Dublin

Author

Human Rights League

General

In 2025, Slovakia submitted 49 outgoing Dublin requests, out of which 27 were accepted, and 23 transfers were implemented, mainly to Germany (10), Bulgaria (2), Czechia (2), Austria (2) and Sweden (2). In the same year, Slovakia received 334 incoming Dublin requests, out of which 293 requests were accepted and 46 transfers were implemented, mainly from Germany (10), Norway (10), Austria (8), Sweden (7) and Finland (4).

Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December of 2025

 Source: Eurostat, 2026.

Transfers refers to the number of transfers actually implemented, not to the number of transfer decisions.

Source: Eurostat, 2026.

Source: Eurostat, 2025.

Application of the Dublin criteria

In the years 2021–2025, there were a total of 13 outgoing Dublin requests and 9 incoming Dublin requests based on the family unity criteria (Articles 8–11 of the Dublin III Regulation). The HRL is not aware of any unified practice of the MO requiring asylum applicants to meet specific evidential requirements to prove family links. Based on HRL’s experience, each case is examined on an individual basis.

In 2025, the most frequently used criterion for outgoing requests was in cases when an applicant lodged an asylum application or presented himself or herself without a residence document in a Member State while his or her asylum application was under examination in another Member State (Article 18(1)(b) of the Dublin III Regulation. Regarding the incoming requests, the most frequently used basis was in cases when the asylum applicants had visas or residence permits issued by Slovakia (Article 12 of the Dublin III Regulation).

In 2025, a total of 19 outgoing requests were rejected by other Member States. The reasons invoked for rejecting requests are not publicly available.

The discretionary clauses

The “humanitarian” clause (Article 17(2) of the Dublin III Regulation) and the “sovereignty” clause (Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation) are applied by the MO exceptionally. Based on Eurostat data, the sovereignty clause was applied only once in the past ten years, in 2017. During the same period, there was only one reported case of an accepted outgoing Dublin request from Slovakia based on the humanitarian clause and one reported case of an accepted incoming Dublin request to Slovakia based on the humanitarian clause.

Procedure

The Dublin procedure is regulated by the Asylum Act and Regulation of the MoI No. 34/2014. The Asylum Act differentiates between two proceedings when the Dublin II Regulation is applied:

• “TAKE CHARGE” cases: asylum seekers who lodged an asylum application in Slovakia. In such cases, their application is examined under the regular procedure and may be rejected as inadmissible on the ground that another State is responsible for examining the asylum application (also referred to in this report as the “Dublin Procedure”).[1]
• “TAKE BACK” cases[2]: Third-country nationals staying in Slovakia irregularly, who are not asylum applicants in Slovakia and applied for asylum in another Member State, are processed under the procedure for transfer to another state (konanie o odovzdaní do iného štátu) regulated by the Articles 46a – 46c of the Asylum Act.

The Dublin procedure is not applied in all asylum cases. According to Article 8(1)(a)(1.-3.) of the Regulation of MoI No. 34/2014, Dublin Centre initiates the Dublin procedure if:

• there is a Eurodac hit,
• the Procedural Department refers the application to the Dublin Centre based on evidence listed in Annex II to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 118/2014,
• on the basis of a request transmitted electronically by a department or a police detention facility, in cases concerning a foreign national staying irregularly in the territory of the Slovak Republic.

The procedure for transfer to another state is carried out by also by the Dublin Centre and is commenced at the initiative of the MoI.

All asylum seekers are systematically fingerprinted and checked in Eurodac. The obligation to undergo the taking of fingerprints for all applicants older than 14 years of age is directly enshrined in the Asylum Act.[3] In case an asylum seeker refused to be fingerprinted and does not qualify for asylum based on 1951 Convention (Article 8(a)), constitutional asylum (Article 8(b)), asylum for family reunification (Article 10), subsidiary protection based on serious harm (Article 13a) or subsidiary protection for family reunification (Article 13b) his or her application is rejected as manifestly unfounded.[4] However, in practice, HRL is not aware of cases when asylum seekers refused to be fingerprinted.

Within the meaning of Article 11(4) of the Asylum Act, the determining authority shall promptly inform the asylum applicant that it is determining whether another State is responsible for examining the asylum application. Such notification contains neither information on the Member State to which a request will be sent nor the evidence on which the request will be based. This information is provided to applicants or their legal representatives upon request to the Dublin Centre.

Individualised guarantees

Before issuing a decision rejecting an application as inadmissible on the ground that another State is responsible for examining the asylum application, the Dublin Unit assesses information obtained from publicly available sources concerning the asylum procedure and reception conditions in the Member State to which the applicant is to be transferred, as well as the demonstrable existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in that country.

The Dublin Unit also takes into account whether the Member State concerned is a signatory to the 1951 Convention and complies with all relevant European and international legal instruments governing the reception of applicants for international protection. Furthermore, it considers whether any decisions or recommendations have been issued at the EU level, or by the ECtHR or the CJEU, identifying systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure or reception conditions in the Member State concerned. In assessing these matters, the Dublin Unit relies on publicly available sources, including AIDA reports. These sources are usually not included in the administrative file, and the assessment of reception conditions and access to the asylum procedure is carried out only in the reasoning of the decision rejecting the application as inadmissible.

