Regular procedure

General (scope, time limits)

The asylum procedure in Serbia is governed by the Asylum Act as lex specialis to GAPA which is applied in relation to questions that are not regulated by the Asylum Act.[1] The provisions of the Asylum Act shall be interpreted in accordance with the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the generally recognised rules of international law.[2] Additionally, the third instance procedure before the Administrative Court is also governed by the ADA.

The Asylum Act provides that a decision on asylum applications in the regular procedure must be taken within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of the lodging of the asylum application or the admissible subsequent application.^[3] In 2022 there only 1 case in which the first instance asylum procedure which resulted in a positive decisions was concluded within the 3-month and is related to a Ukrainian family.[4]Also, manifestly unfounded cases can be rejected within a month, but the question that remains open is why the highly credible cases, or the most vulnerable cases have to wait for more than a year for a positive decision. The best example from 2021 is related to the comparison between the prima facie not credible application of a Pakistani national, and that of a torture victim from Iran.[5] The first one was rejected in exactly 1 month, while the torture victim received international protection after 20 months.[6] On the other hand, in 2022, there were several examples of good practice in which sexual and gender based violence survivor (Burundi) was granted refugee status within 106 days (3 month and 14 days),[7] UASC from Afghanistan within 4 months,[8] LGBTQI+ and AIDS applicant from Cuba within 175 days (almost 6 months).[9] On the other hand, SGBV survivor from Afghanistan had to wait for exactly a year,[10] as well as Syrian mother with two children who waited for 10 months.[11] On the other hand, an UASC from Afghanistan had to wait for 14 months to receive subsidiary protection,[12] Congolese women with a child for 14 months[13] and another UASC from Afghanistan for 13 months.[14]

It is possible to extend the time limit for the first instance decision by 3 months in case the application includes complex factual or legal issues or in case of a large number of foreigners lodging asylum applications at the same time.^[15] Exceptionally, beyond these reasons, the time limit for deciding on an asylum application may be extended by a further 3 months if necessary to ensure a proper and complete assessment thereof.^[16] The applicant shall be informed on the extension. There were no instances in which this deadline was extended which are known to the author of this Report.

The Asylum Act also envisages a situation where a decision on asylum application cannot be made within 9 months due to temporary insecurity in the country of origin of the applicant which needs to be verified every 3 months.^[17] Nevertheless, the decision must be taken no later than 12 months from the date of the application.^[18]

Thus, the Asylum Office has a discretionary power to decide on the extension of the time limit for the decision. In 2022, all asylum procedures lasted extensively long without any formal notification on the extension accompanied with the proper reasoning.

Officially, the possibility to extend the deadline for delivering the first instance decision is rarely used, and there is no official data on how many times this possibility was used in 2021 and 2022 which represents a continuation of such practice from 2020 when the state of emergency was in force.[19]

As outlined above, only 1 decision was rendered within three months (Ukrainian applicant). Therefore, the length of the first instance asylum procedure is still much longer than three months. In other words, the first instance procedure still lasts unreasonably long (around 8 to 12 months on average) which is one of the reasons discouraging asylum seekers from considering Serbia a country of destination. Still, one of the reasons why an average length of asylum procedure was cut for several months is the fact that CSOs and legal representatives have started to lode asylum applications in writing, which save the resources of the understaffed Asylum Office.

In 2022, CSOs in Serbia did not lodge appeals complaining about lack of response by the administration to the Asylum Commission and excessive length of first instance procedure, as it was the case in 2020 when APC and BCHR submitted more than 10 appeals.

In March 2022, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) recommended that Serbia ensure compliance with the statutory deadlines of the asylum procedure.[20]

The first instance procedure before the Asylum Office may be completed by: (a) a decision to uphold the application and recognise refugee status or subsidiary protection;^[21] (b) a decision to reject the asylum application;^[22] (c) a decision to discontinue the procedure;^[23] or (d) a decision to dismiss the application as inadmissible.^[24]

The Asylum Act contains detailed provisions regarding the grounds for persecution,^[25] sur place refugees,^[26] acts of persecution,^[27] actors of persecution,^[28] actors of protection in the country of origin,^[29] the internal flight alternative,^[30] and grounds for exclusion.^[31] This clearly indicates that the legislature was guided by the Common European Asylum System framework, namely the recast Qualification Directive. Still, there is plenty more room for improvement, especially with regard to the exclusion clause which lacks the clear procedural rules which would be in line with UNHCR Guidelines (see Short overview of the applicable legal frameworks on asylum procedure, inclusion and integration of refugees and asylum seekers ).^[32]

Even though the new Asylum Act does not explicitly set out the burden of proof required for being granted asylum, Article 32 provides that the applicant is obliged to cooperate with the Asylum Office and deliver all available documentation and present true and accurate information regarding the reasons for lodging an asylum application. If an applicant fails to do so, the asylum officer has the possibility to render a decision in an accelerated procedure.^[33] It is further prescribed that, in examining the substance of the asylum application, the Asylum Office shall collect and consider all the relevant facts and circumstances, particularly taking into consideration:

1. the relevant facts and evidence presented by the Applicant, including the information about whether he or she has been or could be exposed to persecution or a risk of suffering serious harm;
2. current reports about the situation in the Applicant’s country of origin or habitual residence, and, if necessary, the countries of transit, including the laws and regulations of these countries, and the manner in which they are applied – as contained in various sources provided by international organisations including UNHCR and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), and other human rights organisations;
3. the position and personal circumstances of the Applicant, including his or her sex and age, in order to assess on those bases whether the procedures and acts to which he or she has been or could be exposed would amount to persecution or serious harm;
4. whether the Applicant’s activities since leaving the country of origin were engaged in for the sole purpose of creating the necessary conditions to be granted the right to asylum, so as to assess whether those activities would expose the Applicant to persecution or a risk of serious harm if returned to that country…’^[34]

Also, the benefit of the doubt principle (in dubio pro reo) has not been explicitly defined as such, but it is prescribed that the applicant’s statements shall be considered credible where a certain fact or circumstance is not supported by evidence if:

1. the applicant has made a genuine effort to substantiate his or her statements with evidence;
2. all relevant elements at his or her disposal have been submitted, and a satisfactory explanation have been given regarding any lack of other relevant facts;
3. the applicant’s statements are found to be consistent and acceptable, and that they are not in contradiction with the specific and general information relevant to the decision on the asylum application;
4. the applicant has expressed intention to seek asylum at the earliest possible time, unless he or she can demonstrate good reason for not having done so;
5. the general credibility of the Applicant’s statement has been established.

Overview of the practice of the Asylum Office for the period 2008-2022

In the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 December 2022, the asylum authorities in Serbia rendered 158 decisions granting asylum (refugee status or subsidiary protection) to 226 persons from 26 different countries.[35] A total of 73 decisions was rendered in relation to 117 applicants who received subsidiary protection, while 85 decisions were rendered in relation to 109 applicants who were granted refugee status.

The highest number of decisions was rendered in 2019 (26), and then in the following order: 2015 (24), 2016 (21), 2022 (20), 2020 (19), 2018 (16), 2021 (12), 2017 (7), 2014 (4), 2009 (4), 2012 (3), 2013 (1) and 2010 (1). In 2008 and 2011, not a single positive decision was rendered. Top 5 nationalities which received international protection in Serbia are: Libya (47), Syria (37), Afghanistan (33), Iran (22) and Iraq (16).

Libya

The highest number of applicants who were granted international protection in Serbia originate from Libya – 47 persons through 19 decisions. A total of 4 decisions were rendered granting refugee status to 8 Libyans. On the other hand, 15 decisions granting subsidiary protection were rendered in relation to 39 applicants. Decisions on subsidiary protection were based on the state of general insecurity and widespread violence which implied the risk of suffering serious harm. The main source, in terms of the CoI, were different updates of UNHCR position papers on returns to Libya and a moratorium on returns which remains valid as of March 2022.^[36] The remaining 4 decisions referred to the risk of persecution on ethnic and political grounds for applicants belonging to the same tribe as Muammar Gaddafi^[37] or a 5-member family belonging to the ethnic group of Berbers which was particularly targeted during the civil war and in post-conflict period in Libya.^[38]

In the history of the Serbian asylum system, a total of 65 Libyans applied for asylum, even though 659 were issued with registration certificate, as most of them never applied for asylum. There were no instances in which the applicant from Libya was rejected up to the final decision of the Administrative Court, except in one case where a 5-member family then addressed the ECtHR and was later on granted subsidiary protection.^[39] This case, as well as another which was positively resolved in 2022, were initially rejected on the basis of negative security assessment from BIA.^[40] Still, it can be safely assumed that, if provided with adequate legal support, applicants from Libya have decent chances to obtain international protection in Serbia.

Syria

A total of 37 Syrians were granted international protection in Serbia through 29 decisions. Eight were granted refugee status via 8 decisions while 29 were granted subsidiary protection through 21 decisions. However, a total of 320,320 Syrians was registered in Serbia since 2008, while only 540 lodged asylum application.

The vast majority of Syrians absconded before the first instance decision was rendered, while at least several dozens were subjected to the automatic application of the safe third country concept (STCC), which plagued the Serbian asylum system in the period 2008-2018.^[41] The vast majority of the applicants whose asylum application was dismissed absconded the asylum procedure, while only 1 remained and his case is currently pending before the ECtHR.^[42]

There were no instances in which a Syrian asylum application was rejected in merits with the final decision, except in 2 cases which were rejected as such in the first instance, in 2021 and 2022. Still, it is safe to assume that Syrians have strong prospects to receive international protection in Serbia at the end of 2022.The author of this report was not able to obtain data of these two cases, but the practice of the Administrative Court and Asylum Commission from 2022 does not indicate that these decisions became final. So, the potential outcome in these cases is either that applicants absconded or their cases were referred back to the Asylum Office after which they received subsidiary protection.

Decisions in which Syrians were granted subsidiary protection in Serbia were based on the state of general insecurity and widespread violence which implied the risk of suffering serious harm. The main sources in terms of CoI which were cited in such decisions were UNHCR position papers on returns to Syria^[43] and EASO now EUAA reports on Syria.^[44] As for the decisions granting refugee status, they were mainly based on the risk of persecution due to political opinion or draft evasion.^[45] When it comes to draft evasion, the practice has been contradictory, implying that some applicants were granted refugee status, while other subsidiary protection. This practice continued in 2022.

Afghanistan

Persons in need of international protection from Afghanistan are the second biggest group of persons registered in Serbia (189,737) and the largest group that actually lodged asylum application (960). However, only 33 Afghans were granted asylum through 22 decisions. The vast majority of Afghan applicants absconded the asylum procedure, as it has been the case with Syrians and Iraqis.

The Asylum Office rendered 14 decisions granting refugee status to 20 Afghanis on the basis of the risk of persecution which they faced as: interpreters,^[46] artists,^[47] members of police and other security forces,^[48] persons who worked for US companies,^[49] SGBV survivors who were subjected to harmful traditional practices (honour killing, consequences of having children out of wedlock)^[50] or persons who faced risks of Taliban recruitment.^[51]

Also, a total of 7 decisions granting subsidiary protection was rendered in relation to 13 applicants. The subsidiary protection was granted to individuals who belonged to vulnerable categories such as UASC or families with small children who faced the state of general insecurity and arbitrary violence from Taliban.^[52]

The recognition rate of Afghan applicants varied throughout the years, but it is yet to be seen how the Taliban rule will affect the practice of asylum authorities in the future.^[53] There was only 1 decision in 2021 in which the Taliban rule and general situation in Afghanistan was declared as grounds for subsidiary protection.^[54] In 2022, there were 3 such decisions rendered in relation 3 three UASC (2 subsidiary protections and 1 refugee status), as well as two decision granting refugee status to a three member family from Afghanistan due to SGBV grounds and further risk of SGBV, but in which the Taliban rule was also taken into account.^[55]

Iraq

A total of 11 decisions granting international protection was rendered in relation to 16 Iraqi nationals. Through 5 decisions 8 persons were granted subsidiary protection as Sunni Muslims who faced arbitrary violence in post US invasion Iraq,^[56] during the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) control of area around Mosul^[57] and in post-ISIS period.^[58] Iraqis granted refugee status faced risk of forcible military recruitment,^[59] were directly targeted as Sunni Muslims^[60] or were victims of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV).^[61]

It is noteworthy to say that 82,750 Iraqi were registered in Serbia since 2008 and that only 292 lodged asylum application. As it was the case with Syrians, the vast majority of them absconded before the first instance decision was rendered, or afterwards, after they were subjected to the practice of the STCC. In one instance, the STCC was applied through final decision of the Administrative Court, and this person was later on granted humanitarian residency due to his integration into Serbian society. In this particular case, the legal representatives failed to challenge the automatic application of the STCC before the ECtHR which would potentially have provided a durable solution for the applicant.^[62] There were probably several more instances in which the STCC was confirmed with the final decision in relation to Iraqi applicants. The author of this Report is not aware of any decisions in which Iraqi asylum applications was rejected in merits with the final decision.

Iran

Iranian asylum seekers were granted asylum through 16 decisions encompassing 22 persons. A total of 20 applicants received refugee status through 13 decisions and the grounds were mainly of religious nature – conversion from Islam to Christianity.^[63] There were instances in which victims of torture who opposed the Iranian political system received refugee status,^[64] as well as LGBTQI+ persons^[65] and social activists.^[66] One human rights activist^[67] and 1 UASC received subsidiary protection.^[68] Since 2008, a total of 14,651 Iranians were registered, while only 350 lodged asylum application.

The vast majority of asylum applications based on religious reasons (conversion) were rejected in merits and became final and executive. These decisions represent a shift in practice which from the onset was in almost all instances positive, but due to the increased number as applicants who converted from Islam to Christianity, the Asylum Office raised the bar of credibility which produced inconsistent practice.

Ukraine

Only 22 Ukrainians were registered in the period 2014-2022 and all of them lodged asylum application and 15 were granted asylum. Eight Ukrainian applicants received subsidiary protection through 4 decisions, and 7 were granted refugee status through the same number of decisions. All of their claims were based on their Russian ethnicity or pro-Russian orientation, or they had previous family or other connections with Serbia.

In March 2022, 4 Ukrainian applicants lodged asylum application to the Asylum Office (1 family of 3 and 1 journalist) and they were all granted asylum – subsidiary protection to the family due to the state of general insecurity^[69] and 1 refugee status to the journalist who reported on war crimes allegedly committed by Ukrainian authorities.^[70]

Burundi

A total of 1,165 Burundians were registered in line with the Asylum Act, and 259 of them lodged asylum application in the period 2017-2022. The increase in the number of Burundian applicants can be connected with the free visa regime that Serbia has introduced for Burundian citizens, and which was cancelled in December 2022 after the pressure from the EU.

Still, only 9 Burundians were granted protection through 7 decisions. A total of 8 Burundians were granted refugee status through 6 decisions and 1 Burundian was granted subsidiary protection. Refugee status was granted to women victims of SGBV, torture victims and political opponents. All of them are ethnic Tutsi.

