Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure


Country Report: Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure Last updated: 12/05/23


Differential treatment of specific nationalities is not based on official policies or guidelines. Nevertheless, some patterns and trends are observed in practice.

With the exception of the first period of relocation from Italy and Greece in 2015-2017, when some Iraqi nationals were issued negative decisions, all relocated applicants, mostly Syrians and Eritreans, have since been granted international protection. Other Syrian nationals whose asylum applications have been examined in Slovenia have also been granted international protection, as have the few Eritrean citizens who have not arrived through relocation. The practice changed, however, in December 2019 when the first Eritreans were issued with negative decisions. These were the first decisions issued to Eritreans since the end of the relocation scheme, and, as such, were not part of the relocation scheme.

In 2020, the Administrative Court made first decisions on the rejected applications of Eritrean applicants. The Administrative Court ruled that these decisions were lawful and that the applicants did not meet the conditions for international protection. In one case, the Court stated that there are systematic deficiencies regarding obligatory army service in Eritrea, since individuals are subjected to unlimited army service and forced labour. However, in the opinion of the Court, this obligatory army service does not amount to persecution, since all Eritreans are subjected to such treatment and therefore the applicant does not meet the definition allowing them to be granted international protection, as they are not a member of a particular social group.[1] The Administrative Court stated in another case that general inhumane and degrading treatment was applied to all prisoners in Eritrea, and therefore the applicant does not meet the definition that would allow them to be granted subsidiary protection, since the discriminatory nature of the treatment of certain groups of prisoners could not be established.[2] Only one case concerning an Eritrean applicant is still pending in the Administrative Court at the time of writing.

Until the end of 2017, Slovenian authorities did not issue decisions in the cases of persons fleeing Turkey in the wake of the attempted coup d’état of July 2016. Turkey was the fourth main nationality of asylum seekers, representing 102 of the 1,476 applications lodged in 2017. Many Turkish applicants, including families with children, have been waiting for the conclusion of their cases for more than one year, without any substantial explanation for the delay on the part of the authorities. In 2018, during which 70 Turkish nationals applied for asylum, the Migration directorate issued 12 negative decisions to asylum seekers from Turkey and granted refugee status in 12 cases. In 2019, 28 applicants from Turkey were granted refugee status in Slovenia either by the Administrative Court or by the Migration directorate. In 2020, 17 applicants were granted refugee status by the Migration directorate. In 2021, 1 applicant from Turkey was granted refugee status and none were rejected.

Applications from Syrian asylum seekers are generally considered to be well-founded, and Syrian applicants are granted international protection (in most cases, refugee status).

Applications from Palestinian asylum seekers are also generally considered to be well-founded, and in most cases, they are granted refugee status.

Applications from Ukrainians are considered to be well-founded since the start of the conflict. Ukrainian asylum seekers are granted subsidiary protection for one year. In addition, applications of Ukrainian asylum seekers are prioritised and they receive the decision on their status in 1 – 3 months.




[1] Administrative Court Decision, I U 7/2020, 10. June 2020.

[2] Administrative Court Decision, I U 117/2020, 15. May 2020.

Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the first report
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation