|Stage of the procedure||Competent authority (EN)||Competent authority (SR)|
|Decision on entry and Decision on refusal of entry||Regional Border Centres (RBC) or Border Police Stations (BPS) established within the Border Police Administrations of the Ministry of Interior||Regionalni centri granične policije (RCGP) i stanice granične policije (SGP) / Регионални центри граничне полиције (РЦГП) и станице граничне полиције (СГП)|
|Registration Certificate||RBC, BPS and Foreigners Units within Police Departments in Serbia||RCGP, SGP i Odeljenje za strance unutar policijskih uprava / РЦГП, СГП и Одељења за странце унутар полицијских управа|
|Application||Asylum Office||Kancelarija za azil / Канцеларија за азил|
|Refugee status determination||Asylum Office||Kancelarija za azil / Канцеларија за азил|
v First appeal
v Onward appeal
Komisija za azil / Комисија за азил
Upravni sud / Управни суд
|Subsequent application||Asylum Office||Kancelarija za azil / Канцеларија за азил|
|Constitutional Appeal||Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia||Ustavni sud / Уставни судд|
In Serbia, the Security Information Service (BIA) is always conducting security checks and assessments, based on which an application for international protection can be rejected. This has become the usual practice before the decision granting asylum is officially rendered.
This was applied in the period 2015-2018 in one case concerning a Libyan family whose asylum applications were rejected because they were on the list of individuals whose presence on Serbian territory was considered a threat to national security. The family has complained before the European Court for Human Rights (ECtHR) that their expulsion to Libya would violate Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) due to their political affiliation with the former Ghaddafi regime, and under Article 13 of ECHR due to an alleged lack of effective remedy in Serbia. Eventually, they were granted subsidiary protection but at the time of writing their application was still pending before the ECtHR with regards to the lack of an effective legal remedy (no suspensive effect) against an expulsion decision rendered on the basis of security reasons which were not provided in the reasoning of the decision.
Another case, which also refers to an applicant from Libya, was rejected on these grounds in 2019. The case was referred from the first to the second instance body on several occasions and eventually, the applicant was granted refugee status in February 2022, after the second instance body obtained positive security assessment from BIA.
In 2022, there were additional three cases in which negative assessment of BIA was used as grounds for detention of Kirgizstan and 2 Turkish citizens of Uzbek and Kurdish Ethnicity respectively and one of the Turkish citizens is also the member of the Gulen movement. All these applicants were rejected in merits in asylum procedure, but it is clear that the outcome of their cases was impacted by the negative security assessment of BIA. What is also common in these cases is the fact that they were all fugitives subjected to the extradition procedure, which are still ongoing. All three cases are also currently pending before the UN Committee against Torture (CAT). The chain of events and the complete disregard of obvious grounds for persecution in their countries of origin confirms the practice from previous years in which fugitives facing the risk of persecution in their countries of origin stand no chance to obtain international protection, especially if they fled Türkiye as country of origin. The aspiration of Serbian authorities, embodied through the security assessment of BIA and summary rejections in asylum or other residential procedures, accompanying with security detention, depicts the lack of independence of asylum authorities in the politically sensitive cases of people who are in need of international protection.
 Formally speaking, the Border Police is not authorised to refuse entry to any person seeking asylum.
 Article 33 (2) Asylum Act.
 See a similar case where the Court ruled that the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the ECHR was violated, ECtHR, D and Others v. Romania, Application No 75953/16, 14 January 2020, EDAL, available at: http://bit.ly/3aBHWGZ.
 Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–1389/17, February 2022.
 See more in the Chapter C.1. – Regular Procedure.