Cuba

A total of 216 Cubans were registered in line with the Asylum Act, while 97 of them lodged asylum application since the onset of the Serbian asylum system. Only 7 of them received refugee status through 5 decisions and on the basis of political persecution which they faced as political activist opposed to the Government, while 1 Cuban LGBTQI+ applicant with serious medical condition received subsidiary protection in 2022.^[71]

Somalia

A total of 66,476 Somalis were registered in line with the Asylum Act, while only 336 of them lodged asylum applications. Subsidiary protection was granted to 5 individuals, and on the basis of the state of general insecurity in Somaliland.

Other nationalities

A total of 5 Sudanese from Darfur were granted refugee status in the period 2015-2016 (5 decisions), 4 Pakistanis were granted asylum out of which 3 subsidiary protection and 1 UASC refugee status and as a survivor of human trafficking. A total of 3 athletes from Ethiopia were granted subsidiary protection in 2009 due to political reasons, as well as 3 women from Chechnya-Russia, who had LGBT claims. The same claim had a LGBT couple from Türkiye who received refugee status in 2013. A woman from Cameroon and her daughter were granted refugee status as survivors of SGBV, as well as Cameroonian persons with a disability,^[72] while one underage girl from Nigeria was granted refugee status as a survivor of human trafficking. Another Nigerian man with sever disability received subsidiary protection. Two stateless Palestinians were recognized as refugees and victims of forced military recruitment in Syria. One applicant from Bangladesh who is quadriplegic was granted subsidiary protection. The same protection was granted to the applicant from Mali in 2020.^[73] Refugee status was granted to a Coptic Christian from Egypt on the basis of religious persecution, as well as to Chinese Uygur, Kazakh Christian and Tunisian Christian on the same grounds. A man from Lebanon escaped political persecution from Hezbollah and received refugee status, as well as South Sudanese who belonged to the opposition. In 2022, a boy from Niger was granted subsidiary protection who fled the state of general insecurity caused by Boko Haram movement,^[74] as well as mother and daughter from DR Congo who escaped the situation of arbitrary violence in her village.^[75]

Particular grounds for international protection, contradicting practices and different trends

Out of the total of 158 decisions rendered by Asylum Office (155) and Asylum Commission (3), it can be said with certainty that the recognition rate in Serbia would have been much higher if not for the automatic application of the STCC in the period 2008-2018.^[76]

On other hand, among 158 decisions, excellent examples of good practice can be observed. In the history of the Serbian asylum system, asylum authorities have granted asylum on almost all grounds envisaged in Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention. However, there are numerous examples in which the practice of the Asylum Office has been inconsistent and especially in the following type of cases:

• LGBTQI+ applicants
• SGBV survivors
• UASCs
• draft evaders
• converts from Islam to Christianity

LGBTQI+

When it comes to LGBTQI+ applicants, the first ever-positive decision was granted to a Turkish gay couple in 2013.^[77] Several other decisions, which represent an example of good practice, ensued in the following years. Among those are decisions granting refugee status to two gay men from Iran^[78] and 3 lesbians from Chechnya.^[79]

However, in the same period, several contentious decisions highlight the inconsistency in assessing LGBTQI+ claims by asylum authorities in Serbia. One decision referred to a transgender man from Bosnia whose asylum application was also rejected in the Netherlands.^[80] In two other separate decisions, which related to a gay couple from Tunisia, the first instance authority outlined that the state of human rights of LGBTQI+ in Tunisia has been significantly improving throughout the years, highlighting the fact that even one of the presidential candidates openly declared as gay. However, the Asylum Office disregarded the fact that the Tunisian legal framework still stipulates ‘forced anal examination’ of people ‘suspected to be gay’ and criminalises homosexuality in its Criminal Code, prescribing the prison sentence of up to 5 years.^[81] Another contentious decision referred to a transgender woman from Iran who was rejected even though the UNHCR office in Serbia eventually granted her the mandate status and resettled her to another country.^[82] In 2021, there were two decisions in which application from a gay man from Iran was rejected as unfounded,^[83] as well as application from a gay man from Bangladesh.^[84] The threshold set in these two cases represents a dangerous precedent when it comes to LGBTQI+ claims.^[85] In both decisions, the Asylum Office outlined that if applicants were to act discretely in terms of their sexual orientation, they would not have been subjected to persecution. Also, the acts of violence, but also threats, to which both applicants were subjected were not of sufficient level of seriousness according to the Asylum Office. In 2022, there were several more decisions regarding the rejection of LGBTQI+ applicants whose cases continued from 2021 (applicants from Tunisia, Bangladesh and Iran), 1 case in 2022 of an applicant from Morocco.^[86]

One Cuban citizen was granted subsidiary protection as an LGBTQI+ applicant in 2022, but the positive outcome was not solely based on the discrimination which he had encountered in Cuba, but also on the basis of his serious illness.^[87]

Victims of SGBV

The practice of asylum authorities when it comes to the survivors of SGBV, but also persons at risk of SGBV has also been inconsistent. The first notable case goes back to 2016, when a woman from Chechnya was rejected in merits. Namely, during the hearing, M.G. unequivocally expressed her well-founded fear of persecution by Chechens (including her family members), who threatened her because she ‘lost her virginity out of wedlock’ and because she was pregnant at the time of leaving Russia. In addition, the mere fact that the asylum seeker had left Russia and her family may be a reason for retaliation by her father and other Chechens. She specifically stated that she received threats from her father that he would kill her if she had sexual relations before marriage, and described how Chechens treat girls in such cases, i.e. that those girls are often victims of honour killing. The applicant stated that her mother once told her about a case where a brother killed a sister who had sex before marriage, then killing her mother because she did not take good care of her daughter.^[88]

Another contentious case was recorded in December 2017, when an application by a woman who was a victim of SGBV in Afghanistan was dismissed on the basis that Bulgaria was a safe third country. The Asylum Office disregarded the fact that Z.F. was also raped in Bulgaria, manifesting in that way the Office’s lack of capacity to establish gender sensitive approach in admissibility procedure.^[89] The Asylum Office’s decision was also confirmed by the Asylum Commission and the woman eventually was resettled by UNHCR office in Serbia and received refugee status in France.^[90]

A case which represents an example of good practice refers to a woman N. with a small child from Cameroon who escaped arranged marriage and whose asylum application was assessed as credible through individual circumstances which she put forward and relevant CoI.^[91] This was the first ever case in which the applicant was qualified to be a member of a particular social group – persons at risk of SGBV, manifested though the risk of forced marriage. On the contrary, a case of another women from Cameroon was not examined with the same rigorous scrutiny as the case of N., even though it referred to the practice of forced marriage when she was underage. Her case was dismissed even though she never had the opportunity to apply for asylum at one of the airports in Italy which Serbia considered as the safe third country.^[92]

A very high burden of proof for the risk of gender based violence was established in the case of Ms. Y from Iran,^[93] and Ms. Z from Burundi in 2021.^[94] Ms. Y is a women rights activist whose asylum application was rejected on multiple occasions on the grounds that she has allegedly failed to provide evidence that the threats that she has received would materialize. Even the 2022 events in Iran were disregarded by asylum authorities. On the other hand, a high quality decision was rendered in relation to an Iraqi woman and her daughter who received refugee status as SGBV survivor who was forcibly married to her cousin when she was only 15 years old.^[95] A very good decision was rendered in 2022 to a survivor of SGBV from Burundi in which the Asylum Office for the first time took in consideration the Istanbul Protocol Report lodged by legal representatives with the findings of the multidisciplinary team consisted of forensic medical expert, psychiatrist and gynaecologist.^[96]

What can be concluded when it comes to the burden of proof in SGBV applications, but also many other types of cases, is that Asylum Office would more or less always grant international protection to those individuals who had already survived acts of persecution (attacks, rape, detention, judicial persecution). On the other hand, where applicants were forced to leave their countries of origin due to risks of persecution which had not materialized, the requirements are set insurmountably high. In other words, it appears that asylum authorities often require that the applicants have to experience and survive the act of persecution in order to prove the credibility of their claims, while leaving the country of origin without such experience would rarely result in positive decision. What is also typical for these kinds of decisions is selective citations of the relevant CoI in which only parts of these sources which indicate positive developments (with for example gay people in Iran or women’s rights in other country) are outlined in the negative decision, while those sources who indicate towards the risk are neglected. This also reflects the lack of capacity of asylum authorities to apply the standard of in dubio pro reo.

UASC

Since the establishment of the Serbian asylum system, only 16 UASC received international protection in Serbia. The first child was a girl from Nigeria who was also recognised as a survivor of human trafficking which occurred in her country of origin and which was assessed as an act of persecution.^[97] The second UASC who received subsidiary protection was a boy from Afghanistan who avoided forced recruitment by Taliban.^[98] The same decision was rendered in relation to a Kurdish boy who fled forcible military recruitment by Peshmergas in Iraq and who was granted refugee status in the same year (2019).^[99] In both of these cases the Asylum Office applied the standard of a ‘buffer age period,’ which is a remarkable example of good practice and which is related to children who turned 18 during the course of the asylum procedure.^[100]

An identical case of forced recruitment of UASC by Taliban forces was positively resolved at the end of 2019 in the case of an Afghan boy who was granted refugee status.^[101] A child soldier from Palestine (proclaimed as stateless), received refugee status after it was determined that he had been forcibly recruited in the conflict in Syria.^[102] A similar case was resolved for an UASC from Afghanistan who fled Taliban recruitment as well.^[103] A boy from Iran who converted from Islam to Christianity was granted subsidiary protection, even though all other Iranian converts were granted refugee status.^[104]

Another boy from Afghanistan who fled customary family dispute and revenge killing was granted subsidiary protection in 2020.^[105] An Afghan boy who suffered severe injuries in a car accident in Serbia and remained in induced coma was granted subsidiary protection in 2021.^[106] And finally, the last UASC from 2021 who was granted a refugee status was a boy from Pakistan who was recognised as a victim of human trafficking and who was granted refugee status in 2021 on the basis of labour and sexual exploitation.^[107]

In 2022, 2 boys from Afghanistan were granted subsidiary protection^[108] due to the risks of arbitrary violence originating from the acts of the Taliban, while 1 boy from Afghanistan received refugee status for the same reasons.^[109] Siblings from Syria (brother and sister) were also granted subsidiary protection,^[110] as well as the boy from Niger who fled the situation of arbitrary violence connected to the operations conducted by the Boko Haram group.^[111]

Apart from these positive decisions, there have been a handful of cases in which UASC’s applications were rejected in merits even though their asylum claims were similar or identical to the above-described. In all these cases boys, mainly from Afghanistan, had a positive best interest assessment decision issued by CSW which contained a recommendation for protection in Serbia. This indicates that practice in the field of UASC also varies, which can be also seen in the past AIDA reports.^[112]

Draft evaders and forcible recruitment

A significant number of male Syrian applicants who received international protection outlined in their applications that one of the main reasons why they had to flee their country was the risk of being recruited by some of the fighting sides. The reasoning of the Asylum Office decisions always outlined such individual circumstances, but in the end awarded different forms of international protection – mainly subsidiary protection and rarely refugee status. Moreover, draft evasions and rejection in general to take part in the armed conflict, was outlined by the UNHCR in its position papers as a reason for protection arising from 1951 Refugee Convention.^[113] Thus, there were instances in which draft evaders were granted refugee status^[114] and instances in which the same category received subsidiary protection.^[115] The same examples can be seen in the practice towards UASC who fled Taliban recruitments described above.

Converts from Islam to Christianity

The vast majority of Iranian claims were based on the alleged risk of religious persecution, frequently due to a conversion from Islam to Christianity. However, even before the mass arrival of Iranian citizens in 2017-2018,^[116] the fist refugee status was granted to a man from Kazakhstan, who converted to Christianity.^[117] The second person was a man from Iran who was granted refugee status in 2016 for the same reasons.^[118] And then, in the period 2018 – 2020, the Asylum Office granted refugee status on the said grounds on at least 7 occasions.^[119]

However, in the same period, dozens of other Iranian applicants who put forward the same claims with identical or similar evidence, were rejected in merits. Also, the number of persons who received international protection on these grounds was slowly decreasing and in 2021 and 2022, not a single Iranian was granted refugee status on these grounds. Thus, it is clear that the threshold for Iranian converts has significantly increased and that it is not reasonable to expect that in the future these claims will have prospect of success.^[120] Since 2017, the Asylum Office has rendered the following decisions:^[121]

Asylum Office practice in 2022

Protection was granted to citizens of the following countries in 2022:

Source: Asylum Office and UNCHR office in Serbia.

In 2022, the Asylum Office delivered 248 decisions regarding 352 asylum seekers. Out of that number, 48 decisions regarding 62 asylum seekers were rejected in merits, while 20 decisions granting asylum to 30 asylum seekers were delivered in the same period. Asylum procedure was discontinued in 180 cases regarding 258 applicants, due to their absconding, while in 2 instances subsequent asylum applications were declined in relation to 2 applicants. There were no inadmissibility decisions or other decisions which are appropriate for the analysis of the effectiveness of the work of the first instance authority,

The first conclusion that can be drawn from these figures is that the total number of decisions has increased significantly in comparison to previous years.  The total number of decisions increased by 117% in comparison to 2021 and is the highest for the past 5 years. Still, the trend from previous years has continued and the vast majority of applicants decided to abscond from asylum procedure before the decision in the first instance was rendered. This represents a total of 72% of all decisions rendered in 2022. Around 1% of decisions concerned rejections of subsequent applications, while there were no inadmissibility decisions.

In 2022, it can be said that 68 merits decisions, rendered in relation to 92 asylum seekers can be considered as relevant for analysis and better understanding of the quality and effectiveness of asylum procedure, the practice with regards to certain nationalities, the grounds for persecution and the origin of the applicants. These 68 decisions were rendered in relation to 92 asylum seekers from: Burundi (27), Syria (11), Cuba (11), Afghanistan (6), DR Congo (5), Iran (5), Ukraine (4); Türkiye (3), Guinee Bissau (3), Morocco (2), Iraq (2), Poland (2), Cameron (2) and 1 from Pakistan, Gambia, Libya, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Niger, Tunis, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia and Russia.

When it comes to decisions rendered on the merits, it can be concluded that rejection rate in 2022 was 71%, while the recognition rate was 29%. This represents 8% increase in recognition in comparison to 2021.^[123] In total, international protection was granted through 20 decisions (29%) encompassing 30 persons. Of these, refugee status was granted through 6 decisions and to citizens of Afghanistan (4), Iran (3) Ukraine (1), Libya (1) and Burundi (1). The remaining 10 decisions were related to subsidiary protection: Syria (10), Ukraine (3), DR Congo (2), Afghanistan (2), Cuba (1), Cameroon (1) and Niger (1)

Most of the decisions were rendered in 2022 in relation to citizens of Burundi – 14 regarding 27 applicants. Out of that, only 1 decision was positive, granting refugee status to SGBV survivor,^[124] while all other were rejected in merits, including the one LGBTQI+ applicant.^[125] The second highest number of decisions was related to citizens of Cuba – 10 decisions rendered in relation to 11 applicants, out of which there was only 1 positive decision granting subsidiary protection to LGBTQI+ applicant with serious medical conditions. What is common for almost all Burundian and Cuban applications is that they were all based on allegations on the risks due to political turmoil in their respective States. The vast majority of Cubans have based their claims on the opposition to the Cuban Government and 2021 protests, while the vast majority of Burundians claimed ethnic persecution as Tutsi minority and affiliation with opposition parties. Thus, rejection rate for the most common asylum seekers from Cuba and Burundi was more than 90% in 2022.

