Author
The Asylum Act does not foresee a separate procedure for subsequent asylum applications. Subsequent applications (including second, third, fourth, etc., subsequent applications) are processed in Regular Procedure and decided by the MO. The law does not provide for any time limits that apply for lodging a subsequent application, nor any limitation as to how many times a person can lodge a subsequent application.
The MO shall reject a subsequent application as inadmissible where a final decision has previously been taken to (1) reject the application as manifestly unfounded, (2) refuse asylum, (3) withdraw asylum, (4) refuse to extend subsidiary protection, or (5) withdraw subsidiary protection, and no substantial change of the facts in the case has occurred.[1] In this case, the determining authority may also decide that the subsequent application was filed solely for the purpose of averting the imminent enforcement of the return decision from Slovakia.[2] Such a decision has further implications for the applicant´s right to stay in Slovakia during the appeal procedure – see details below. In case there was a substantial change of the facts, but these new elements do not justify granting asylum or subsidiary protection, the MO may reject the application as manifestly unfounded in an accelerated procedure – within 60 days from lodging the subsequent application.[3]
The Asylum Act does not provide a definition of what is considered a “substantial change of the facts”. In Article 11(2) of the Asylum Act, it only provides that new elements or findings that existed before the final decision on the first asylum application was taken but were not produced by the applicant for reasons beyond his or her control are considered as a substantial change of the facts. A substantial change of the facts is assessed mainly during the interview at the stage of lodging the application and during the entry interview, which are conducted in the same manner as described in the Regular Procedure: Personal Interview.
The administrative courts have sought to eliminate legal uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the term “substantial change in the facts”; however, their approach has been rather restrictive. In the judgment No. 1Sak/12/2023 from 18 August 2023[4], the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that
- In this regard, the Court of Cassation stated that not every new fact or finding may be regarded as a “new element or finding,” but only those that could have a direct impact on the applicant’s legal position. The institution of a subsequent application for international protection does not serve the purpose of clarifying or supplementing the factual basis of a previous application. Its main objective and purpose is to address situations in which serious new circumstances arise that could affect the applicant’s status and which, through no fault of their own, could not have been invoked in the previous proceedings that were concluded by a final decision on international protection.
(…)
- In the view of the Court of Cassation, a substantial change of the facts must be understood as the emergence of a situation capable of leading to a different decision in the case. Accordingly, not every change is sufficient; the decisive factor is its materiality. Since the previous decision on the applicant’s asylum application became final (on 18 July 2022), the applicant has not presented any facts that could be regarded as a substantial change in the factual circumstances and that would affect their legal position.
In the judgement No. 2Sak/12/2023 from 22. December 2023[5], the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that:
- A decision rejecting an application as inadmissible pursuant to § 11(2)(f) of the Asylum Act must always contain a reasoned conclusion by the administrative authority that: (1) in the subsequent application for international protection, the applicant does not present any new facts or findings relevant to asylum or subsidiary protection, whereby “new facts” cannot be understood as any facts or findings whatsoever, but only those which, at first sight, could have an impact on the granting of international protection; and (2) no fundamental change has occurred in the situation in the country of origin that could give rise to the well-foundedness of a new application for international protection.
First subsequent application
A decision rejecting the first subsequent application as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded is subject to judicial review by an administrative court. An administrative appeal must be filed within 20 days of notification of the decision[6]; however, filing the appeal does not have a suspensive effect.[7] The claimant may request that a suspensive effect be granted, and such a request must be submitted together with the administrative appeal.[8] The administrative court must decide on the request for granting the suspensive effect within 15 days of its submission.[9]
As a rule, an asylum seeker who filed a first subsequent application has the right to remain in Slovakia during the first instance procedure, during the time limit for filing the administrative appeal, and until the court has decided on the request for suspensive effect.[10] In a specific case, when the first subsequent application was rejected as inadmissible, and the MO has decided that the subsequent application was filed solely for the purpose of averting the imminent enforcement of the return decision from Slovakia, the applicant does not have a right to remain in the country during the time limit for filling the administrative appeal or pending the court´s decision on the request for suspensive effect.[11] This means that the BBFP PFP resumes the suspended administrative expulsion proceedings, and the applicant may be removed from Slovakia.[12]
Second, (third, fourth, etc…,) subsequent application
The law does not distinguish between a second subsequent application and any further subsequent applications; all such applications are treated equally. In the following section, the term “second subsequent application” is used to refer to all subsequent applications beyond the first.
An asylum seeker whose first subsequent application has already been rejected as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded does not have a right to remain in Slovakia during the first instance and appeal procedure on the second subsequent application. In such cases, the BBFP PFP resumes the suspended administrative expulsion proceedings, and the applicant may be removed from Slovakia.[13]
Decision on rejecting the second subsequent application as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded is subject to judicial review by an administrative court under the same conditions as first subsequent application.
An asylum seeker who filed subsequent applications has access to legal aid in the first instance and an appeal procedure under the same conditions as described in the Regular Procedure: Legal Aid. In the context of subsequent applications, one of the factors assessed by the Centre for Legal Aid in the merits test is whether a substantial change in the facts has occurred.[14] This factor is, however, not decisive.
In 2025, the MO rejected a total of 6 subsequent asylum applications as inadmissible.[15]
[1] Article 11(1)(f) of the Asylum Act.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Article 12(2)(g) of the Asylum Act.
[4] Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, 1Sak/12/2023, 18 August 2023, available (in Slovak) here.
[5] Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, 2Sak/12/2023, 22 December 2023, available (in Slovak) here.
[6] Article 211(2) of the AJC.
[7] Article 21(2) of the Asylum Act.
[8] Article 213(2) of the AJC.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Article 22(1) of the Asylum Act.
[11] Article 22(1) of the Asylum Act.
[12] Article 77(5) of the Act on Residence of Foreigners.
[13] Article 77(5) of the Act on Residence of Foreigners.
[14] Article 24a(2)(c) of the Act on Legal Aid.
[15] The Response of the MO to a request for information submitted on 11 March 2026.