While each case is assessed individually within the Dublin procedure, practice indicates that the Dublin Unit generally evaluates the state of the asylum system and reception conditions in a general manner, without seeking individualised guarantees for each asylum applicant.[5]

Transfers

Asylum seekers subject to the Dublin procedure or third-country nationals subject to procedure on transfer to another state may be detained where there is a considerable risk of absconding.[6] However, there is no practice of automatically detaining asylum seekers following notification of a decision rejecting their application as inadmissible on the ground that another State is responsible for examining their asylum application.

Dublin transfers are carried out by a police officer for the BBFP PFP. The police authority is responsible, in particular, for agreeing with the competent authority of the Partner state on the place, time, and manner of the transfer of the asylum seeker.[7] Where necessary, the asylum seeker shall be issued a laissez-passer, the template of which is set out in Annex IV to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 118/2014.[8]

Based on 2026 Eurostat data, of the 46 incoming Dublin transfers implemented in 2025, 41 were carried out within 1–6 months, 3 within 7–12 months, and 2 within 13–18 months from the date on which the Member State accepted responsibility. Regarding outgoing Dublin transfers, all 23 transfers implemented in 2025 took place within 1–6 months of the Member State accepting responsibility. More detailed data on the average duration of the Dublin procedure is not publicly available. In response to an official information request, the MO referred to the Eurostat data.

Personal interview

The interview of an asylum seeker in Dublin Procedure is mandatory and is conducted by the Dublin Centre of the MO in the same way as described under Regular Procedure: Personal Interview. The information provided by the applicant during the interview is recorded on an official form, the Asylum Applicants Questionnaire (Dotazník žiadateľa o udelenie azylu), the same used under Regular Procedure. The only difference is that in the Dublin Procedure, asylum seekers are not asked question No. 37. – 42. of the Questionnaire that concerns ongoing or past criminal proceedings against the applicant, membership in a political party, movement or other organisation, and grounds for applying for asylum or subsidiary protection in Slovakia.

Appeal

Given that the outcome of the Dublin procedure may be the issuance of a decision rejecting the asylum application as inadmissible on the ground that another State is responsible pursuant to Article 11(1)(c) of the Asylum Act, the appeal procedure in such cases is the same as that described in the section Admissibility Procedure: Appeal, including time limits for issuing a decision, oral hearings, and further appeals.

The lodging of an administrative appeal against a decision rejecting an asylum application as inadmissible does not have an automatic suspensive effect. The applicant may request that suspensive effect be granted to the administrative appeal. Such a request must be submitted together with the administrative appeal, and the administrative court must decide on the request within 15 days of its submission.

The same rules also apply to the appeal procedure against a decision issued under the procedure for transfer to another State

As grounds for the administrative appeal, the claimant may argue that the contested decision was based on an incorrect legal assessment of the case[9] and, consequently, challenge the application of the relevant Dublin criteria.

Legal assistance

Free legal assistance for asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected as inadmissible in Dublin Procedure and free legal assistance for third-country nationals process under the procedure for transfer to another state is provided under the same conditions and in the same context as described in Regular Procedure: Legal assistance. The free legal assistance is guaranteed only in an appeal procedure by the Centre for Legal Aid.[10] Legal assistance in the first instance and appeal procedure is predominantly provided by NGOs (mainly HRL and SHC), which are funded through projects.

Suspension of transfers

In Slovakia, there is no officially adopted policy suspending all Dublin transfers to a specific country.

The key judgment of the national jurisprudence on the suspension of Dublin transfers is the 2011 judgment of the Slovak Constitutional Court concerning the transfer of an Afghan asylum applicant to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The applicant argued that his transfer to Greece would expose him to deficiencies in the Greek asylum system, inadequate reception conditions, and a risk of onward refoulement to Afghanistan, contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The Supreme Court had upheld the Migration Office’s decision rejecting the asylum application as inadmissible and declined to review the appropriateness of not applying the sovereignty clause under Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation, treating it as a matter of administrative discretion.

In its judgment of 31 May 2011 (II. ÚS 110/2011-39), the Constitutional Court annulled the Supreme Court’s decision and referred the case back for reconsideration. Relying extensively on the ECtHR judgment in M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, the Constitutional Court held that the absolute prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR and Article 16(2) of the Slovak Constitution imposed a duty on national courts to conduct a substantive assessment of the risks associated with a Dublin transfer. The Court criticised the Supreme Court for relying excessively on formal legality and administrative discretion, while failing to adequately assess publicly available information on systemic deficiencies in Greece’s asylum system and reception conditions. It found that, despite the discretionary nature of the sovereignty clause, courts must examine whether non-application of that clause could result in a violation of fundamental rights. The Constitutional Court concluded that the transfer would expose the applicant to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and that the Supreme Court had therefore violated his fundamental rights under Article 3 ECHR and the Slovak Constitution.