The third largest group of applicants are originating from Syria – 8 decisions rendered in relation to 11 clients, out of which everyone received subsidiary protection except one applicant who was rejected in merits. However, this is not the final decision. Recognition rate for Syrians was 87%,

All applicants from Afghanistan were granted refugee status or subsidiary protection and there were no negative decisions, meaning that the recognition rate for Afghans was 100% in 2022. A total of 4 Afghans received refugee status through two decisions and 2 UASCs received subsidiary protection through two decisions. The 100% recognition rate was obvious in relation to 4 Ukrainians who received international protection through 2 decisions, and the same goes for 1 citizen of Libya and 1 UASC from Niger who both received refugee status and subsidiary protection respectively.

There were 4 decisions rendered in relation to 5 citizens of DR Congo, out of which 1 was positive (two persons), and 3 were negative. Similar numbers were detected in relation to nationals of Iran where 3 of them received refugee status (1 decision), while two were rejected in merits, out of which one was a woman at risk of SGBV whose case will be explained bellow.

As it has been the case in previous years, a total of 3 Turkish nationals were rejected in merits (3 decision) even though their claims were based on political persecution. It is still impossible to obtain international protection as a Turkish citizen who flees ethnic (Kurdish) and political persecution,

In 2022, Asylum Office rejected in merits asylum applications of individuals coming from Russia, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Tunis (accelerated procedure), Bulgaria, Gambia, Pakistan, as well as two citizens of Poland (1 decision) and Morocco (2 decisions) and 3 citizens of Guinea Bissau (3 decisions rendered in accelerated procedure). Taking in consideration countries of origin, it is reasonable to assume that these decisions were well-founded, except in the case of Moroccan LGBTQI applicant whose case represent the continuation of a negative trend of LGBTQI+ applicants, accompanied with another negative decision of gay man from Bangladesh who was rejected in merits for the second time. Thus, recognition rate for these nationalities was 0%, which can also be said for two negative decisions rendered in relation to two Iraqi applicants.

The quality of the decision-making process in 2022 can be considered as slightly improved to 2021.^[126] The Asylum Office rendered 20 decisions in relation to 30 applicants granting them asylum. In those cases where the Asylum Office granted refugee status or subsidiary protection the following can be observed:

• The Asylum Office was, in the reasoning of its decisions, clearly taking into consideration the fact that legal representatives were submitting written submissions indicating individual and general risks of persecution or other serious harm in countries of origin or third countries. These submissions contained data on individual circumstances and facts, but also findings compiled in credible reports published by UNHCR, EASO, UN Treaty bodies, UN Special Procedures, Amnesty International and others (CoI);
• The reasoning of decisions contains the citations of credible reports taken into consideration by the Asylum Office proprio motu and occasional reliance on the general principles of the ECtHR, and in some cases even more concrete cases which correspond to individual circumstances of the applicant;
• In several cases the Asylum Office adequately took into consideration the psychological assessment provided by CSO PIN and CSO IAN when examining the credibility of applicant’s statement;
• In 5 cases, the Asylum Office adequately took into consideration the best interest of a child assessment (BID) provided by the Social Welfare Centre (SWC) and rendered well-reasoned decisions containing child specific considerations and invoking Articles 10 and 17 which provides for special procedural guarantees for vulnerable applicants such as UASC and the principle of the best interest of a child;
• The safe third country concept was not applied in any of the said decisions and the reasoning of each decision sometimes contains a paragraph on why the country in which the applicant resided before coming to Serbia cannot be considered as a safe third country.
• The Istanbul Protocol containing medical, psychiatric, and other expert findings were taken into consideration, as well as medical documentation of seriously ill persons. These submissions were taken on board during the assessment of the acts of persecution which have already taken place, as well as risks which might arise due to lack of medical treatment and care of seriously ill or persons who suffer from serious forms of disabilities.

The Asylum Office rendered 7 decisions granting subsidiary protection to 10 Syrians.^[127] As it was the case last year 2021, one Syrian applicant was rejected in merits. Thus, the impeccable practice of this body when it comes to Syrian asylum applicants whose cases are decided on the merits has ceased to exist in 2021 and continued in 2022, and there are now two instances in which Syrians were rejected in merits. Still, the said case is still pending, and it is reasonable to assume that this decision will not become final. In all of the decisions granting subsidiary protection, it can be seen that the practice of the Asylum Office still largely reflects, for instance, UNHCR moratorium on returns to Syria,^[128] or the current standing of ECtHR when it comes to the risks of treatment contrary to Article 2 and 3 of ECHR in case of removal to Syria.^[129] Nevertheless, the number of Syrian applicants in Serbia remains low, but the practice positive. It is important to note that one of the decisions related to a brother and sister from Syria, who were as UASCs granted subsidiary protection and took in consideration the BID report from the Centre for Social Work (CSW).^[130] What is common for all of the decisions is the fact that Syria is still considered as a country in which acts of arbitrary violence occur and where general insecurity in the post-conflict society prevails.

In February 2022, the Asylum Office granted refugee status to the Libyan citizen after more than 5 years in which, due to the negative security assessment from BIA, his application was rejected on several occasions. He was granted refugee status as a person affiliated with the former Gadhafi regime.^[131] This decision further contributes to the positive practice when it comes to Libyan applicants, especially those who have already had a tie with Serbia and who in the vast majority of cases were granted international protection as sur place refugees. On another note, this case perfectly illustrates how an arbitrary assessment of BIA can affect the case and prolong it unreasonably.

In March 2022, UASC from Niger was granted subsidiary protection due to state of insecurity caused by Jihadists and members of the Boko Haram movement in which his father and two brothers were killed and his house was burned to the ground during one such attack.^[132] The Asylum Office took into consideration BID provided by CSW.

In June and August 2022, one 3-member family from Ukraine and 1 Ukrainian journalist were granted subsidiary protection and refugee status respectively. Apart from taking in consideration the well-documented situation of general insecurity in Ukraine, in the case of the journalist, the Asylum Office has found the risk of persecution from the Ukrainian Government due to her reporting on human rights violations committed by Ukrainian forces.^[133] What is fair to mention is the fact that these two applications were treated with priority and were resolved faster than those made by applicants from Syria and Afghanistan. This kind of practice is contentious, taking in consideration that Ukrainians are also entitled to the much simpler and shorter procedure embodied through temporary protection where the Asylum Office does not have to facilitate hearings and draft several page long decisions with reasoning. There were several other applications made by CSOs on behalf of Ukrainian nationals which will produce the same consequences which are nothing but unequal treatment in comparison to all other applicants and un-pragmatic resolution for the legal status of people fleeing Ukraine.

An extraordinary decision was rendered in relation to an SGBV survivor from Burundi whose individual circumstances were analysed by the group of forensic experts and in line with the new version of the Istanbul Protocol^[134] which was taken as key evidence that the applicant survived rape and attempted murder. What is also important to note is the fact that this case lasted slightly longer than 3 months, which should be praised. Also, the Asylum Office found persecution on both ethnic (Tutsi) and political grounds (member of the opposition party). On the other hand, this case is a perfect example on how the Asylum Office is prone to resort to positive decisions when it comes to Burundian citizens who survived different acts of persecution, while in situations where applicants outline such risks which they avoided after fleeing the country, the outcome is usually rejection of application in merits. To make it more simpler, if the applicant in this case had been lucky enough to avoid SGBV act of persecution and flees to Serbia, it is highly likely that she would have been rejected.

At the end of June 2022, the Asylum Office granted subsidiary protection to a Cameroonian man who suffers from serious disability and who requires physical assistance in his everyday life. The credibility of his claim was assessed from the perspective of his physical and medical condition and it has been determined that he would be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment due to the lack of support of his condition in his country of origin.^[135] This decision represents the continuation of a good practice which started in November 2016 when an Iraqi man suffering from serious psychiatric condition was granted subsidiary protection,^[136] and which was continued with decisions on subsidiary protection of Nigerian and Bangladeshi men who are paraplegic and quadriplegic respectively.^[137] Another similar decision was rendered in relation to the Afghan UASC who also became immobile in a car accident. The state of insecurity in his country was described as strongly and negatively affecting the health-care system without prospect of him receiving necessary aid.^[138] And finally, serious medical condition and the lack of appropriate therapy for AIDS in Cuba was also used as the grounds for subsidiary protection of a LGBTQI+ applicant who was also discriminated against in his country of origin. This applicant was granted subsidiary protection in less than 6 months and this case undoubtedly reflects the standing of the ECtHR in cases D. v. the United Kingdom,^[139] but also Paposhvili v. Belgium.^[140]

In 2022, a total of 3 UASCs from Afghanistan were granted asylum. The first decision was rendered in July 2022, when an Afghan boy was granted subsidiary protection on the basis of the state of general insecurity in Afghanistan.^[141] This decision represents the continuation of the well-established practice in those cases in which applicants turn 18 during the course of the asylum procedure and where the standard of the buffer-age period was applied again.^[142] However, this case lasted for almost 18 months. The second decision was rendered in August 2022 and in a bit less than 4 months since the asylum application was submitted in writing and accompanied with BID. Again, the main reason for such decisions was the situation in Afghanistan which has arisen in the aftermath of the Taliban regaining power.^[143] And finally, in November 2022, the Asylum Office has granted refugee status to Tajik UASC from Afghanistan who fled persecution from the militant Islamic groups affiliated with the Islamic State. The case lasted for 13 months. In all three cases Asylum Office took in consideration the best interest determination decision (BID), drafted by the relevant centre for social work. What is also important to note is that in 2022 there were no Afghan applications rejected in merits, which is a good sign.

In August 2022, a mother and son from DR Congo were granted subsidiary protection due to state of general insecurity in applicant’s village which arose from political turmoil. Thus, the state of general insecurity supported by the relevant country of origin information was used as the grounds for the credibility assessment, which can be described as an example of good practice.^[144]

And finally, in October 2022, the three-member family from Iran was granted refugee status after more than 4 years in which the case was examined by all three instances and was referred to lower instances on several occasions. The main question of these asylum applications were online actions of one of the applicants in which he criticized the Iranian system, strict Sharia rules and other segments of Iranian societies. An entire set of online threats ensued, and the applicants also outlined the risk of criminal persecution which can result in long term prisons sentences, but also arbitrary detention, ill-treatment and other acts of persecution.^[145]

What is common for most of the cases in which the Asylum Office granted refugee or subsidiary protection to the applicants is the fact that first instance procedure lasted on average for more than 1 year, even though there were exceptional cases which were concluded in the period from 6 to 8 months, and even shorter in the case of Ukrainians and SGBV survivor from Burundi. This is completely unacceptable for the most vulnerable applicants such as UASC, SGBV survivors and survivors of human trafficking. At the same time, the excessive length of asylum procedure for applicants coming from Syria or Afghanistan also lacks proper justification, taking in consideration the clarity of the situation in these countries, as well as the position of UNHCR on returns to these countries, or EUAA Guidelines.

Regardless of the above stated examples of good practice, there are still serious concerns in practice which indicate that the Serbian asylum procedure should not be considered as fair and efficient, and in some cases can be seen as unpredictable. The concerns are the following:

• the contradicting practice in similar or identical cases;
• reluctance to grant refugee status (but rather granting subsidiary protection status), even though from the reasoning of the decision it is clear that the first instance authority has acknowledged and accepted the facts which indicate the existence of one of the 5 grounds for persecution;
• extensive length of the first instance asylum procedure which has a discouraging effect on applicant’s will to remain in Serbia;
• the quality of the decision-making process varies between different asylum officers;
• not all the facts and evidence (individual or general) submitted by the applicant and the legal representative are taken into consideration, and the substance of the decision lacks an explanation as why these arguments are not deemed as credible, especially in decisions on rejection.
• the burden of proof for certain applicants, especially those coming from Burundi and Cuba, has been established to high, undermining the principle of in dubio pro reo.

In 2022, the Asylum Office rendered 48 decisions rejecting 62 persons in merits. First of all, it is important to outline that each year the Asylum Office delivers decisions in relation to applicants whose claims are prima facie not founded. The first instance authority has rejected in the regular procedure citizens of Russia, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Bulgaria, Gambia, Cameroon, Pakistan and Poland (1 decision 2 persons).^[146] Also, in accelerated procedure, Asylum Office rejected in merits 3 applicants from Guinea Bissau,^[147] as well as one applicant from Tunisia and 1 applicant from Cuba.^[148] The vast majority of these applicants left Serbia after they received first instance decisions and have never tried to challenge the outcome of their procedure. The same can be said for three decisions rejecting in merits citizens of DR Congo^[149] and 1 citizen of Morocco. Even though it was not possible to obtain the copies of all decisions, the author of this report is familiar with the fact that all of these applicants were accommodated in AC in Krnjača where the legal aid providers decided not to take their cases due to complete lack of credibility. Thus, in 17 out of 48 cases rejected in merits it can be safely assumed that these decisions were well founded.

In 2022, the Asylum Office rejected 3 Turkish applicants in merits confirming that it is basically impossible to obtain international protection for nationals fleeing this country. However, the February decisions is related to the persons who wanted to avoid extradition for a petty crime and not for political offence or other reasons which could indicate the risk of persecution. Thus, it is safe to say that one of these three decisions is justified and that the conclusion of the Asylum Office was correct – avoiding or procrastinating extradition.^[150] One of the cases was related to the member of the Gulenist movement, while the other one on the case of Ecevit Piroglu. Both cases resulted in procedures before CAT and both applicants are facing extradition to Türkiye.^[151]

In 2022, a total of 8 decisions rejecting asylum applications encompassing 9 applicants originating from Cuba were delivered in regular procedure. One of the decisions is related to the case of Cuban mother and daughter whose husband has already been rejected in merits and whose asylum application was rejected for the second time in 2022.^[152] According to the BCHR, the risks of political persecution have not been examined adequately.^[153] As for the other Cuban applications, it was not possible to obtain the copies of decisions, but in the vast majority of cases, Cuban applicants were claiming risks of persecution on political grounds and due to their participation in 11 July 2021 protests. The Asylum Office has established that mere participation in the protests does not provide sufficient grounds for a positive decision, which can be taken as a reasonable standing, especially taking in consideration the fact that more prominent political activists from Cuba have received refugee status in the first quarter of 2023.^[154] In other words, and as the previous practice has showed, Cuban political activists do not have problem to obtain international protection in Serbia in cases where  they genuinely face risk of political persecution which arose from their active participation in anti-governmental actions. In the remaining 6 out of 7 decisions the information provided by the Asylum Commission indicates that applicants have not challenged with the appeal the first instance decision, which safely lead us to the conclusion that their claims were not credible.

