Regular procedure


Country Report: Regular procedure Last updated: 12/05/23



The determining authority must take a decision in the shortest time possible, and no later than six months from lodging the application. If it cannot issue a decision within six months, it needs to inform the applicant in writing about the delay, the reasons for the delay and the time frame in which they can expect a decision. If it cannot make a decision in the estimated time frame, it can again inform the applicant in writing about the reason for the delay and set a new time frame in which they can expect the decision.[1] In practice the reasons in writing are only given in very broad terms, e.g. “the authority is working on pending cases that were submitted earlier and on priority cases of vulnerable persons.”

The determining authority can extend the 6-month time limit for no longer than 9 months: (a) if the applicant does not fulfil their obligations regarding the asylum procedure; (b) if the authority is faced with complex legal and factual questions; or (c) in case of a large number of applications for international protection.[2] According to the amendments of the IPA, if the Migration directorate is to extend the time limit for decisions due to a large number of applicants for international protection, it has to notify the European Commission about this decision at least once per year. The Migration directorate also has to notify the European Commission as soon as the reasons for the extension no longer exist.[3] It is evident from the proposal of the amendments[4] that the purpose behind the provision is to implement article 49, paragraph 3 of the Asylum Procedures Directive. The IPA does not contain any objective criteria regarding the number of asylum seekers or other circumstances that would prompt the use of the provision.

The Ministry can further extend the additional 9-month time limit by no more than a further 3 months, under justified circumstances and in order to ensure proper and comprehensive examination of the application.[5]

The determining authority may suspend the procedure if due to an uncertain situation in the country of origin, which is expected to be of temporary nature, it cannot be expected from the determining authority to decide in any of the above-mentioned time frames. In this case the determining authority needs to review the situation in the country of origin every 6 months, inform the applicant about the reasons for suspending his application and inform the European Commission about the suspension of all procedures regarding this country of origin. The maximum time period in which the application needs to be examined in this case is 21 months.[6]

If the application of the asylum seeker is processed in the Dublin procedure, the time limit for making a decision starts when it is established, in accordance with the Dublin regulation, that Slovenia is responsible for the examination of the application and the applicant is on its territory.[7]

There are no consequences set out in law for not respecting the time limit. In practice the time limits are not respected, and duration of the procedure is one of the biggest shortcomings of the Slovenian asylum system. In 2022, 6,787 applications for international protection were lodged and 501 asylum applications were pending by the end of the year.  According to the official statistics, the average duration of the procedure in 2022 was 40 days, however this includes procedures that were stopped due to the high absconding rate of applicants, and Dublin procedures.[8] Out of 198 positive decisions issued by the Migration directorate, 167 were issued in less than 6 months. Out of 198 positive decision 158 were issued to Ukrainian citizens whose claims were prioritised. Other asylum seekers had to wait longer for first instance decisions as 20 positive decisions were issued 6 -12 months after the lodging the application and 11 were issued one year after the lodging the application.[9]

In 2020, the overall refugee recognition rate dropped from 38% in 2019 to 28.6% in 2020. In 2021 the Migration directorate granted refugee status to 17 individuals, the lowest number since 2008. The lack of legal representation and the new way of providing information through a video presentation are likely to be two of the key factors that affected this drop in the recognition rate for refugee status.[10] In 2022, the refugee recognition rate dropped even lower to 11% as only 39 persons were granted refugee status. The percentage of people obtaining subsidiary protection increased to 47.7% as 164 persons were granted subsidiary protection. Out of 164 persons, 158 were from Ukraine.[11]


Prioritised examination and fast-track processing

According to Article 48 IPA the Migration directorate must prioritise cases of vulnerable persons with special needs or cases in which the applicant has been detained in the Asylum Home or the Foreigners Centre. However, in accordance with the amendments of the IPA, this should only be if it is likely that the application is substantiated. These are the only cases that can be prioritised.  However, this is often not respected in practice. Official statistics on the number of prioritised applications are not gathered by the Migration directorate. In practice Ukrainian applications for asylum were prioritised during 2022 as the majority of applicants were granted subsidiary protection in under 6 months.