Greece: In the past 10 years (2016-2025), Slovakia has not carried out any Dublin transfer to Greece. However, a total of 126 outgoing Dublin requests to Greece were submitted by Slovakia in the same period (0 requests in 2025).

Hungary: Following the decision of Hungary to suspend all Dublin transfers in 2016 NGOs HRL and Forum for Human Rights (FORUM) have monitored that since that time, asylum seekers coming from Hungary (who applied for asylum in Hungary and are trying to come to other member states of EU) have been routinely detained, not to enforce Dublin transfer but based on the decision on their administrative expulsion to home countries, including Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan. The Syrians are being issued decisions on administrative expulsion to “any other country, which will agree to take them”.[11]

Bulgaria: Slovakia has not suspended transfers to Bulgaria, even after UNHCR’s call for a temporary halt of such transfers from January 2014[12] because of the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment due to systemic deficiencies in reception conditions and asylum procedures in Bulgaria. Based on the Eurostat data and the BBFP PFP publicly available statistics Slovakia has been carrying out Dublin transfers to Bulgaria regularly: 2014 – 16 transfers, 2015 – 4 transfers, 2016 – 31 transfers, 2017 – 8 transfers, 2018 – 5 transfers, 2019 – 5 transfers, 2020 – 0 transfers, 2021 – 5 transfers, 2022 – 8 transfers, 2023 – 42 transfers and 2025 – 2 transfers.

In 2018, there have been several judgments of administrative courts that annulled Dublin decisions on transfers to Bulgaria on the ground that Dublin Centre ailed to sufficiently assess the situation of asylum applicants and their reception conditions in Bulgaria[13], however according to the latest national jurisprudence courts have been dismissing the appeals against such Dublin decisions arguing inter alia: “Bulgaria is a full member of the European Union, has ratified international treaties on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and is generally regarded by other European Union Member States as a safe country. The Court is not aware of any current binding decision or recommendation issued at the level of the European Union, whether by the European Court of Human Rights or the Court of Justice of the European Union, addressed to Member States of the European Union or the Council of Europe, which would unequivocally establish the existence of systemic deficiencies in the procedures concerning international protection and the reception of applicants for international protection in Bulgaria involving a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Nor is the Court aware of any currently issued position of a similar nature requiring Member States of the European Union to refrain from transferring applicants for international protection to Bulgaria, including by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as the principal body responsible for supervising compliance with the Geneva Convention and the New York Protocol.[14]”

The situation of Dublin returnees

Asylum applicants returning to Slovakia under the Dublin III Regulation usually arrive at the international airport in Košice, as it is the closest international airport to the Humenné Reception Centre, where all asylum applicants are accommodated during the initial phase of the asylum procedure. Their applications are further examined in the regular procedure.

Third-country nationals returned to Slovakia under the Dublin III Regulation (who, however, are not asylum applicants in Slovakia at the time of return) on the ground that Slovakia is responsible for examining their asylum applications are considered asylum applicants, and asylum proceedings shall commence upon their entry into the territory of Slovakia. However, this rule does not apply to third-country nationals whose asylum applications in Slovakia were previously rejected as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, or who were previously denied asylum.[15] In such cases, they may lodge a new asylum application, which is considered a subsequent application.

[1]          Article 11(1)(c) of the Asylum Act.

[2]          If the third-country national lodges asylum application in Slovakia and also applied for asylum in another state before coming to Slovakia, their application is examined under the regular procedure similarly as mentioned above in TAKE CHARGE cases.

[3]          Article 23(1) of the Asylum Act.

[4]          Article 12(2)(b) of the Asylum Act.

[5]          Based on HRL´s experience.

[6]          Article 88a(1)(e) and Article 88(1)(c) of the Act on Residence of Foreigners.

[7]          Article 8(2)(a) of the Regulation of the MoI No. 34/2014.

[8]          Article 8(2)(b) of the Regulation of the MoI No. 34/2014.

[9]          Article 191(1)(c) of the AJC.

[10]         Article 24a(1)(c)(6-7) of the Act on Legal Aid.

[11]         HRL and FORUM, NGO Information to the United Nations Human Rights Committee on Islamophobia, Immigration Detention Including Single Women, Vulnerable Persons and Families with Minor Children and the Situation of Unaccompanied Minors in Slovakia, September 2016, available (in Slovak) here.

[12]         UNHCR, UNHCR Observations on the Current Situation of Asylum in Bulgaria, 2 January 2014, available here.

[13]         See e.g. Regional Court Košice, 5Saz/50/2018, 16 May 2018 or Regional Court Košice, 4Saz/1/2018, 13 April 2018.

[14]         Administrative Court in Bratislava, 13Saz/8/2023, 16 November 2023, para 36. A similar argumentation was used in: Administrative Court in Bratislava, 7SaZ/6/2023, 21 July 2023, Administrative Court in Bratislava, 8SaZ/16/2022, 8 March 2023, or Administrative Court in Bratislava, 8SaZ/15/2022, 8 March 2023.

[15]         See Article 5(6) of the Asylum Act.