiative of the Ombudsperson. The case was dismissed in December 2021 because the time limit for constitutional review had expired.[57]
In 2020, the Administrative Court confirmed its position in a case concerning a Cameroonian national who had crossed the Slovenian border in August 2019 with the intention of applying for asylum in Slovenia. The applicant claimed that he had expressed his intention to apply for international protection several times during the police procedure. The police did not register his intention and did not refer him to the preliminary procedure. Instead, he was taken to the Croatian border and returned to Croatia on the basis of the readmission agreement. The Croatian police then returned him to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Administrative Court found that the police had violated the prohibition of non-refoulement, the prohibition of collective expulsion, and the right to access the asylum procedure by returning the applicant to Croatia on the basis of the readmission agreement. It also decided that Slovenia should allow the applicant to enter the territory and apply for international protection, and that the applicant should be awarded €5,000 in compensation.[58] The decision was annulled by the Supreme Court and returned to the Administrative Court.[59] The Administrative Court decided again that the Slovenian authorities had violated the prohibition of non-refoulment, the prohibition of collective expulsion and the applicant’s right to access the asylum procedure, however it did not award any compensation, in line with the instructions of the Supreme Court, as this would significantly prolong the procedure. Instead, it referred the plaintiff to litigation before the civil court.[60] The Ministry of the Interior appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which eventually confirmed the decision of the Administrative Court, which thus became final.[61]
In July 2021, a case concerning three Moroccan nationals came before the Administrative Court. The applicants had crossed the Slovenian border in July 2021, after which they were apprehended by the police for irregular border crossing. During the police procedure they repeatedly asked for asylum in Slovenia. The police did not register their intention to apply for international protection and did not refer them to the preliminary procedure. Instead, they were taken to the Croatian border and returned to Croatia on the basis of the readmission agreement. The Croatian police took them to the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina and forced them to cross the border on their own. The case was stopped in 2024 as the clients could no longer be reached by their lawyer.[62]
In August 2023, the Administrative Court made the decision in a case of a Syrian national who entered Slovenia, for the second time, in October 2019. He entered Slovenia in a group of 12 persons and expressed the intention to apply for asylum in Slovenia. The next day, Slovenian authorities readmitted the applicant, together with other members of the group, to Croatia. Croatian authorities took the applicant to the border with Bosnia and Hercegovina and ordered him to cross the border. The court found that during the procedure the applicant managed to prove that he indeed expressed the intention for asylum in Slovenia. The Ministry of the Interior failed to prove that the intention was not overheard by the police as the procedure was not properly documented, a translator was not present during the procedure and the reports from several NGOs and the Slovenian Ombudsperson stated that, at the time, access to asylum was systematically denied to individuals during the police procedure. The Administrative Court found that, by readmitting the applicant to Croatia and preventing him to apply for asylum in Slovenia, the authorities violated the principle of non-refoulment, right to asylum, prohibition of collective expulsion, right to judicial review and the right to be heard.[63]
The PIC did not detect any systematic physical or psychological violence conducted by the Slovenian national authorities or acts that amounted to disrespectful or insulting treatment.
Legal access to the territory
The Slovenian legislation does not foresee any legal pathways, apart from family reunification, for access to the territory of persons in need of protection (for example as humanitarian visas). Strengthening the system of complementary pathways is set as one of the objectives of the new Immigration strategy adopted by the Government in March 2024.[64] Nonetheless, UNHCR enabled 2 Syrian refugee students to arrive in Slovenia through an education pathway. The students obtained a residence permit for study, a scholarship and assistance with social integration.[65] In addition, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided 3 “developmental scholarships” within the international development cooperation and humanitarian aid for 3 students, one from each of the following countries: Rwanda, Uganda and Ethiopia. While individuals in need of international protection could apply, this was not a prerequisite. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs covered their tuition and scholarship.[66]
In October 2022 the Slovenian Government made the decision to resettle 50 persons from Türkiye. People from Afghanistan and Syria were eligible for resettlement according to the decision of the Government.[67] Based on the decision 23 persons resettled in Slovenia in 2023 and, 27 persons resettled in Slovenia in January 2024.[68] Relocation has not been carried out since 2021.
[1] For more on the amendments see AIDA, Country Report Slovenia – 2021 Update: Access to territory and pushbacks, May 2022, available here.
[2] See also Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Slovenia: Commissioner concerned about adoption of amendments to Aliens Act that violate human rights’ 27 January 2017, available here.
[3] Constitutional Court, Application No U-I-59/17, 18 September 2019, available here. For more information on the Constitutional Court decision, see AIDA, Country Report: Slovenia, 2021 Update, May 2022, available here.
[4] Article 10a Foreigners Act.
[5] Article 10a and 10b of the Foreigners Act.
[6] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior in the context of their Right of reply, July 2025.
[7] Varuh človekovih pravic, Varuh Evropsko komisijo seznanil s svojimi pogledi na novelirano tujsko zakonodajo, 16 August 2021, available in Slovenian here.
[8] Information provided by the Ombudsperson, March 2023.
[9] N1, ‘Stranke KUL zahtevajo presojo ustavnosti določb zakona o tujcih’, available in Slovenian here.
[10] The lodged opinion is available in Slovene here.