According to Article 49/1 of the IPA, in a fast-track procedure, the application can only be rejected as manifestly unfounded. 108 applications were processed in the fast-track procedure in 2022.[12] All applications processed in the fast-track procedure were rejected as manifestly unfounded. In 2022 applications of unaccompanied minors were not processed in a fast-track procedure and were not rejected as manifestly unfounded.[13]


Personal interview

The law provides that the Migration directorate has to conduct the personal interview before taking a decision both in the regular and accelerated procedure, in the inadmissibility procedure and in the Dublin procedure.[14] The personal interview can be omitted if:[15]

  • The Migration directorate can grant the applicant refugee status on the basis of evidence at its disposal;
  • The applicant cannot participate in the procedure on their own due to a temporary or permanent mental disorder or illness or reasons which prevent them from understanding the meaning of the procedure.
  • if the applicant has otherwise provided relevant information for the process of determining the State responsible for examining the application, provided that the competent authority enables the applicant, before making a decision on his transfer to the responsible State, to send all relevant information needed for the correct decision on the responsible State.

At the lodging of the application the asylum seeker is given the date and time of the personal interview. In practice the personal interview is normally conducted within a month after the lodging of the application. Translation is provided by the Migration directorate. In case of a minor who is 15 years old or older and in case of an unaccompanied minor the legal guardian is present during the personal interview.[16] The personal interview with a minor under 15 years old can only be conducted in exceptional cases. This is normally done in cases of unaccompanied minors in order to obtain the information needed for status determination.

If the applicant has legal representation, the lawyer is also present. With the applicants’ consent the official of the Migration directorate can also allow the presence of a UNHCR representative, another official or employee of the MOI, a researcher, a student or another public official if their presence is important for scientific work or their institution.[17] Since the amendment of the IPA that came in to force in September 2021 applicants can no longer be accompanied by a person of their own choosing for emotional support during the interview.

The personal interview is carried out by the officials of the Migration directorate that have previously carried out the application procedure. During this interview (“first in-merit interview”) the officials of the Migration directorate aim to establish the identity of the applicant and accompanying family members, the reasons for asylum and all other facts and circumstances that are important for the decision.[18] The applicant is expected to provide detailed grounds for asylum. They are also expected to provide documents and other evidence during the personal interview.[19] Until June 2016, the first in-merit interview regarding grounds for asylum was conducted together with the lodging of the asylum application. Since then, this has been separated into two discrete phases in an attempt to make procedures more efficient, considering that about half of the applicants abscond soon after the lodging of the application and about 20% have their applications dismissed in Dublin procedures, meaning that many lengthy interviews regarding grounds for asylum were conducted in vain. It also enables the Migration directorate to lodge a higher number of applications on a daily basis. Nonetheless, delays in individuals being able to lodge an application are increasing each year, and this continues to be one of the bigger shortcomings of the asylum system in Slovenia. (See also: Lodging of the application).

Under the new provisions of the IPA the personal interview can be conducted immediately after the application is lodged, on the condition that the application is processed in the border procedure, or that enough information is given, while lodging the application, for a reasonable conclusion to be made that the grounds for processing the application as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded are met.[20] Notwithstanding the provisions of the IPA the Ministry conducted personal interviews with Ukrainian asylum seekers immediately after they lodged the application for international protection. Their applications were not processed as inadmissible or manifestly unfounded as they were granted subsidiary protection.

The personal interview is finished after the minutes are read to the asylum seeker and signed by everyone present during the interview. The personal interview can also be recorded using electronic audio or video recording devices. In this case the Migration directorate has to ensure that the recording is attached to the minutes that have noted that the interview was recorded.[21] In this case the asylum seeker does not have to confirm the content of the minutes.[22] Electronic audio and video recording of personal interviews is not used in practice. The IPA also allows in exceptional circumstances for the personal interview to be conducted through the modern electronic media under the condition that secure data transmission is ensured.[23] The provision is also not used in practice.

In line with the IPA the official of the Migration directorate has to conduct the personal interview in a way that enables the applicant to fully present the reasons for asylum and their personal circumstances while taking into account the personal circumstances of the applicant including their cultural background, gender, sexual orientation, identity and vulnerability.[24] The applicant can request that the interview is conducted by an official of the same gender[25] and that translation is provided by a person of the same gender.[26] The manner in which the personal interview is conducted depends on the official that conducts it. Due to the lack of female translators, translation by a person of the same gender is not often provided to female asylum seekers. In general, the Migration directorate arranges the caseload in a way that female officials conduct personal interviews with female asylum seekers.