The negative practice when it comes to applicants who claim their persecution on the grounds of their sexual orientation has continued in 2022. Namely, apart from one LGBTQI+ applicant from Cuba who received subsidiary protection, but who also has a serious medical condition, all other LGBTQI+ applicants were rejected in merits. Thus, and even though the Asylum Office rendered excellent decisions in relation to LGBTQI applicants in the past, the past four years have shown that LGBTQI+ asylum seekers fleeing from a country in which they are criminalised or discriminated against have no prospect of success, unless they survived serious acts of persecution. In other words, the risk of persecution is solely assessed from the perspective of past experience which, if it is not based on actual physical attack, arrest, detention or any other harmful practice, would most likely lead to negative decisions.

The case of Mr. X. from Bangladesh, who left his country of origin because of his sexual orientation, but also religious beliefs (atheist) was rejected again in February 2022.^[155] The case was referred back from the Administrative Court to the first instance authority. The applicant was targeted by an extremist student organisation, which further led to him being forced to quit his studies. He was not able to address the Bangladeshi authorities for protection due to discriminatory legal framework which penalizes LGBTQI+ people. He was also raped, and his boyfriend committed suicide,^[156] but it is not clear from the available sources if he was subjected to expert assessments for the purpose of the asylum procedure. Another decision is related to another long-lasting case of a gay man from Burundi, whose asylum claim was initially dismissed on the basis that Uganda was the first asylum country.^[157] After his case was referred back to the first instance, his asylum application was rejected in merits.^[158] It is important to outline that Burundi also criminalises same sex partnerships.^[159] And finally, in December 2022, in December 2022, a Moroccan gay man was rejected in merits, but since the author of the report had not access to a copy of the decision, it is not possible to elaborate more on its reasoning. What can be safely said is that same-sex sexual activity is prohibited under the Moroccan Penal Code 1962, which criminalises ‘lewd or unnatural acts’.^[160]

It is also worth mentioning again the case of the gay man from Congo who escaped his former partner’s family who wanted to kill him, but also abuse from his own family. His boyfriend was killed, and his mother provided a letter of testimony confirming the said incidents.^[161] This, as well as numerous CoI reports were declined as relevant evidence by the Asylum Office. The still pending case of a gay man from Iran who was raped, abused and who was questioned by the police as a suspect for committing a criminal offence which implies sexual acts between men is also noteworthy. The applicant, in his procedure, provided an entire set of evidence, including the court summon which ensued after the arrest during which he was questioned about his sexual orientation. The reasoning of the Asylum Office from 2021 gives serious reasons for concern taking in consideration the Criminal Code of Iran, individual problems that the applicants faced and relevant CoI. This decision is still a perfect example on how the first instance authority in some cases strive to cite CoI which goes in favour of negative decision, but completely disregards CoI which clearly indicates the risks of persecution of LGBTQI+ applicants from Iran. Moreover, even though the Asylum Office failed to take relevant CoI proprio motu, the applicant’s legal representatives provided an entire set of relevant reports which confirm the existence of the events and incidents which were experienced by the applicant.^[162] They were not addressed in the reasoning of the decision and this case is today pending before the Administrative Court with limited prospect of success.

In two other, separate decisions from 2020,^[163] which were related to a gay couple from Tunisia, the first instance authority rejected their applications as unfounded, stating that the state of human rights of LGBTQI+ in Tunisia has been significantly improving throughout the years, outlining the fact that even one of the presidential candidates was openly declared as gay. However, the Asylum Office disregarded the fact that the Tunisian legal framework still allows ‘forced anal examination’ of people ‘suspected to be gay’ and criminalises homosexuality in its Criminal Code, prescribing the prison sentence of up to 5 years. The fact that both applicants were detained by the Tunisian police on several occasions on suspicion that they were gay was not disputed by the Asylum Office but was assessed as ‘not serious enough’ since both applicants avoided anal examination and were afforded lawyers. This interpretation gives serious reasons for concern since the threshold for persecution was set too high, and the Asylum Office failed to acknowledge that the very fact that someone who is suspected to be a gay can be taken to police custody, in combination with the risk of anal examination and criminal charges, undoubtedly amounts to persecution. Both of these cases were taken to the Strasbourg Court by applicant’s legal representatives.^[164]

Thus, the decisions rendered in 2020, 2021 and 2022 indicated that the Asylum Office has been departing from a very decent practice with regards to LGBTIQI+ applicants established back in 2013, when a Turkish gay couple was granted refugee status due to systemic discrimination and violence faced in different places of residency.^[165] The Turkish legal framework is far more favourable than the Tunisian, Iranian or Bangladeshi, but the interpretation of the Asylum Office from 8 years ago appears to be much more progressive than in several more recent decisions. In combination with another contentious decision regarding a transgender applicant from Iran rendered in 2019,^[166] the practice of the first instance authority regarding LGBTQI+ claims appear to have seriously deteriorated in the past few years. Thus, the recognition rate of LGBTQI+ applicants in 2022 was 25%, and one positive decision is primarily based on medical grounds (serious illness) and then on LGBTQI+ part of the claim which was taken into consideration.

The practice with regards to Burundian applicants who were the majority in the past year both in terms of asylum applications, but also decisions rendered in merits cannot be assessed as satisfying. First of all, it is fair to say that the free-visa regime has triggered mixed migration influx of Burundians, coming directly to Belgrade airport. This also means that a significant number of Burundian applicants made unfounded claims which were aimed at legalising their stay in Serbia. However, Burundi is a country which has an extremely poor human rights record and in which ethnic minority Tutsi has been persecuted in various different ways, which among many include enforced disappearance, torture and other forms of ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, incommunicado, killings, different acts of sexual violence, etc.^[167] One of the vulnerable groups are also members of opposition parties, but also their family members, journalists, NGO workers, etc. The existence of risks of these categories has been determined in many positive decisions, first one dating back from 2017.^[168] The reasoning and evidence taken as credible in these decisions serves as an example of good practice, but in many other cases that was not the case and there was an almost completely contradictory interpretation of risks.

In January 2022, a five-member family which did not have a legal representative was rejected in merits. The women claimed risk of political persecution affiliated with the alleged disappearance of her husband. Her claims were assessed as not credible.^[169] In June 2022, Mr. E.X. was rejected in merits even though he has provided an entire set of individual evidence to the Asylum Office which indicated to his political and ethnic persecution (member of the opposition party and ethnic Tutsi). He submitted his opposition party membership card, letters from his former employer, letter from several members of political party to which he belonged, as well as witness letter of his neighbour on problems that he has faced with the paramilitary group Imbonerakure and official authorities. Without trying to question any of the witnesses, and without providing substantive reasoning why this individual evidence was not declared as credible, the Asylum Office rejected E.X. in merits.^[170] The similar case was reported in September 2022, when the Asylum Office rejected to take in consideration the possibility of testimony of distinguished human rights activist from Burundi who offered to corroborate allegations made by the applicants on the risks of persecution which arose from his actions as journalist.^[171] In both of these decisions the Asylum Office selectively cited CoI which outline positive developments in Burundi, while CoI lodged by legal representatives was summarily disregarded without any detailed reasoning. In other words, these two decisions are typical examples of unacceptably high burden of proof set out by the Asylum Office, selective citation of relevant CoI and attitude which implies that asylum seekers from certain country will be assessed as credible only if they had suffered and survived serious act of persecution, while the genuine risk of such act which is substantiated will be declared as non-credible. These two decisions, as well as several others, represent a perfect example of asylum officers lack of capacity or maybe even willingness to apply the principle of in-dubio pro reo.

Similar decision was rendered in relation to a young woman from Burundi who was diagnosed with an entire set of psychological disorders which, according to her testimony, were results of serious forms of ill-treatment (including sexual) which were the reason why she fled her country of origin,. The psychologist in her case did not exclude that the symptoms being displayed could have arisen from such treatment. However, and due to unclear claims during the course of asylum hearing, she was rejected. The lack of individual evidence in this case was apparent, but what will remain as the most striking segment of this case is the capacity of this individual to repeatedly provide specific details of the alleged ill-treatment. In other words, there was no physical evidence which could prove whatever or not that ill-treatment has taken place and vice-versa, but only a psychological report which indicates that such possibility was quite high. The described acts of ill-treatment correspond to numerous CoI reports, but once again, the opportunity to grant international protection in cases where there is doubt was missed again.^[172] This also means that lack of in dubio pro reo application is dangerous and could have irreparable consequences on applicants who, due to circumstances of their case, simply cannot offer individual evidence.

If we compare the above-described decisions with just several others, and in which Asylum Office granted asylum to citizens of Burundi, it can be easily seen that all the applicants have survived the most flagrant forms of human rights violations. However, there were also instances in which the risks which did not materialized in a concrete act of persecution were assessed as credible on the basis of CoI and the context of individual, but with no major evidence. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that practice of Asylum Office in the case of Burundian applicants is inconsistent and contradicting, even though it cannot be claimed that there were negatively resolved asylum applications which were lawful and realistic.

In January 2022, one Iraqi applicant was rejected in merits and his case was concluded later one after he decided to withdraw his asylum application. It was not possible to obtain the copy of his decision and assess the quality of the decision making process.^[173] Another Iraqi applicant was rejected in December 2022.

In April 2022, for the second time, the Asylum Office rejected a social activist for women rights from Iran.^[174] In her application, she outlined that she has opposed to wear hijab, that she wanted to be work in modelling business, that she was arrested on several occasions etc. Even if the 2021 decisions can be taken as justified due to the insufficient lack of individual evidence (which is highly unlikely in this case), the recent events which took place in Iran undoubtedly qualify these kind of applications as founded.^[175] This decision represents a negative continuation of the practice regarding SGBV cases from Iran. In January 2020, the Asylum Office rejected an application on the merits concerning a mother and daughter from Iran, who were obvious victims of gender-based violence and whose serious psychological state, confirmed in PIN’s report, accompanied by other evidence compiled in CoI submissions created a strong and credible asylum claim.^[176] Before this decision, the Asylum Office applied on two occasions the safe third country concept in relation to Türkiye. After both decisions were overturned by the Asylum Commission, the Asylum Office decided to reject application in merits. Mother and daughter eventually decided to leave Serbia. This case lasted for more than two years, several hearings took place, and several lawyers changed. Without any doubt, this case was permeated with acts which caused secondary traumatisation. Even though the mother had visible injuries and scars from the alleged violence, forensic medical examination was never conducted by either the Asylum Office or one of several legal representatives.

One decision from the end of 2020 which was related to a SGBV survivor and her two children from Türkiye also goes in favour of the general assessment that practice with regards to SGBV applicants varies and is unpredictable.^[177] BCHR also observed the negative practice of the Asylum Office as regards a victim of genital mutilation from Somalia.^[178] What represents an additional aggravating circumstance is the fact that the lawyer in the case of Somali applicant failed to lodge a complaint within the 15-day deadline. This has led to the dismissal of the lawyer’s appeal by the Asylum Commission and the applicant is now facing potentially several years of procedural struggle to have her case re-examined in merits.^[179]

Prioritised examination and fast-track processing

No caseloads are prioritised as a matter of law or practice.

Personal interview

The interview in the regular procedure is regulated by Article 37 of the Asylum Act. The interview should take place at the earliest time possible. More specifically, the interview must be conducted within the period of 3 months during which Asylum Office has to render and deliver to the applicant and their legal representatives the first instance decision. The applicant is interviewed about all the facts and circumstances relevant to deciding on their application and particularly to establish their identity, the grounds for their asylum application, and their travel routes after leaving the country of origin or habitual residence, and whether the asylum seeker had previously sought asylum in any other country.^[180]

An authorised officer of the Asylum Office may interview the applicant on more than one occasion in order to establish the facts.^[181] In the situation where a large number of asylum applications has been lodged to the extent that the authorised officers of the Asylum Office are not able to interview all the applicants in due time, the Asylum Act provides that the Government may, at the request of the competent authority, decide on temporary involvement in the interviewing process of officers from other departments of the competent authority or officers from other authorities.^[182] However, although prescribed that they must undergo the necessary training before engaging in the process, it remains unclear whether this training can provide the officers from other departments of the competent authority or officers of other authorities with the sufficient level of knowledge as required for interviewing the applicants given the specific characteristics of the asylum procedure. This possibility has never been applied in practice.

The Asylum Act also specifies three situations when interviewing of applicants may be omitted, where:^[183]

1. A decision may be adopted upholding the application and granting the right to asylum on the basis of the available evidence;
2. The applicant is unable to give a statement due to circumstances of non-temporary nature beyond their control. In this case it is possible for the applicant or a member of their family to adduce evidence and give statements relevant to deciding on their asylum application.^[184] This option was applied for the first time in 2021, and in relation to an Afghan UASC who was not able to take part in the hearing procedure due to his health condition which implies that he is immobile and not able to talk.^[185] He was granted subsidiary protection;
3. The admissibility of a Subsequent Application is being

An applicant is entitled to request that an interview be conducted by a person of a specific gender. The same rule applies to interpreters.^[186] In practice, asylum seekers often wait from several weeks to several months following the lodging of their application for an interview to be scheduled. Due to COVID-19 circumstances, this period was extended for several months in 2020, and remained very long in 2021, but also 2022. A 4-member Afghan family who lodged their asylum applications on 30 August 2021 and had their asylum interview in 7 July 2022. Single mother with two children from Syria lodged their asylum application in August 2021, and were interviewed in February 2022. There were also examples of good practice in which Burundian SGBV survivor lodged asylum application on 15 March, was interviewed on 27 April and was granted refugee status 29 June 2022.^[187]

The Asylum Office conducted 106 interviews in 2022, which is significantly higher than the number of interviews in 2020 (84) and 2021 (85), but is still lower than the number of interviews from 2019 (178). The reason for the low number in 2020 can be attributed to COVID-19 which suspended this stage of the asylum procedure from second half of March until June 2020. However, it is hard to find an excuse for such a low number of hearings in 2021 and it is good that the number of hearings increased in 2022. It is also important to note that 1 witness was questioned, while motion for questioning of another witness was declined in June 2022. In general, it is clear that the Asylum Office tends not to question witnesses proposed by the applicants and their legal representatives.

There were no instances in which asylum interviews were conducted through video conferencing, including during the COVID-19 invasive measures in 2020. There were at least two instances in which witnesses of applicants in the asylum procedure were interviewed via the Skype application, in line with Article 111 of GAPA which provides for such a possibility. One case has been concluded due to absconding of the applicant,^[188] while the other one resulted in a positive decision regarding an UASC from Iran.^[189] No major problems were recorded with regards to video conferencing, but it is clear that this practice is rarely applied and it is yet to be seen whether problems will arise in the future.

The total number of asylum hearings in the period 2019-2022

Interpretation

An applicant who does not understand the official language of the asylum procedure shall be provided free interpretation services into their native language, or a language that they can understand, including the use of sign language and the availability of Braille materials.^[190]

The costs of interpretation are covered by UNHCR, and the interpreters are hired from their list. The list underwent a thorough review in 2022. The review was based on feedback received from CSOs, but also the Asylum Office which uses. The interpreters are available for the following languages: English (1), Farsi (10), Arabic (9), Russian (7), French (7), Turkish (5), Kurdish (3),  Bulgarian (2),Spanish (2), Chinese (2), Urdu (2), German (2), Greek (2), Georgian (2), Bulgarian (2) and Kirundi (2)  and Ukrainian (2).One interpreter is also available for each of the following languages:, Armenian, Chinese, Hindu, Hungarian, Italian, Macedonian Portuguese, Pashto, Polish, Romanian and Swahili.

