Author
General (scope, criteria, time limits)
Under Article 51 IPA, an application can be rejected as inadmissible only if:
- The applicant was granted international protection in another EU Member State, with the exception of persons accepted in the Republic of Slovenia based on quotas;
- The applicant comes from a First Country of Asylum;
- The applicant comes from a Safe Third Country;
- Another country is responsible for examining the applicant claim under the Dublin Regulation.
The time limits for deciding on admissibility are the same as in the regular procedure. The authority responsible for the admissibility procedure is the Ministry of the Interior.
Apart from Dublin decisions, inadmissibility grounds are rarely applied in practice. In 2023 applications were dismissed in 10 cases on the ground of protection in another Member State and 4,096 applications on the ground that another country is responsible for examining the claim under the Dublin Regulation and 1 on the ground of first country of asylum.[1]
Inadmissibility decisions are normally issued faster than in-merit decisions. However, unwarranted delays due to no fault of the applicant may also occur in individual cases.
Personal interview
According to the IPA, the Migration directorate conducts the personal interview before reaching a decision in the admissibility procedure.[2] The interview is conducted in the same way as described under Regular Procedure: Personal Interview.
Appeal
In line with the amended IPA, the time limit for judicial review was shortened from 8 to 3 calendar days.[3] The time limit is not in line with the decision of the Constitutional Court,[4] stating that preclusive time limits have to be reasonably long or they can disproportionately limit the right to judicial review, consequently depriving the individual of their rights. The time limit imposed by the amendments therefore infringes the applicant’s right to an effective remedy and the right to judicial review. This was also confirmed by CJEU preliminary ruling stating that the 3-calendar day time limit constitutes a restriction of the right to legal assistance.[5]
In practice, refugee counsellors have trouble in lodging the judicial review within the time limit, since they have to obtain the power of attorney, study the case file and then lodge the judicial review. Due to the short time limit refugee counsellors also do not obtain the help of translators while preparing the judicial review.
The judicial review does not have automatic suspensive effect, except where the application was rejected as inadmissible on “safe third country” grounds.[6] If the application is rejected as inadmissible for other reasons, applicants can suspend enforcement until a final decision has been reached by adding a request to this effect to their application for judicial review.[7]
In practice, the determining authority does not enforce the decision before the Administrative Court decides on the request for suspensive effect.[8] As long as this practice remains, the situation is not significantly different, in practical terms, from an automatic suspensive effect being prescribed by law.
The applicant can appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court to the Supreme Court in case the appeal was lodged after the amendments to the IPA came into force.
Legal assistance
The law does not contain any special provisions regarding legal representation of asylum seekers during the admissibility procedure. The same rules and practice as in the Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance apply. At first instance, legal representation can be provided by the PIC. Legal assistance and representation before the Administrative Court or Supreme Court can be provided to applicants by refugee counsellors. Together with the inadmissibility decision, applicants are provided with a list of refugee counsellors and instructions about how to obtain one. In case they are not able to do so on their own, they have to come to the offices of the Migration directorate where an official will appoint a refugee counsellor to their case. In practice, due to the short 3-day time limit for lodging the judicial review, language barriers and other obstacles (telephone access etc.) applicants have difficulties obtaining the help of refugee counsellors in time and rely heavily on the help of social workers, the PIC and other NGOs in order to do so. Due to the short time limits refugee counsellors cannot obtain the help of the translators when preparing the judicial review.
Suspension of returns for beneficiaries of protection in another Member State
In practice, cases of applicants being granted international protection in another Member State and therefore their applications being dismissed as inadmissible are rare. In 2023, 10 applications for international protection were dismissed as inadmissible because the applicants had international protection in another Member state. They were not returned to the Member State. 1 application was dismissed based on the first country of asylum concept.[9] Following the personal interview the Ministry of Interior makes the decision on inadmissibility on a case by case basis. In case the application is dismissed the applicant can lodge the judicial review before the Administrative Court. The judicial review does not have an automatic suspensive effect in case the application is dismissed as inadmissible because the applicant has international protection in another Member State.[10]
In line with the jurisprudence of the Administrative court the Ministry of Interior has to take the applicant’s personal circumstances into account when deciding on the inadmissibility based on the fact that the applicant has international protection in another Member State. The Ministry of the Interior has to conduct the assessment if the applicants return would violate article 4 of the Charter.[11] The Ministry of the Interior cannot dismiss the application in case the applicant would be, due to foreseeable living conditions, exposed to a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment upon return.[12]
[1] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, March 2024.
[2] Article 46(1) IPA.
[3] Article 70(2) IPA.
[4] Constitutional Court decision, I U 203/14, 3. December 2015, available in Slovenian at: https://bit.ly/3Pv0UCF.
[5] CJEU, Y.N. v Republika Slovenija (C-58/23), 27. September 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3IaIWmp.
[6] Article 70(3) IPA, citing Article 51, third indent IPA.
[7] Article 32(2) Administrative Dispute Act.
[8] Observation by the PIC.
[9] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, March 2024.
[10] Article 70(3) IPA.
[11] Administrative Court Decision, I U 1121/2023, 4 Avgust 2023, available in Slovenian at: https://bit.ly/4amBMrQ.
[12] Administrative Court Decision, I Up 238/2023, 23 November 2023, available in Slovenian at: https://bit.ly/3U7TZUp.