Following the first in-merit interview, the case is referred to a “decision-maker”, who decides if another in-merit interview is needed before they take an in-merit asylum decision on the case. In some cases, this interview is omitted when the decision-maker can grant the applicant international protection on the basis of evidence at their disposal or reject the application. Before the final decision is issued, it has to be authorised by a responsible official of the sector for international protection procedures.[27]

Official statistics on the number of personal interviews is not gathered by the authorities.[28]


The IPA states that the assistance of an interpreter must be provided to a person who does not understand the official language during the lodging of the application and during the personal interview. In other justified cases the assistance of an interpreter can be approved by the competent authority.[29]

The amendments of the IPA also include the provision under which applicants and refugee counsellors are also entitled to the assistance of an interpreter during the procedure before the Administrative or Supreme Court. They are entitled to 2 hours or four translation pages per case,[30] no matter the lengthiness of the procedure. This provision was included in the amendments of the IPA as the result of a Supreme Court decision, stating that applicants are entitled to an interpreter if required for communication with their refugee counsellors in preparation of the legal remedy.[31]

According to the IPA, the interpreter is bound to respect the rules of the Code of Conduct for interpreters and translators in the international protection procedures which is adopted by the Minister of Interior. The Ministry also needs to inform the interpreters on the rules and specifics of interpreting in the international protection procedures and on their role in such procedures.[32] In 2022 UNHCR in cooperation with IOM and the Ministry of Interior also organised a training on interpretation in the asylum procedures.[33]

Lack of qualified interpreters for certain languages is a systematic problem in Slovenia. The quality of interpretation varies considerably and, in some cases, does not meet required standards. Interpreters are selected based on a public call. During the selection, interpreters are not subject to a test to determine their level of knowledge of the Slovenian language or the language they interpret. Although interpreters have to submit proof of language, education and references, the decisive factor in the public call is the price of the interpreter’s services. Those with the lowest prices are prioritised on the list of interpreters that the Migration directorate can use in the procedures. The Migration directorate does not monitor the quality of the translation. In practice, interpreters are required to operate in languages in which they are not fluent, but which are used in their countries of origin. As they cannot write in these languages, decisions on asylum are often wrongly translated by interpreters. There were also cases where the translation stated that the person does not have the right to appeal the asylum decision. The lack of proper interpretation affects the credibility assessment of asylum seekers. Systematic changes in the selection of interpreters should be made in order to provide asylum seekers with proper interpretation in the asylum procedure and protect their ability to obtain international protection in Slovenia.

The IPA states that upon the request of the asylum seeker, if possible, they can be provided with the interpreter of the same sex.[34] In practice this is often not respected due to the lack of available female interpreters.

Interpreting can be conducted through video conferencing if secure data transfer is guaranteed.[35] In practice this is used only for the interpretation of languages for which an interpreter cannot be provided in Slovenia. In 2021 translation through videoconference was used on two occasions for lodging an application, due to the obligatory quarantine of the only translator available for a certain language.[36]  In 2022 translation through videoconference was used 8 times due to the lack of available translators for certain languages in Slovenia. Translation through videoconference was used during the lodging of the application and during the personal interview.[37] The Ministry of Interior can also ask for help with the interpretation from another Member State, the institution of the European Union or other international organisation.[38] In 2022 the Ministry requested help with translation from the EUAA in 6 cases. All were carried out online.[39]

Recording and report

Minutes are taken during the lodging of the application and during personal interviews. According to the law, the interview can also be recorded with audio/video electronic devices. In this case, the competent authority needs to ensure that the recording is attached to the official record which needs to contain a note that the recording has been made.[40] In practice the audio/video recordings are not used.

The applicant’s statements are not written down verbatim; the interpreters often only summarize the applicants’ statements and the interviewer rephrases the translated answers so as to include their important elements. At the end of the application or personal interview the interpreter has to orally translate the contents of the report to the applicant, who can then add comments. When the applicant signs the minutes after lodging the application, they officially obtain the status of an applicant for international protection in Slovenia. Others who are also present at the lodging (e.g. the official of the Migration directorate, translator, legal guardian, legal representative) also have to sign the minutes. Further changes cannot be made to the official minutes at a later time.

In practice, asylum seekers often complain upon second reading that their statements were wrongly interpreted, and that their statements were not properly read to them by the interpreter, meaning that they were not aware of the content of the minutes made during the interview.