When it comes to the practice, there were several instances in which CSO lawyers decided to halt the interview since it was that the interpreters were incompetent and that they could not establish effective communication with the applicants. Afterwards, the CSO requested their removal from the list, which was done by the UNHCR. There were several other instances in which lawyers failed to react and which had damaging consequences for the applicant. Such was the case of an Afghan boy who, according to his testimony given to his legal guardian, did not understand an interpreter for Farsi. His asylum application was rejected in the first instance,^[191] and the decision was upheld by the Asylum Commission.^[192] It remains to be seen if flaws in interpretation will be taken in consideration by the Administrative Court. One interpreter for Kirundi was removed from the list because of his affiliation with the Burundian Government. In 2022, an incompetent interpreter for the Spanish language was removed after the series of inadequate and imprecise interpretations in Cuban applications.^[193]

Recording and report

At the end of the interview, the records are signed by the asylum seeker, their legal representative, the interpreters and the official leading the interview.^[194] The asylum seekers’ legal representatives are entitled to ask additional questions to ensure comprehensive establishment of the facts of the case.

The minutes are read by the legal representative and asylum seeker before they are printed out and signed jointly with the acting asylum officer. It is also possible to make clarifications and corrections, but also to raise issues of disagreement and complaint on the acting asylum officer.

The original copies of the minutes are surrendered to the applicant and their legal representative right after the conclusion of the hearing. There were no instances in which it was reported that minutes from the asylum hearing were inconsistent with the content of the hearing.

The interview is not electronically recorded either by audio or video means.

Appeal

Appeal before the Asylum Commission

Appeals against Asylum Office decisions are reviewed by the Asylum Commission, a body comprising nine members appointed to four-year terms in office by the Government.^[195] Asylum Commission members must be a citizen of the Republic of Serbia, have a university degree in law, a minimum of five years of work experience, and must have an ‘understanding’ of human rights law.^[196] The last requirement gives a lot of reasons for concern, since none of the members fulfil this criterion. The only person who met this criterion was a professor of International Human Rights Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Belgrade who resigned in 2019, and was later replaced by the professor of Constitutional Law from the Criminal-Police Academy for whom it can be assumed that he possesses knowledge on human rights. Still, it is clear, and the practice of this body since the beginning of the asylum system in Serbia has shown, that members of the Asylum Commission are simply not qualified to apply IRL and IHRL and that their knowledge mainly lies in the field of Administrative Law. And yes, the asylum procedure is the administrative type of procedure, but it requires the capacity of decision makers to conduct assessments of the risks of refoulement ex nunc, proprio motu and with rigorous scrutiny, to conduct interviews with vulnerable applicants and to apply the principle of in dubio pro reo. None of these features have been reflected in the 15 year old practice of the Asylum Commission.

An appeal to the Asylum Commission automatically suspends the enforcement of the first instance decision and it must be submitted within 15 days from the delivery of the decision.^[197] The first instance decision may be challenged for the following reasons which are relevant for asylum procedure:

• lack or flawed application of the Law, other regulation or general act in the first instance decision;
• incompetent authority in charge of the first instance decision;
• incorrectly or incompletely established factual grounds;
• flawed conclusion derived from the established factual grounds;
• violation of the rules of the administrative procedure.^[198]

New facts and evidence may be presented in the appeal, but the appellant is obliged to explain why they did not present them in the first instance procedure.^[199] This provision is often relied on in second instance decisions when applicants, mainly due to poor quality work by their legal representatives, invoke or provide new evidence which they had failed to provide in the course of the first instance procedure. The Asylum Commission appears to be very rigorous in examining new facts and evidence in the appeal stage and limits the scope of its work to the framework established in the asylum application and during the asylum hearing before the Asylum Office. This is especially unfavourable for legally incompetent applicants who initiate the asylum procedure by themselves. However, it is important to note that many evidence and facts should be gathered by the asylum authorities’ proprio motu, especially CoI reports and other general circumstances, and regardless of the efforts of legal representatives and the quality of their work. The practice has shown that this is rarely the case.

The appeal must be submitted to the Asylum Office in a sufficient number of copies for the Asylum Commission and the opposing party.^[200] The Asylum Office then examines if an appeal is timely, allowed in line with the GAPA rules of procedure and if it is lodged by an authorised person. If the Asylum Office determines any of the above-enlisted deficiencies, an appeal will be dismissed.^[201] Against such decision, appeal is also possible, but the practice has shown little prospect of success.

According to the author’s knowledge, there were two instances in which appeal against the first instance decisions were not timely lodged, which was the reason why the appeal was dismissed by the Asylum Office. Later on, legal representatives tried to justify untimely lodged appeal before the Asylum Commission,^[202] and also Administrative Court,^[203] but without a success. Both decisions became final and the SGBV survivor from Somalia and the applicant from Burundi were denied of the possibility to have their cases examined in merits.

Also, the GAPA envisages that the Asylum Office might uphold the appeal without referring the case to the Asylum Commission if it determines that arguments from the appeal are founded^[204] and render a new decision which annuls the initial decisions and contains a new one. It is also possible that the Asylum Office supplements the procedure with additional asylum interviews or other evidentiary activity which it deems necessary.^[205] However, there was not a single case in the practice of the Asylum Office in which this legal avenue has been used.

If an appeal is not dismissed, the Asylum Office will refer the case files to the second instance body within 15 days from the receipt of the appeal and will also provide its response to the arguments, facts and evidence outlined in the appeal.^[206] What is important to note is that the response of the Asylum Office is not delivered to the applicant and/or his legal representatives, but the summary of response is only outlined in the reasoning of the Asylum Commission. In this way, the applicants is not able to provide additional views and standings on the Asylum Office’s response.

The Asylum Act does not specify the duration of the second instance procedure. However, the GAPA stipulates that the second instance decision must be rendered within 60 days.^[207] Under the Administrative Disputes Act, a claim against “administrative silence” may be filed with the Administrative Court in the event the Asylum Commission fails to render a decision on the appeal within 60 days of the day of its receipt, upon the expiry of 8 days from the day a reminder was sent to the second-instance authority.^[208] In other words, the time limit for the second instance decision and its delivery to the applicant is two months after the appeal was lodged. In practice, however, it takes at least three to four months for the Asylum Commission to render and deliver the second instance decision. During the state of emergency in 2020, the Asylum Commission delivered more decisions than in 2019. The main reason for this is because the Asylum Commission has never held hearings in order to directly determine the facts.^[209] However, it is welcome that, in the vast majority of cases, this body has been rendering decisions within two to three months in 2021 and 2022. This is definitely the positive development and should be praised.

When the Asylum Commission receives the appeal, it may render a different decision on the matter and substitute the impugned ruling with a new one, should it find the appeal well-founded and that it is unnecessary to conduct the procedure again.^[210] Should the Asylum Office find that the procedure it had implemented was incomplete, it may perform the requisite supplementary actions and render a new decision, which is also subject to appeal by the asylum applicant.^[211] In the event it does not reject the appeal,^[212] the Asylum Commission may itself decide on the administrative matter.^[213] It may also set aside the impugned ruling and order the first instance authority to re-examine the matter, when it finds that the shortcomings of the first instance procedure will be eliminated more rapidly and economically by the Asylum Office.^[214] The last possibility is the usual scenario, and since the establishment of the Serbian asylum system, the second instance body has rendered only three decisions granting asylum to applicants from Somalia,^[215] Libya,^[216] and Iran.^[217]

Statistical Overview of Asylum Commission practice 2009-2022

Asylum Commission Practice in 2022

In 2022 the Asylum Commission took 44 decisions regarding 59 persons, which is a significant decrease in comparison to 2021 when 74 decisions were rendered regarding 80 persons. This can be attributed to the lower number of lodged appeals. Of these, first instance decisions dismissing or rejecting asylum applications were upheld in 36 cases, while in only 3 cases the appeals were upheld, and the cases were referred back to the Asylum Office for further consideration. Also, an additional 2 decisions quashing the first instance decision after the judgment of the Administrative Court in which the onward appeals were upheld. An additional three decisions were rendered abolishing the first instance decisions of the Asylum Office – 2 decisions on temporary protection and 1 decision on subsidiary protection. As was the case in 2021, in 2022 the Asylum Commission did not render any positive decisions, i.e. it did not grant international protection.

One of the major concerns regarding the Asylum Commission’s practice relates to the failure to individually and separately assess all allegations included in the applicant’s appeal. In several analysed decisions, the Commission summarily rejected the applicant’s arguments, but also failed to examine the applicants’ cases in line with the Asylum Office’s positions which were taken in previous cases of identical or similar nature.^[218] This means that the Commission has limited corrective influence on the practice of the Asylum Office.

Since the Asylum Commission refused to share with the authors decisions rendered in 2020, 2021 and 2022, which was not the case in previous years, only a few decisions from 2022 will be briefly analysed below, in light of the cases which were outlined in the previous updates of this AIDA report. The nationalities encompassed in these decisions in 2022 are the following: Burundi (16), Iran (9), Türkiye (3), Guinea Bissau (3), Syria (2), Cuba (2), Ukraine (2), Pakistan (2), Iraq (2), Afghanistan (1), Bosnia and Hercegovina (1), Tunisia (1), Morocco (1), Poland (1), Guinea (1),  Cameroon (1) and Kyrgyzstan (1). The analysis will also include short reflection on certain decisions from 2021. Thus, the following paragraphs will reflect on the available practice of the Asylum Commission from 2021 and 2022.

On 18 January 2021, the Asylum Commission rejected an appeal of Burundian citizen who escaped his country of origin after several members of his family were killed. His asylum application and appeal were rejected because both first and second instance body determined that he was not politically active and that on several occasions, he pointed to poor economic situation in Burundi.^[219]

In February 2021, Asylum Commission rejected an appeal of a Burundian citizen of Tutsi ethnic background who claimed that his ethnicity was a reason for persecution.^[220] The Asylum Commission determined that CoI reports are not sufficient to prove the risk of persecution.

On 8 March 2021, the  Asylum Commission rejected the appeal of gay man from Congo whose case was rejected in merits by the Asylum Office which took a standing that applicant failed to prove the risk of persecution as a member of a particular social group. A letter from the applicant’s mother, as well as relevant CoI were not found to be sufficient for granting of asylum.^[221] This represents a continuation of the practice from 2020, and with regards to LGBT applicants. In 2021, the Commission rejected the appeal of the transgender applicant from Iran, whose asylum application was rejected in November 2019,^[222] and confirmed the stance of the first instance authority that the fact that Iranian state authorities formally acknowledged her gender transition implies that she would be safe in Iran.^[223] However, the Asylum Commission, in the same manner as the Asylum Office, disregarded the threats and attacks she received from her family, but also from members of Iranian society and her former employer. The applicant was granted mandate status by the UNHCR, and was resettled to another country.

On 17 March 2021, Asylum Commission rejected another appeal of Iranian converts from Islam to Christianity, confirming in that manner that this kind of asylum claims are no longer considered as credible in Serbian asylum system.^[224] Another decision from July 2021 refers to the subsequent asylum application of Iranian converts from Islam to Christianity who also attempted to provide additional evidence in their subsequent application, but without success. Their appeal against the decision dismissing their subsequent asylum application was rejected as unfounded.^[225]However, in the same month, the Asylum Commission upheld an appeal of an UASC who was declared as stateless and whose asylum application was rejected without adequate assessment of the treatment of Afghan refugees in Pakistan which is not a state signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention.^[226]

On 15 April 2021, the Asylum Commission referred the case of an Iranian family back to the first instance authority after the Administrative Court upheld the complaint.^[227] The case is related to the family who escaped political persecution and who lodged their asylum application in 2019. Asylum Office rejected their asylum application in merits again^[228] and this decision was confirmed by Asylum Commission again.^[229] On the other hand, Asylum Commission upheld an appeal of a women from Iran who was a human rights activist in her country of origin.^[230] The Commission indicated to the first instance authority to assess all evidence lodged by the applicant, as well as CoI reports outlined by legal representatives.^[231]

In May 2021, Asylum Commission upheld BCHR’s appeal and refereed the case back to Asylum Office. The case is related to Cuban couple who fled Cuba due to political persecution.^[232]

In July 2021, Asylum Commission rendered one contentious decision rejecting an applicant’s asylum application. Namely, additional evidence which was submitted after the first instance decision was declared as unfounded. The Commission stated that applicant had enough time to provide all of the evidence during the course of the first instance procedure, and thus, refused to take new evidence in consideration. This kind of approach can be considered as dangerous, and it deters from the standard which implies that any risk of treatment contrary to prohibition of ill-treatment must be assessed with rigorous scrutiny, ex nunc and proprio motu. By refusing to assess the new evidence, the Asylum Commission failed to act in line with the basic guarantees against refoulement. Also, the fact that all evidence was not lodged in time can most likely be attributed to the work of the legal representative. Inadequate work of legal representatives should not be taken as a reason to deny an applicant the possibility to have his case examined thoroughly.^[233] However, it appears that the Asylum Commission has failed to reflect on other parts of the appeal, which further confirms that the second instance body frequently repeats the first instance mistakes, which imply the lack of assessment of all individual and objective circumstances outlined by the applicant and his or her representatives.^[234]

Also, on 14 July 2021, the appeal of the applicant from Türkiye who belongs to the Gulenist movement was rejected as unfounded.^[235] This decision further corroborates evidence that asylum authorities are under strong political influence which implies that Turkish political dissidents and other categories facing systemic persecution in this country cannot obtain international protection. Accordingly, asylum procedure as the three step process for the assessment of risks of refoulement can only be considered theoretical and illusory for applicants who face genuine risk of persecution in Türkiye. In September 2021, the Asylum Commission rejected an appeal of a Turkish citizen who attempted to avoid extradition by applying for asylum. His case was not credible according to the allegations outlined in the reasoning of the second and third instance decision.^[236] Thus, this decision can be described as well-founded, but not as a sign of improved practice with regards to Turkish applicants.

