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 making a decision on the admissibility are the same as in the regular procedure.
Besides from Dublin decisions, inadmissibility grounds are rarely applied in practice. In 2021, applications were dismissed in 75 cases on the ground of protection in another Member State, 1 based on the first country of asylum concept and in 969 cases on the ground that another country is responsible for examining the claim under the Dublin Regulation.
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.
According to the IPA, the Migration Directorate conducts the personal interview before making a decision in the admissibility procedure. The interview is conducted in the same way as described under Regular Procedure.
In line with the amendments of the IPA the time limit for judicial review was shortened from 8 days to 3 days. In line with the Constitutional Court’s decision, preclusive time limits have to be reasonably long or they can disproportionately limit the right to judicial review, consequently depriving the individual of his or her rights. The time limit imposed by the amendments infringes upon the applicant’s right to an effective remedy and the right to judicial review. In practice, refugee counsellors have trouble in lodging the judicial review within the time limit, since they have to obtain the power of attorney, obtain the case file and then lodge 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. 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.
In practice, the determining authority does not enforce the decision before the Administrative Court decides on the request for suspensive effect. As long as this practice remains, the situation is not much 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 of the IPA came to force.
The law does not contain any special provisions regarding legal representation of asylum seekers during the admissibility procedure. The legal assistance in the admissibility procedure is provided in the same way as in the regular procedure. At first instance, legal representation can be provided by PIC while the applicants are appointed a refugee counsellor to represent them in the procedures before the Administrative Court or the Supreme Court.
 Official statistics provided by the Migration Directorate, March 2022.
 Article 46(1) IPA.
 Article 70(2) IPA.
 Constitutional Court decision, I U 203/14, 3. December 2015, available in Slovene at: https://bit.ly/3Pv0UCF.
 Article 70(3) IPA, citing Article 51, third indent IPA.
 Article 32(2) Administrative Dispute Act.