[11] MMC: Vlada potrdila Poklukarjevo mnenje, da sta Janševa zakona ustavna. Pozivi k odstopu ministra, 20 July 2023, available here.
[12] Constitutional Court decision, U I 52/22, U I 202/23, April 2024, available in Slovene here.
[13] U.N. Committee against Torture: Concluding observations on the fourt periodic report of Slovenia; 7 December 2023, available here.
[14] Infomigrants, Slovenia to dismantle border fence with Croatia, 10 June 2022, available here.
[15] Ptujinfo, ‘Vse manj žične ograje na meji s Hrvaško, skupaj odstranili okoli štiri kilometre žice’, 18 September 2022, available in Slovenian here.
[16] Information provided by the Police, March 2025.
[17] MNZ, Slovenija v soboto ponovno uvaja nadzor na meji s Hrvaško in Madžarsko, 19. 10. 2023, available in Slovenian here.
[18] Official police statistics, available in Slovenian here.
[19] Protocol between the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia, the Police, and the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia, the General Police Directorate, on mixed patrolling along the state border between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia, available in English here.
[20] Information provided by the Police, March 2025.
[21] MNZ, Šefi policij treh držav podpisali operativni memorandum o soglasju glede delovanja skupnih patrulj na zunanji hrvaški meji, availbale in Slovenian here.
[22] Information provided by the Police, March 2025.
[23] Official police statistics available in Slovenian here.
[24] Information provided by the Police, March 2025.
[25] For more on pushbacks see AIDA, Country Report: Slovenia, 2021 Update, May 2022, available here.
[26] See for example: Agreement between the Government of RS and the Government of RC on delivery and reception of persons, whose entry or residence is illegal. – International agreements, Official Gazette of RS, no. 8/06., available in English here.
[27] Ombudsperson, Poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic RS o izvajanju nalog državnega preventivnega mehanizma po Opcijskem protokolu h Konvenciji OZN proti mučenju in drugim krutim, nečloveškim ali poniževalnim kaznim ali ravnanju za leto 2019, available in Slovenian here.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Official statistics available here.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Information provided by the Police, March 2025.
[32] Official police statistics, available in Slovenian here.
[33] Decision of Ordinary Court of Rome, N.R.G.56420/2020, 18 January 2021, available here.
[34] Official police statistics available here.
[35] Nuova Europa, Migrants: Prisco, in force readmissions with Slovenia, 6 December 2022, available here.
[36] N1¸Italija zaradi migracij razglasila izredne razmere, Salvini žuga Sloveniji, 11 April 2023, available here. Delo: V Italiji izredne razmere, Salvini bi begunce vračal v Slovenijo,11 April 2023, available here. Dnevnik: Italija za okrepitev sodelovanja s Slovenijo pri reševanju množičnih migracij, 14 January 2023, available here.
[37] Official police statistics available here.
[38] Readmission agreement between Slovenia and Austria available here.
[39] Official police statistics available here.
[40] Official police statistics available here.
[41] See for example: BVMN, individual testimonies and reports available here, or ECRE, Austria: Chain pushbacks to Bosnia Amid Growing Evidence of Widespread Abuse in the Balkans, 20 November 2020, available here).
[42] Official police statistics available here.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Border Violence Monitoring Network, Testimonies, available here.
[45] ECCHR, Rohingya child challenges Croatia and Slovenia over violent pushbacks, available here. CRIN, The story of U.F. and the campaign to end child pushbacks at EU borders, available here.
[46] Information provided by the Ombudsperson, March 2024.
[47] Information provided by UNHCR, February 2024.
[48] The National Preventive Mechanism operates based on the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
[49] National Preventive Mechanism, Priporočila iz obiskov (preglednice), Policijske postaje 2024, available here.
[50] National Preventive Mechanism, Priporočila iz obiskov (preglednice), available here.
[51] Dnevnik, Vlada sklenila na območju Obrežja postaviti začasne objekte za obravnavo tujcev, 18 January 2024. available in Slovenian here.
[52] National Preventive Mechanism, Priporočila iz obiskov (preglednice), available here.
[53] Official police statistics, available in Slovenian here.
[54] Mladina, Vstop prepovedan, available in Slovenian here.
[55] Administrative Court, Decision I U 1412/2019, 18 December 2019, available here.
[56] Supreme Court Decision, I Up 21/2020, 8 July 2020, available here.
[57] Constitutional Court Decision, Up-1114/20, 13 December 2021, available here.
[58] Administrative Court, Decision, 1490/2019, 22 June 2020, available here.
[59] Supreme Court Decision, I Up 128/2020, 28 October 2020, available here.
[60] Administrative Court Decision, I U 1686/2020, 7 December 2020, available here.
[61] Supreme Court Decision, I U 1686/2020, 9. April 2021, available here.
[62] Administrative Court, case run under the number I U 1167/2021.
[63] Administrative Court Decision, I U 1834/2019, 26 July 2023, available here.
[64] Immigration strategy of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, March 2024, available here.
[65] UNHCR: Education pathways: Slovenia opens new opportunities for refugee students, available here.
[66] The public call for students can be found here.
[67] Government of the Republic of Slovenia (2022), Resettlement of 50 citizens of Syria or Afghanistan, eligible for refugee status, from Turkey to Slovenia, 19 October 2022, available in Slovenian here.
[68] Official statistics of Ministry of Interior, available in Slovenian here.