In August 2021, the Asylum Commission confirmed the Asylum Office first instance decision on dismissing subsequent asylum application of the three member Bulgarian family, whose case has been dealt by the asylum authorities for years.^[237]

In September 2021, the Asylum Commission upheld an appeal of Libyan citizen whose asylum procedure had been pending since 2018 and who was declared to be a security risk due to his connections with the former Ghaddafi regime.^[238] An appeal was upheld after the Commission obtained from BIA a positive security assessment, even though this assessment was different in January 2021 when asylum application was rejected.^[239] This case perfectly illustrates that BIA conducts security assessment of each and every applicant and prior to the first instance decision. This case irresistibly resembles on the case of family A. whose asylum application was rejected on the same grounds in 2016. They were granted subsidiary protection after their case was communicated to the ECtHR. Mr. G. from Libya was finally granted subsidiary protection in February 2022. In October 2021, the Asylum Commission rejected the appeal of the four member family from Jordan as unfounded.^[240]

In February 2022, the Asylum Commission rejected the appeal lodged against the Asylum Office decisions dismissing the case due to untimely submission of the appeal.^[241] In the same month, the Asylum Commission rejected in merits the appeal of the Iraqi citizen whose case was discontinued by the Administrative Court later on.^[242] As outlined above, the Asylum Commission rejected the appeal of a legal representative who untimely lodged an appeal against the decision on rejecting his client (Burundi) in merits.^[243]

In May 2022, Asylum Commission rejected the appeal of Cuban nationals whose case has already been outlined above.^[244] According to the BCHR, both first and second instance authority have failed to assess evidence of political actions of the applicants and to, through the application of the principle in dubio pro reo, grant international protection. This case, alongside the case of Iranian SGBV applicant reflects the systemic problem of an extremely, and for asylum procedure inadequate, high burden of proof which goes beyond likelihood, reaching sometimes the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

In June 2022, Asylum Commission rendered one of the most contentions decisions related to an already outlined case of woman from Iran who opposes strict Sharia rules on hijab and in general on practices which severely undermine women’s rights.^[245] This further corroborates negative practice when it comes to SGBV applicants claiming asylum in Serbia and clearly indicates that lack of the second instance authority to establish the corrective influence of the Asylum Office.^[246]

In August 2022, the Asylum Commission rejected the appeal of Ukrainian national whose request for temporary protection was rejected on the basis of the negative security assessment of BIA which was not delivered to his legal representatives. This case will be examined in details in the annex of the 2022 AIDA report dedicated to Ukrainian refugees.^[247]

One of the appeals which were upheld related to the Syrian national whose asylum procedure was discontinued, but then successfully challenged by his legal representatives before the Commission.^[248] In the same month, the Asylum Commission took a different stand in similar case of discontinuation of Burundian national.^[249] Both contradicting decisions were rendered in September 2022.

It is also important to outline that many appeals rejected in merits of the Asylum Commission were lodged by manifestly unfounded applicants, such as those from Guinea Bissau, Pakistan, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Poland and Cameroon, as well as some of the applicants from Cuba and Burundi. As outlined in the overview of the practice of the Asylum Office, many applicants rejected in the first instance had manifestly unfounded claims and were not provided with free legal aid by NGOs in AC Krnjača due to the lack of capacities of legal representatives to represent every person interested to lodge asylum application in Serbia.

Onward appeal (“complaint”) before the Administrative Court

The Administrative Court does not have a department or panel specialised in reviewing asylum cases and it rules on the lawfulness of a final administrative act in three-member judicial panels. Moreover, only a few judges are tasked to decide upon asylum complaints, but the case files have shown that all judges of the Administrative Court can find themselves in the situation to decide on asylum complaints.

At several conferences and roundtables that took place in in the past several years, judges from the Administrative Court have been highlighting the problem of understaffing, lack of knowledge of international refugee law and international human rights law (mainly the relevant jurisprudence of the ECtHR) and have repeatedly outlined the need of for relevant national and international organisations (NGOs and UNHCR) to facilitate more training and workshops regarding asylum and migration law.^[250] The first training was facilitated by the UNHCR in 2019, but the training planned for 2020 were postponed due to COVID-19 situation. In December 2021, UNHCR facilitated training on credibility assessment which included judges from the Administrative Court, while in 2022 judges were taken for study visits to Italy. It is also reasonable to assume that judges are also invited to take part in trainings organised under the auspices of the EU accession.

The lawfulness of an administrative act may be challenged by a claim in an administrative dispute:

• In the event it was adopted by an authority lacking jurisdiction;
• At the authority’s discretion, in the event the authority had exceeded its legal powers or the decision had not been adopted in accordance with the goal it had been granted specific powers;
• In the event the law or another general act had not been enforced properly;
• In the event the procedural rules have been violated during the procedure;
• In the event the facts were established in a manner that was incomplete or inaccurate, or an incorrect conclusion was drawn from the facts.

According to the Asylum Act, the initiation of an administrative dispute has an automatic suspensive effect.^[251]

In practice, the Administrative Court has not itself held any hearings on asylum claims to date. Its decisions so far have merely confirmed the lawfulness of the asylum authorities’ practice of automatically applying the safe third country concept despite the fact that it had not first been established that the third countries were actually safe for the asylum seekers in casu. Also, to this date, the Administrative Court has never decided on a complaint on the merits.

It can be concluded with certainty that the corrective role of the Administrative Court in relation to the first and second instance authorities is basically non-existing. As was the case in 2021, the year 2022 was the year in which the Court failed to deliver a judgment which could have positively affected the practice of lower instances (see below).

Usually, it takes approximately at least8 months for the Administrative Court to deliver its judgment, but there were instances in which the judgment was pending for a year or even several years.^[252]

Statistical Overview of the Administrative Court Practice 2009-2022

Administrative Court Practice in 2022

In 2022, the Administrative Court delivered 26 decisions regarding 41 persons from the following nationalities: Iran (19), Jordan (4), Bulgaria (3), Türkiye (2), Tunis (2), Syria (2), Libya (2) and 1 from BiH, Pakistan, Burundi, Cuba, Somalia, Afghanistan and 1 unknown country. Out of that, 21 complaints were rejected encompassing 36 persons, while 4 complaints were upheld in relation to 4 persons and 1 case was discontinued.

In January 2022, a Turkish citizen who belongs to Gulenist movement was rejected in merits. In other words, the Administrative Court has once again confirmed the practice in which political dissidents from Türkiye, members of the Gulenist movement, journalists and other persons perceived as opponents to the Government and labelled as terrorists, do not stand a chance to obtain international protection in Serbia.^[253] In. 2021, another Turkish applicant was rejected with the final judgment of the Administrative Court.^[254] The case referred to a man who was also in extradition proceedings. He claimed that he would face persecution in Türkiye because of his Kurdish ethnic origin. There are several other cases pending before the Administrative Court which are related to Turkish applicants who are also facing extradition to their country of origin. Another Turkish citizen was rejected in December 2022, but his case cannot be considered as credible, but as an attempt to avoid extradition to Türkiye for charges which cannot be considered as politically motivated or staged.^[255]

In January 2022, the Administrative Court rejected the complaint related to the subsequent application of Iranian converts from Islam to Christianity, confirming that these types of application have had limited prospect of success in the past several years.^[256] Identical outcome occurred in January 2021.^[257]

In 2021, the Administrative Court rendered a judgment rejecting an alleged SGBV survivor from Ghana, who, according to the legal representative, might also be the victim of human trafficking.^[258] From the reasoning of the judgment, it cannot be seen if the asylum authorities and the applicant have provided all the necessary evidence based on the multidisciplinary approach. Thus, there are no expert opinions of the Centre for Social Work, or assessment of the Centre for Human Trafficking Victims’ Protection (CHTV). The Court only shallowly states that such assessments were not provided but fails to see its responsibility to obtain such expert opinions. Thus, regardless of the credibility of the claim, it is clear that all three instances and legal representative have failed to undertake all the necessary assessments in order to thoroughly examine risks of persecution and the existence of the SGBV and human trafficking component. In other words, this case clearly shows how this applicant was failed by asylum system as whole.

The case of a gay man from Congo was rejected with the final judgment of the Court, confirming a 100% rejection rate of LGBTQI applicants in 2021.^[259] This trend continued in 2022, when two gay man from Tunis were rejected with final decisions of the Administrative Court. Both of them invoked risks of persecution on the basis of their well-known sexual orientation which had already caused them problems with authorities (they were arrested and ill-treated by the police) which can also be manifested through criminal persecution due to incrimination of the same sex-partnerships.^[260] The outcome of these two cases can also be attributed to the lack of coordination between legal representatives who have failed to outline that both applicants arrived together to Serbia as a couple.^[261] Both cases also resulted in applications to the ECtHR.^[262]

What perfectly depicts a complete lack of the capacity of the Administrative Court to be considered as an effective legal avenue which can uphold safeguards against refoulement and impose corrective guidelines on the lower instances are several judgments in which the automatic application of the STCC, which had plagued Serbian asylum system in the past, was confirmed.^[263] All of these complaints were lodged several years ago, such as the complaint of an Afghan national who initiated third instance procedure in January 2018 claiming that Bulgaria cannot be considered as safe in his particular case. The Administrative Court rejected the complaint as unfounded, reviving the automatic application of the STCC, but also procrastinating third instance asylum procedure of the applicant to 4 years.^[264] Identical judgment was rendered in February 2022 in relation to 4 member Iranian family.^[265] An identical outcome was provided in the judgment rendered in the same month and in relation to Syrian applicant who had also been the victim of the automatic application of the STCC, but in relation to North Macedonia. His case also lasted for almost 4 years before the Administrative Court.^[266] And finally, automatic application of the STCC occurred in relation to Libyan applicant who spent some time in Egypt before applying for asylum in Serbia.^[267] In none of these cases the Administrative Court has determined that there was complete lack of assurances that applicants would, after spending years in Serbia, be allowed to access territory of countries proclaimed as safe, their asylum systems, adequate reception conditions and other necessary requirements.

The Administrative Court also rejected as unfounded complaints of applicants who claimed persecution on the basis of their Arab ethnicity in Iran. So far, members of Arab minority have never managed to obtain international protection in Serbia, as it can be seen from previous AIDA reports.^[268] The same can be said with regards to Azeri minority in Iran whose claim was also rejected with the final decision of the Administrative Court,^[269] Another Iranian who claimed political persecution due to his criticism of Iranian system, but also his religion (atheist), was rejected with the final judgment of the Court.^[270] The same outcome occurred in the case of a 4 member Iranian family who claimed problems with Sepah, but failed to produce credible evidence.^[271]

The Court also confirmed decisions rejecting asylum applications in merit of applicants from Bulgaria,^[272] Bosnia and Hercegovina ^[273]and Jordan.^[274] Also, the Court rejected complaints of unconscionable legal representatives who had failed to lodge appeals against first instance decisions in time, which have led to the dismissal of their clients’ cases and denial of the possibility to this people to have their cases examined in merits. One case is related to an already mentioned SGBV survivor from Somalia,^[275] while the other one to the applicant from Burundi.^[276]

When it comes to positive practice, two cases are worth mentioning because in both cases the Administrative Court was not satisfied with the evidentiary activities and evidence assessment by the Asylum Office and Asylum Commission. The first case is related to alleged political activist from Cuba whose role in the July 2021 priests was not determined as clear, and which was the reason why the complaint was upheld and the case referred back to the lower instance authorities.^[277] The second case reflects one of the rare positive aspects of the practice of the Administrative Court and which is related to applicants from Libya, when their cases are decided in merits. Namely, the Administrative Court has found that lower instance authorities have not determined to which extent in applicant’s country of origin is there a risk of arbitrary violence.^[278]

Legal assistance

On 1 October 2019, the Free Legal Aid Act (FLA) came into force. The right to free legal aid is explicitly guaranteed to asylum seekers,^[279] refugees and persons granted subsidiary protection.^[280] However, the Free Legal Aid Fee Schedule Regulation (FLA Regulation)^[281] envisages free legal aid only for administrative dispute procedures conducted before the Administrative Court. This means that asylum seekers could apply for the State funded free legal aid only if they reach the third instance authority. So far, not a single asylum seeker has used State funded free legal aid,^[282] but in the course of 2022, several attorneys at law provided legal representation to asylum seekers who had their own financial means.

The fact that free legal aid is only guaranteed in the third instance can be considered as an extremely bad solution, taking in consideration the level of development of the Serbian asylum system in general, but also the quality of the decision-making process of the first and the second instance authority. In more than 90% of the cases which reach the Administrative Court, the negative decision will most likely be confirmed. Additionally, the quality of legal aid provided by CSOs is also highly questionable, taking in consideration the fluctuation of lawyers in different CSOs, lack of clear recruitment criteria, lack of experience and necessary training. However, it is fair to say that asylum seekers who enjoy CSO’s legal support from the beginning of asylum procedure have more chance for a positive outcome, than those who do not have such support. Still, it is clear that a migration lawyer profile does not exist in Serbia as it is the case in EU countries in which asylum systems have been established several decades ago. Unfortunately, there are no signs that such profile will be established in the near future taking in consideration that practising other branches of law is more lucrative and attractive to attorneys at law.

The right to free legal aid is also guaranteed by the Asylum Act, as well as the right to receive information concerning asylum.^[283] The Asylum Act further provides that an asylum seeker shall have access to free legal aid and representation by UNHCR and CSO whose objectives and activities are aimed at providing free legal aid to refugees. In practice, the vast majority of persons who submit an asylum application in Serbia use the services of CSO lawyers before both national and international bodies. Their work and assistance is not state, but project funded and the main donors are UNHCR, EU and other donors. CSOs represent asylum seekers in all three instances, and in front of the Constitutional Court.

It is important to highlight that not all persons who wish to apply for asylum have the possibility to have effective legal representation. The first reason is that in 2022 only 5 civil society organisations (CSO) were providing legal aid in Serbia: APC, BCHR, and IDEAS, Humanitarian Centre for Tolerance and Integration (HCIT) and KlikAktiv. The total number of active lawyers in these CSOs is between 13 and 15, out of which many are also tasked with other project activities or are hired part-time.^[284] Other, non-CSOs lawyers, occasionally provide legal aid. All of these CSOs are based in Belgrade, except for HCIT which is based in Novi Sad, but will cease to provide legal aid in 2023. Thus, their presence in asylum and reception centres located in the south or east is rare,^[285] and refugees and asylum seekers are not only forced to wait for weeks or months to access asylum procedure and lodge asylum applications, but also to wait for initial legal advice by a competent lawyer.

Given that in 2022 the approximate number of persons likely in need of international protection was at least 65% of the total migrant population who entered Serbia and received registration certificates (around 4,020), it is clear that current capacities are insufficient. The low number of legal representatives is also the reason why some CSOs sometimes deny legal assistance to applicants whose asylum claim has less prospect of success. Thus, 2022 was the year in which at least 50% of asylum seekers either failed to lodge their asylum application or lodged their asylum applications in writing by themselves, and without legal support. The fact that asylum seekers, mainly from Burundi, decided to lodge asylum applications by themselves, is the reason why there was an increase in the total number of asylum applications in writing.

The second reason is the fact that most of legal representatives from respective CSOs have between 1 to 3 years of experience,^[286] which is usually the period after which many of them decide to leave the field of asylum and migration.

As a result, the capacity and quality of legal assistance provided by CSOs remains limited.^[287] While certain CSO lawyers are successful, the large majority of them do not obtain positive outcomes at all, or have one or two positive decisions in 5 years and 90% of decisions in which the outcome is negative.

Several decisions from 2020 and 2021 analysed in this and in previous reports, but also decisions outlined in the 2022 Report, show that applicants who had strong asylum claims were not adequately prepared for their hearing and, for instance, provided more detailed statements to their psychologist than to their lawyer. The contradictory statements in the asylum hearing which ensued was the reason why the Asylum office rejected their claims.^[288] Another example is the lack of coordination in preparation for the asylum hearing of a Tunisian gay couple.^[289] These flaws are mainly due to the lawyers’ lack of experience and knowledge of the asylum field which raises serious concerns. Several applicants decided to abscond during the asylum procedure due to the non-responsiveness of their legal representatives and the lack of certainty about the outcome of their process. One of the UASC applicants absconded a couple of months before he was granted asylum due to the violence to which he was subjected in the social care home. His legal representative was not aware of this fact, even though the violence was reported to him by the boy.^[290] The other UASC had only had a half an hour meeting with two different legal representatives within a year and decided to abscond to Bosnia.^[291] He attempted to lodge a subsequent application, but was unsuccessful and eventually decided to abscond from Serbia.^[292] Specific issues in relation to the provision of legal assistance include a lack of assessment of COI information and individual circumstances,^[293] lack of thorough preparations of clients for their personal interview and failure to conduct evidentiary activities such as medical expert opinion.^[294] In 2022, two attorneys at law, who also acted as legal representatives in extradition proceeding failed to prepare one Turkish and one Kyrgyzstan citizen for their asylum hearings, and were not capable to fill out asylum application form.  The representative of Kyrgyzstan cancelled him power of attorney right before the hearing, while attorney of Turkish applicant failed to lodge the complaint to Administrative Court.

