Author
Slovak legislation provides for the possibility of reducing certain material reception conditions in specific circumstances. While accommodation and food remain available to asylum seekers throughout the asylum procedure as long as they retain asylum seeker status, the law allows for the withdrawal of pocket money and, in some cases, basic hygiene products.
Pocket money is not provided to asylum seekers in a number of situations prescribed by law, including where the applicant has lodged a subsequent application following the discontinuation of a previous asylum procedure, attempted an unauthorised entry into another country, voluntarily left the territory of Slovakia and was subsequently returned, or where the applicant is employed or receives an income at least equivalent to the subsistence minimum.[1] Basic hygiene products may also be withheld where the applicant has an income at least equivalent to the subsistence minimum.[2] Furthermore, the Ministry of the Interior may decide that an asylum seeker is required to contribute to the costs of accommodation in an asylum facility or integration centre, or to healthcare costs, if the applicant’s financial or property situation is such that a contribution can reasonably be expected.[3]
In 2024 and 2025, HRL recorded two cases involving asylum seekers accommodated in the Accommodation Centre in Opatovská Nová Ves whose pocket money was withdrawn following alleged disputes with other asylum seekers and reception centre staff.
During the reference period, HRL is not aware of any cases in which the Ministry of the Interior applied Section 23(5) of the Asylum Act and required an asylum seeker to contribute to the costs of accommodation, healthcare or other reception-related expenses on the basis of their financial or property situation.
A relevant judgment concerning the reception conditions and their withdrawal was issued by the Administrative Court in Košice on 25 November 2024.[4] The case concerned an asylum applicant who had been accommodated in a reception facility and was subsequently detained on the grounds of alleged threats to public order following incidents in the accommodation centre. The court annulled the detention decision and ordered the applicant’s immediate release.
The case arose after the MO reported escalating conflicts involving the applicant in the reception facility, including allegations of aggressive behaviour. The police authorities relied primarily on documentation provided by the reception facility and NGO staff when ordering detention. A significant part of the documentation submitted by the management of the reception facility consisted of official records relating to the applicant’s complaints about material conditions in the centre, which were subsequently used as supporting evidence in the detention proceedings.
However, the court found substantial deficiencies in the reasoning of the detention decision, including the absence of a proper evaluation of evidence and insufficient justification of the necessity of detention. These shortcomings rendered the decision unreviewable and therefore unlawful.
The judgment also addressed the relationship between disciplinary measures within the reception system and detention. The applicant argued that, under the Reception Conditions Directive, violations of internal rules in reception centres may justify only measures such as restriction or withdrawal of material reception conditions, rather than deprivation of liberty. The court accepted the relevance of this argument in principle and criticised the authorities for failing to consider less severe measures available within the reception system before resorting to detention. In particular, the court noted that the MO has the power to impose sanctions for breaches of internal rules and that alternative measures — such as transfer to another reception facility or adjustment of internal regime — had not been properly examined.
Following his release from detention, the applicant was re-accommodated in the Accommodation Centre in Opatovská Nová Ves, where material reception conditions were provided in full.
[1] Article 22(8) of the Asylum Act.
[2] Article 22(9) of the Asylum Act.
[3] Article 23(5) of the Asylum Act.
[4] Administrative court in Košice, 9Saz/4/2024, 25. November 2024, available (in Slovak) here.