 Family D. from Iran outlined that they signed the power of attorney in November 2018 and the next time they met their lawyer was in December 2018 prior to the submission of asylum application and for only 1 hour. They stated that they were not prepared for the lodging of the asylum application in person, and that their preparation with the lawyer for the asylum interview lasted several hours and only a few days before the hearing in August 2019. The CoI report attached to this application after the interview outlined more facts than those provided to the Asylum Office orally. In the practice of the Serbian asylum authorities, the impression that an asylum officer gets at the hearing is crucial and usually a determining factor for a positive decision. And vice versa, applicants who are not capable to go into details during the interview face the risk of being rejected at first instance, and chances of remedying such outcome are extremely low. In the same case, the legal representative has failed to gather additional evidence, such as the decision to grant refugee status in the Netherlands of the brother of one of the applicants or his written testimony. The family attempted to lodge a subsequent asylum application submitting additional evidence, but the stance of asylum authorities was that they should have done it in the initial asylum procedure.^[295] Thus, in this particular case, the flaws can be found in the work of both the legal representatives and the asylum authorities. The proof that this case is an example of bad practice in terms of legal representation is the fact that this family of 4 is one of a total of 2 cases where refugees were granted asylum in Hungary since summer 2020. Thus, their claim was strong enough for the deteriorating and basically non-existing asylum system in Hungary, but not good enough for the Serbian asylum authorities. In 2023, the three-member family was granted refugee status after several years of being in asylum procedure and rejected in merits on multiple occasions. One of the reasons for such outcome is the fact that legal representative failed to deliver individual evidence timely in the first instance procedure, which was one of the reasons why their application was rejected. Only after the Administrative Court ordered that this evidence must be take into consideration, the applicants were granted refugee status. Thus, if the legal representative had been delivered at the early stage of the first instance procedure, Iranian family would not have to go through several year legal ordeal.^[296]

The following cases from 2018-2022 also contain examples of poor legal representation:

• UASC A.A.’s application was rejected as unfounded even though he outlined during the interview that he did not understand the interpreter. His legal officer remained silent. Additionally, the legal officer failed to provide the mother’s written testimony of the persecution that the boy faced by the Taliban.^[297] His case is still pending before the Administrative Court with minimum chances of success.
• Family X. from Iran stated that they have not established any communication with their legal representative and their case files in all three instances indicate the same passive attitude which can be seen in the case of family D. granted asylum in Hungary.^[298]
• In 2021, a woman from Cameroon was assessed by one of the CSOs as a non-credible case. It turned out that she was an active case of human trafficking and was later on granted the status of a victim of human trafficking.^[299]
• A similar case was recorded at the end of 2021, when a woman from Cameroon, a suspected victim of human trafficking and a victim of SGBV, was told that she does not have a case.^[300]
• In November 2021, the Asylum Office discontinued the asylum procedure of a woman from Iraq and her underage son who arrived in Serbia in February 2020. She has an identical case as the women from Iraq granted refugee status on the basis of SGBV in 2021.^[301] Still, she was assessed as a not credible case after a 1 hour long interview in which she was not ready to outline traumatic events to, at that time, unknown persons. Only after intensive psychosocial support, Ms. M.I. shared her life story which entailed systemic violence committed by her family and her former husband. She lodged her asylum application in May 2021, but absconded after several months because she was frustrated about being forced to stay in legal limbo for more than 18 months. If she had lodged her asylum application in the first half of 2020, she would have been granted refugee status before May 2021.^[302]
• An identical case was recorded in 2021, where a 5-member family from Afghanistan lodged an asylum application after more than 4 years of being in Serbia. Not a single CSO who counselled them in AC Krnjača assessed their case as credible, disregarding the security situation in Herat, girl-specific risks for the 3 daughters (the risk of child marriage for instance) and the fact that their mother was also a victim of SGBV and arranged marriage. After they lodged their asylum application, they absconded. Still, if they had lodged their asylum application, for instance, in 2018, they would have been granted asylum before COVID-19 pandemic.^[303]
• One most notable example of reckless and unprofessional service provision relates to the case of an alleged victim of genital mutilation from Somalia whose lawyer has failed to lodge an appeal against the first instance decision in time. This case clearly demonstrates not only the lack of capacity among providers of free legal aid, but also the need for the establishment of responsibility mechanisms for those legal representatives whose inadequate behaviour has led to a situation in which highly vulnerable and traumatised people were let down by individuals who are not capable to follow statutory deadlines and perform the roles of legal representatives.^[304]
• A similar case occurred in 2022 when the legal representative has failed to lodge an appeal against the first instance decision in which Burundian applicant was rejected.
• A Cuban LGBTQI+ applicant with a serious medical condition was initially told by one of the legal aid providers that his case is not credible for asylum, but due to his persistence and finding of another representative, he was granted subsidiary protection in the end.^[305]

It is reasonable to assume that there are plenty more cases such as the ones enlisted above.^[306] These cases clearly indicate that the number of applicants would have been higher if not for the restrictive and shallow approach some lawyers from different CSOs display during the initial assessment. This would also mean that recognition rates would have been higher. Thus, the low number of applicants and the low recognition rate, in a system such as Serbia, can also be attributed to the low quality of legal service provided to the applicants. The role of CSOs at this stage of development of the Serbian asylum system is crucial and the proactive approach is necessary. And for that reason, as it is the case with the assessment of decisions of the asylum authorities, it is also important to conduct an analysis of all stages through which beneficiaries go in their work with legal representatives and to introduce a quality assurance control of free legal aid providers.

The lack of any legal response is evident in cases which concern push-backs and the risk of violations of the non-refoulement principle. The poor quality of legal assistance by CSOs is particularly patent in cases where access to territory and asylum procedure is at stake. Even though thousands of pushbacks to North Macedonia were recorded, there was no attempt to legally challenge such practice. There is only one case litigated by the APC which implied informal expulsion from Belgrade to North Macedonia.^[307] It appears that most of the CSOs providing legal aid are mainly focused on persons who wish to apply for asylum and who are accommodated in asylum or reception centres after they successfully avoided harmful border practices.

To conclude, it is necessary to improve the quality of the work of legal representatives employed in different CSOs. Furthermore, it is also important to facilitate training on CoE and UN standards regarding International Refugee and International Human Rights Law. The recruitment procedures should be designed, but also volunteer and internship systems should be established so all potential asylum seekers can have at least technical assistance when lodging asylum applications. And finally, the system of free legal aid must be reformed so that it allows attorneys at law to provide legal assistance from the first instance procedure. This would mean that FLA and FLA Regulation have to be amended, and that extensive trainings of attorneys at law should be facilitated so that each person who expresses the wish to apply for asylum is provided with assistance.

[1] Article 3 (1), Asylum Act.

[2] Article 3 (3), Asylum Act.

[3] Article 39(1) Asylum Act.

[4] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-462/22, 15 June 2022.

[5] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-760/21, 20 May 2021.

[6] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-108/20, 27 August 2021.

[7] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2296/2022, 29 June 2022.

[8] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-730/22, 31 August 2022.

[9] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-688/22, 15 September 2022.

[10] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1635/21, 17 August 2022.

[11] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1569/21, 24 June 2022.

[12] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-277/21, 13 July 2022.

[13] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-532/21, 15 August 2022.

[14] Asylum Office Decision No. 26-281/21, 10 November 2021.

[15] Article 39(2) Asylum Act.

[16] Article 39(3) Asylum Act.

[17] Article 39(5) Asylum Act.

[18] Article 39(6) Asylum Act.

[19] AIDA, Country Report Serbia, 2020 Update, 38.

[20] CESCR, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Serbia, 4 March 2022, E/C.12/SRB/CO/3, available at: https://bit.ly/3u87lBI, paras. 32-33.

[21] Article 34(1)(1)-(2) Asylum Act.

[22] Article 38(1)(3)-(5) Asylum Act.

[23] Article 47 Asylum Act.

[24] Article 42 Asylum Act.

[25] Article 26 Asylum Act.

[26] Article 27 Asylum Act.

[27] Article 28 Asylum Act.

[28] Article 29 Asylum Act.

[29] Article 30 Asylum Act.

[30] Article 31 Asylum Act.

[31] Articles 33 and 34 Asylum Act.

[32] UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 4 September 2003, HCR/GIP/03/05, https://bit.ly/3plP7es.

[33] Article 40 Asylum Act.

[34] Article 32 Asylum Act.

[35] The author of this Report has collected 132 out of 158 decisions. The number of decisions and applicants was counted by the author of this Report and on the basis of a unique database which is established in IDEAS. Namely, official number of persons who received international protection in Serbia is 238 or even more according to some CSOs. However, this number includes the cases which were not final in the given year. For instance, there is at least 7 asylum procedures in which legal representatives appealed the decision on subsidiary protection claiming that their clients deserve refugee status. Asylum Commission or Administrative Court upheld appeals and onward appeals respectively and sent the case back to the Asylum Office. However, Asylum Office rendered the same decision (subsidiary protection) with regards to the same person again. The lawyers were then complaining again. There were instances in which 1 person received 3 decisions on subsidiary protection in the period of 7 years and was granted refugee status in the end. However, it is possible that the statistics provided by the author of this Report are not 100% accurate. Still, the author believes that this is the most accurate statistics which can be provided for now and potential variations cannot be higher than maximum 5 decisions regarding 5 applicants. 

[36] E.g. UNHCR, UNHCR Position on Returns to Libya – Update II, September 2018, available at: http://bit.ly/39VMQNz.

[37] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-2324/11, 19 December 2012 and 26-2326/11, 20 December 2012.

[38] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-812/16, 29 September 2016.

[39] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-222/15, 16 June 2018; ECtHR, A. and Others v. Serbia, Application No 37478/16, Communicated on 12 December 2017.

[40] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–1389/17, February 2022.

[41] AIDA, Country Report Serbia, Update March 2018, 41-53.

[42] M.H. v. Serbia, Application No 62410/17, Communicated on 26 October 2018.

[43] E.g. UNHCR, International Protection Considerations with regard to people fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic, Update VI, March 2021, HCR/PC/SYR/2021/06, available at: https://bit.ly/3HO7C1B.

[44] E.g. EASO, EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Syria Security situation (July 2021), available at: https://bit.ly/3HKwasb.

[45] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-5413/15, 2 March 2016.

[46] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-77/17, 1 August 2017.

[47] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-78/17, 10 January 2018.

[48] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-81/17, 16 April 2018.

[49] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1239/17, 10 January 2018.

[50] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1635/21, 17 August 2022.

[51] Asylum Office Decisions Nos. 26-784/18, 20 November 2019 and 26-1403/19, 11 December 2019.

[52] Asylum Office Decisions Nos. 26-652/16, 17 June 2016, 26-2643/17, 30 January 2019, 26-2474/19, 15 October 2020,26-1084/20, 7 June 2021, 26-277/21, 13 July 2022,26-730/22, 31 August 2022 and 26-281/11, 10 November 2022.

[53] AIDA, Country Report Serbia, Update March 2020, pp. 41 and 43.

[54] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1084/20, 7 June 2021.

[55] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-277/21, 13 July 2022,26-730/22, 31 August 2022 and 26-281/11, 10 November 2022 and 26-1635/21, 17 August 2022.

[56] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-766/08, 4 February 2009.

[57] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-2879/15, 11 September 2015 and 26-2149/16, 26 December 2016.

[58] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2047/17, 21 March 2019.

[59] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2348/17, 28 January 2019.

[60] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-5266/15, 26 March 2015.

[61] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1601/20, 30 August 2021.

[62] Administrative Court, Judgment U 6060/18, 4 October 2018.

[63] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-1051/16, 13 September 2016, 26-1083/18, 26 January 2018, 26-430/17, 23 April 2018, 26-1081/17, 4 July 2018, 26-1395/18, 5 February 2019, etc.

[64] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-108/20, 27 August 2021.

[65] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-1605/18, 15 March 2019 and 26-2467/17, 15 January 2020.

[66] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1607/18, 14 August 2022.

[67] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 16/19, 2. September 2019.

[68] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1271/19, 15 October 2020.

[69] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-462/22, 15 June 2022.

[70] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-463/22, 22 Auagust 2022.

[71] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-688/22, 15 September 2022.

[72] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-346/21, 29 June 2022.

[73] Child-soldier case.

[74] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–1437/21, 31 March 2022.

[75] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-532/21, 15 August 2022.

[76] AIDA, Country Report Serbia, Update March 2018, 41-53.

[77] Asylum Office, Decision No.26-1280/13, 25 December 2013.

[78] Asylum Office, Decisions No. 26-1605-18, 15 March 2019 and 26-2467/17, 15 January 2020.

[79] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-1216/18, 26-1217/18 and 26-1218/18, 12 February 2019.

[80] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2347/19, 8 June 2020.

[81] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2038/19, 30 July 2020 and 26-2039/19, 17 August 2020.

[82] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1592/18, 20 November 2019 and see also, AIDA, Country Report Serbia, Update March 2019, 37.

[83] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1284/20, 1 December 2021.

[84] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-404/12, 4 November 2021.

[85]  See more in the Chapter on 2021 practice of the Asylum Office.

[86] The author did not manage to see the copy of this decision.

[87] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-688/22, 15 September 2022.

[88] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-286/16, 26 October 2016.

[89] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1667/17, 25 December 2017.

[90] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 2/18, 25 January 2018.

[91] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-536/16, 16 December 2016.

[92] Asylum Office, Decision No. 3109/16, 18 December 2017.

[93] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1672/19, 29 January 2021.

[94] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-3136/19, 26 November 2020.

[95] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1601/20, 30 August 2021

[96] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2296/22, 29 June 2022.

[97] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-329/18, 28 December 2018.

[98] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2643/17, 30 January 2019.

[99] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26- 2348/17, 28 January 2019.

[100] UNGA, Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, 24 February 2010, A/RES/64/142, para. 28.

[101] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-784/18, 20 November 2019.

[102] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-218/19, 20 February 2020.

[103] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2573/19, 15 October 2020.

[104] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1271/19, 15 October 2020.

[105] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2474/19, 15 October 2020.

[106] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1084/20, 7 June 2021.

[107] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–3064/19, 14 September 2019.

[108] Asylum Office, Decision Nos. 26-277/21, 13 July 2022 and 26-730/22, 31 August 2022.

[109] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-281/11, 10 November 2022.

[110] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1177/22, 1 December 2022.

[111] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–1437/21, 31 March 2022.

[112] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-378/19, 11 February 2020 and 26-1437/18, 13 February 2020, and see also: AIDA, Country Report Serbia, Update March 2020, 43.

[113] UNHCR, International Protection Considerations with regard to people fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic, Update VI, March 2021, HCR/PC/SYR/2021/06, available at: https://bit.ly/3HO7C1B.

[114] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-5413/15, 2 March 2016.

[115] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-4062/15, 8 January 2016, 26-2489/17, 1 June 2018 and 26-1731/18, 16 September 2019.

[116] See more in AIDA, Country Report Serbia, Update March 2018, 18.

[117] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-4906/5, 9 December 2015.

[118] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1051/16, 13 September 2016.

[119] Asylum Office, Decision Nos. 26-1083/18, 26 January 2018, 26-430/17, 23 April 2018, 26-1081/17, 4 July 2018, 26-187/18, 1 November 2018, 26-1395/18, 5 February 2019, 26-1435/18, 16 June 2020.

[120]  See more in AIDA, Country Report Serbia, Update March 2020, 44.

[121] The statistical data in the table reflect the number of people granted international protection, not the number of positive decisions. One decision can cover more than one person. 

[122] It is important to note that this number is not 100% accurate because of the way in which Asylum Office keeps the statistics. Namely, available data shows that there were 258 decisions discontinuing asylum procedure of 258 applicants. This is simply not possible because one decision, and especially in relation to Burundian applicants who arrived to Serbia as families, encompasses 2, 3, 4 or even 5 persons. The method that the author of this report applied is the deduction of 30% of the total number of applicants and in relation to decisions. Thus, this number should be observed as the highest possible, even though it is most likely lower.

[123] AIDA, Country Report Serbia, 2020 Update, 40.

[124] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2296/22, 29 June 2022.

[125] Asylum Office, Decision NO. 26–1515/19, 25 May 2022

[126] AIDA, Country Report Serbia, Update May 2022, 76-79.

[127] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-1569/21, 24 June 2022, 26-1591/22, 19 Seotember 2022, 26-1947/22, 28 October, 2022, 26-1177/22, 1 December 2022, 26-1236/21, 5 December 2022, 26-2135/22, 13 December 2022 and X., December 2022

[128] UNHCR, International Protection Considerations with regard to people fleeing the Syrian Arab Republic, Update V, 3 November 2017, available at: http://bit.ly/3or74Vq, 70.

[129] ECtHR, L.M. and Others v. Russia, Application Nos. 40081/14 40088/14 40127/14, Judgment of 15 December 2015, EDAL available at: http://bit.ly/3psdOE7 and S.K. v. Russia, Аpplication No. 52722/15, Judgment of 14 February 2017, EDAL, available at: http://bit.ly/3oqsouq.

[130] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1177/22, 1 December 2022.

[131] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–1389/17, February 2022.

[132] See more in Right to Asylum 2022, p. 95 and 96.

[133] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-462/22, 15 June 2022 and 26-463/22, 22 August 2022.

[134] OHCHR, Istanbul Protocol: Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (2022 edition), New York, available at: https://bit.ly/3PdEc27.

[135] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-246/21, 29 June 2022.

[136] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2149/16, 26 December 2016.

[137] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-5044-15, 25 December 2017 and 26-4370-15, 27 December 2017.

[138] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1084/20, 7 June 2021.

[139] ECtHR, D. v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 30240/96, Judgment of 2 May 1997, EDAL, available at: http://bit.ly/37TOAEN.

[140] ECtHR, Paposvili v. Belgium, Application No. 41738/10, Judgment of 13 December 2016, EDAL, available at: https://bit.ly/2YtHcyE.

[141] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-277/21, 13 July 2022.

[142] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2643/17, 39 January 2019.

[143] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-730/22, 31 August 2022.

[144] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-532/21, 15 August 2022.

[145] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1607/18, 14 October 2022.

[146] A total of 7 decisions.

[147] Asylum Office, Decision. Nos. 26-249/22, 26-250/22 and 26-254/22, 15 March 2022.

[148] A total of 5 decisions.

[149] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1887/22, 13 December 2022

[150] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1359/21, 4 February 2022.

[151] See more in the following parts of the Report.

[152] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–2619/19, 16 March 2022.

[153] Right to Asylum 2022, p. 54.

[154] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-1043/22, 6 February 2023 and 26-132/22, 20 February 2022.

[155] Country Report: Serbia, 2021 Update, p. 82.

[156] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26- 26–404/21, 4 November 2021, and see also BCHR, Right to Asylum in the Republic of Serbia 2021, 114-115.

[157] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–1515/19, 13 August 2020.

[158] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–1515/19, 25 May 2022.

[159] Human Dignity Trust, Burundi, available at: http://bit.ly/40Aydc4.

[160] Human Dignity Trust, Morocco, available at: http://bit.ly/40oPKUK.

[161] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-81/20, 13 January 2021.

[162] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1284/20, 1 December 2021.

[163] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2038/19, 30 July 2020 and 26-2039/19, 17 August 2020.

[164] Right to Asylum 2022, pp. 64-66.

[165] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1280/13, 25 December 2013.

[166] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1592/18, 20 November 2019.

[167] See for example: Human Rights Watch, We Will Beat You to Correct You – Abuses Ahead of Burundi’s Constitutional Referendum, 18 May 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3yxa4bT or OHCHR, Oral briefing of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, 23 September 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3QLcNUs.

[168] Asylum Office, Decisions Nos. 26-2434/16, 20 September 2017; 26-218/19, 20 February 2020; 26-1615/19, 18 June 2022 and 26-536/19, 14 May 2022.

[169] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-896/21, 14 January 2022.

[170] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1197/2021, 7 June 2022.

[171] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–73/22, 29 September 2022.

[172] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-75/22, 22 November 2022.

[173] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2065/19, 24 January 2022.

[174] Asylum Office, Decision No. 1672/19, 1 April 2023.

[175] Olga Korobova, Žene u Iranu-Kada marama postane oružije, available at: http://bit.ly/40kSGSx.

[176] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-148/18, 27 December 2019.

[177] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1073/20, 1 December 2020.

[178] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1599/19, 13 October 2020, see also: BCHR, Right to Asylum in the Republic of Serbia 2021, p.114.

[179] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 51/20, 24 December 2020.

[180] Article 37(1) Asylum Act.

[181] Article 37(2) Asylum Act.

[182] Article 37(12) Asylum Act.

[183] Article 37(10) Asylum Act.

[184] Article 37(11) Asylum Act.

[185] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1084-20, 7 June 2021.

[186] Article 16 (2) Asylum Act.

[187] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-246/21, 29 June 2022.

[188] Asylum Office, Case File No. 26-2534/17, 7 May 2021.

[189] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1271/19, 15 October 2020.

[190] Article 13 Asylum Act.

[191] Asylum Office, Decision No. 932/19, 30 September 2019.

[192] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 38/19, 3 December 2019.

[193] Asylum hearing in the case 26-688/22, 24 June 2022.

[194] Article 63 GAPA.

[195] Article 21(1)-(2) Asylum Act.

[196] Article 21(3) Asylum Act.

[197] Article 95 Asylum Act and Articles 151 and 153 GAPA.

[198] Article 158 GAPA.

[199] Article 159 (2).

[200] Article 160 GAPA.

[201] This was the case with the application of an alleged SGBV survivor from Somalia who claimed that she has been subjected to the practice of genital mutilation. The legal representative in this case failed to lodge an appeal in time. Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1599/19, 13 October 2020.

[202] Asylum Commission, Decisions Nos. AŽ 51/20, 24 December 2020 and AŽ 32/21, 7 February 2022.

[203] Administrative Court, Judgments Nos. U 3775/21, 3 March 2022 and U 19541/22, 14 October 2022.

[204] Article 165 (1) GAPA.

[205] Article 165 (2) GAPA.

[206] Article 166 GAPA.

[207] Article 174 GAPA.

[208] Article 19 Administrative Disputes Act.

[209] Hod po žici, p. 53.

[210] Article 165 GAPA.

[211] Article 165(2)-(3) GAPA.

[212] Article 170 GAPA.

[213] Article 171(5) GAPA.

[214] Article 173(3) GAPA.

[215] Asylum Commission, Decision AŽ 25/09, 23 April 2010.

[216] Asylum Commission, Decision AŽ 06/16, 12 April 2016.

[217]  Asylum Commission, Decision AŽ X, 2 September 2019.

[218] Article 5 (3) GAPA.

[219] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 55/20. 18 January 2021.

[220] Asylum Commission, Decision No. 55/20, 3 February 2021, see also more in: BCHR, Right to Asylum in the Republic of Serbia 2021, p. 51.

[221] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 04/21, 8 March 2021.

[222] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1592/18, 20 November 2019.

[223] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 44/19, 30 January 2020. 

[224] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 02/21, 17 March 2021.

[225] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 19/20, 5 July 2021.

[226] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 46/20, 17. March 2021.

[227] Asylum Commission, Decision No. 06/19, 5 Aprila 2021.

[228] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–1382/18, 20 July 2021.

[229] Asylum Commission, Decision No. Až-47/20, 5 July 2021.

[230] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 8/21, 26 April 2021.

[231] BCHR, Right to Asylum in the Republic of Serbia 2021, p. 55.

[232] Asylum Commission, Decision No. 41/20, 31 May 2021.

[233] Asylum Commission, Decision No. 47/20, 5 July 2021.

[234] BCHR, Right to Asylum in the Republic of Serbia 2021, 52-63.

[235] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 16/21, 14 July 2021.

[236] Asylum Commission, Decision Až-06/22, 10 May 2022.

[237] Asylum Commission, Decision AŽ 14/19, 9 August 2021.

[238]  Asylum Commission, AŽ-29/19, 23 September 2021.

[239] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26–1389/17, 19 January 2021, see also BCHR, Right to Asylum in the Republic of Serbia 2021, 55.

[240] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 24/21, 11 October 2021.

[241] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 32/21, 7 February 2022.

[242] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 04/22, 22 February 2022.

[243] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 32/21, 7 February 2022.

[244] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ-41/20, 10 May 2022.

[245] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 8/21, 27 June 2022.

[246] The case was described in details in the part where the practice of the Asylum Office is analysed.

[247] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 20/22, 12 August 2022.

[248] Asylum Commission, Decision NO. AŽ 23/22, 7 September 2022, see also Right to Asylum 2022, p. 52.

[249] Asylum Commission, Decision No. AŽ 21/22, 27 September 2022, see also Right to Asylum 2022, p. 52-53.

[250] Roundtables were organised through the project “Novelties in the Asylum and Migration System in the Republic of Serbia and Challenges in their Application”, implemented by the AIRE Centre, IOM and the British Embassy in Serbia.

[251] Article 96 Asylum Act.

[252] Administrative Court, Judgments U 10233/19, 13 May 2020, U 1803/18, 6 January 2022 and U 3950/18, 24 January 2022.

[253] Administrative Court, Judgment U 20811/11, 21 January 2022.

[254] Administrative Court, U 21427/21, 26 October 2021.

[255] Administrative Court, U 31740/22, 20 December 2022.

[256] Administrative Court, Judgment U U 19000/21, 5 January 2022.

[257] Administrative Court, Judgment, U 11006/20, 28 January 2021.

[258] Administrative Court, Judgment U 22906/18, 25 November 2021.

[259] Administrative Court, Judgment U 8080/21, 7 December 2021.

[260] Administrative Court, Judgments U U 20811/21, 31 January 2022 and U 24542/20, 27 May 2022.

[261] See also, AIDA, Country Report Serbia, 2021 Update, p. 81.

[262] See more in Right to Asylum 2022, pp. 59-61.

[263] See more in Country Report Serbia, Update 2018, pp. 41-52.

[264] Administrative Court, Judgment U 1803/18, 6 January 2022.

[265] Administrative Court, Judgment U –U 8549/20, 2 February 2022.

[266] Administrative Court, Judgment U 3950/18, 24 January 2022.

[267] Administrative Court, Judgment U 11333/22, 17 November 2022.

[268] Administrative Court, Judgments U 2113/20, 12 January 2022 and U 20256/19, 16 September 2022.

[269] Administrative Court, Judgment U 4758/20, 8 June 2022.

[270] Administrative Court, Judgment U 15562/20, 29 September 2022.

[271] Administrative Court, Judgment U 3975/20, 24 February 2022.

[272] Administrative Court, Judgment U 22107/21, 9 May 2022.

[273] Administrative Court, Judgment U U 14113/22, 17 November 2022.

[274] Administrative Court, Judgment U 35085/21, 23 June 2022.

[275] Administrative Court, Judgment U 3775/021, 3 March 2022.

[276] Administrative Court, Judgment U 19541/22, 14 October 2022.

[277] Administrative Court, Judgment 476/2020, 15 June 2022.

[278] Administrative Court, Judgment 4730/21, 10 February2022.

[279] Article 4 (2-6) FLA.

[280] Article 4 (2-7) FLA.

[281] Free Legal Aid Fee Schedule Regulation (Uredba o tarifi za pružanje besplatne pravne pomoći), Official Gazette of the RS No. 74/2019.

[282] This conclusion is drawn from the fact that legal representatives in all Administrative Court judgments were CSOs.

[283] Article 56(3)-(4) Asylum Act.

[284] BCHR has 5 lawyers who are solely providing legal aid to asylum seekers, HCIT 2, IDEAS 1, and APC does not have more than 3.

[285] Once to two times per month.

[286] Some of them less than a year and without previous training and experience in the field of asylum and migration.

[287] The author of this Report was a legal coordinator at BCHR, but also acts as a strategic litigation officer at BCHR. He has been providing legal aid to asylum seekers since 2012.

[288] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-378/19, 11 February 2020.

[289] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2038/19, 30 July 2020 and 26-2039/19, 17 August 2020.

[290] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2573/19, 15 October 2020. This boy fled to Bosnia where he got in touch with his former legal representative who changed jobs.

[291] The boy decided to return to Serbia and, with the help of IDEAS lawyers, submitted subsequent application.

[292] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-3229/19.

[293] This conclusion was drawn from the Analysis of dozens of case files from the period 2017-2019 originating from both BCHR and APC’s legal practice. A more detailed analysis of the quality of work of legal representatives will be conducted during the course of 2020.

[294] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-2177/19, 20 August 2020.

[295] Ibid.

[296] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1607/18, 14 October 2022.

[297] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-932/19, 30 September 2019.

[298] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1831/18, 30 July 2020.

[299] The applicant lodged her asylum application in March 2022.

[300] She lodged her application in March 2022.

[301] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1601/20, 30 August 2021

[302] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-876/21, 10 November 2021.

[303] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1791/21, 9 March 2021.

[304] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-1599/19, 22 November 2019 and AŽ 51/20, 24 December 2020.

[305] Asylum Office, Decision No. 26-688/22, 15 September 2022.

[306] The author of this Report only analysed cases in which he had an opportunity to assess in details personal circumstances of the applicants with regards to their asylum claims, but also their experience with regards to the Serbian asylum system.

[307] ECtHR, A.H. v. Serbia and North Macedonia, and A.H. v. Serbia, Application Nos. 60417/16 79749/16, 19 October and 27 December 2016 respectively, available at: https://bit.ly/3oVp8dz