First appeal

The legal remedy available to asylum applicants is judicial review, which is initiated by filing a lawsuit against the Ministry of Interior.[41] In the proceedings that follow, the applicant for international protection acts as the plaintiff and the Ministry as the defendant. The Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia, with headquarters in Ljubljana, decides on the application for judicial review. The general rules of procedure are set out in the Administrative Dispute Act, while specific provisions particular to judicial review in international protection procedures are included in the IPA.

If the application was rejected in the regular procedure the deadline for lodging the judicial review is 15 days. The Administrative Court needs to decide on it within 30 days,[42] yet court procedures are usually much longer in practice, sometimes taking up to one year or longer. The length of the procedure mostly depends on the complexity of the case. This practice continued in 2022, similar to 2021 regardless of the pandemic.[43]

An application for judicial review against the rejection of an application in the regular procedure has automatic suspensive effect.[44] The review includes an assessment of both facts and points of law.

In practice, most asylum applicants that receive a rejection decision have difficulties filling for judicial review due to difficulties in obtaining a refugee counsellor.  In 2020 the practice of accessing refugee counsellors has changed and asylum seekers face challenges in obtaining the representation of refugee counsellors since then (see Legal assistance on appeal).

In 2022, 235 appeals were lodged at the Administrative Court regarding asylum. 45 were lodged against negative asylum decisions. In 2022 the Administrative Court made 240 decisions regarding asylum. In 187 cases the Administrative Court conducted a hearing before making the decision.[45]

In 2021, the practice of the Administrative Court changed and oral hearings became more frequent due to the decision of the Supreme Court in X Ips 22/2020,[46] in which the court noted that an oral hearing has to be conducted if the facts of the case are disputed, and that the court has to make a decision regarding the suggested evidence at the oral hearing.[47] However, the fact that the oral hearing is conducted does not necessarily mean that the applicant will be questioned. Therefore, the oral hearings in some cases last less than 20 minutes. The practice of conducting oral hearings differs between judges based on their interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision. In 2022, the Administrative Court carried out 187 oral hearings. In 53 cases, the Administrative Court made decisions without an oral hearing.[48]

Oral hearings are public. Decisions of the Administrative Court are published, with information on identity of applicants removed.[49]

In the vast majority of the cases where the Administrative Court finds faults in the first instance decision, it annuls the decision and returns the case to the first instance. When the case is returned to the first instance, the Migration directorate is obliged to issue a new decision within 30 days.[50] However, this is not respected in practice. Instead, the repeated procedure in front of the Migration directorate again takes an excessively long time, which can bring the duration of the entire asylum procedure, from the time of lodging the application to the final decision, to several years. In addition, the Migration directorate often does not respect the decision or the instructions of the Administrative Court, which can further prolong the procedure. In 2022 the Administrative Court overturned the decision of the Ministry in 6 cases and granted international protection to the applicant. In 4 cases the Administrative court granted refugee status and in 2 cases it granted subsidiary protection.[51]

Onward appeal

The amendments of the IPA again introduced the right of appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Administrative Court.[52] The Supreme Court has to decide on the appeal within 30 days of receiving the appeal.[53] The amendment applies only to those asylum seekers who lodged the application after the amendments came to force. (Applicants who lodged an application before 24 April 2016 can also appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Administrative Court, based on the provisions of the IPA that were in force before that date). In 2022 appeals to the Supreme Court were made in 48 cases.[54] In 16 cases the Supreme Court granted the appeal and returned the case back to the Administrative Court to make a new decision.[55]

Asylum seekers who lodged the application before 09 November 2021 cannot appeal against a decision of the Administrative Court but can only challenge the decision by way of extraordinary legal remedies.

Decisions of the Supreme Court are published, with identifying information of applicants removed.[56]

In both cases, applicants can appeal to the Constitutional Court. The appeal needs to be lodged within 15 calendar days of the applicant being served the decision of the Administrative Court or the Supreme Court.[57] Decisions of the Constitutional Court are published, with identifying information of applicants remove.[58]


Legal assistance

Legal assistance at first instance

Although the IPA does not provide free legal representation for applicants in the first instance procedure, this was provided by a non-governmental organisation financed by AMIF, under which most funding was provided by the European Commission and a smaller part by the Republic of Slovenia. At the end of April 2020, the AMIF program concluded. This coincided with the formation of a new government in Slovenia that decided that they will not open a new call for the AMIF project. Since then, legal advice and representation is no longer provided to all asylum seekers in Slovenia.

The NGO providing legal representation during the first instance is PIC – Legal Center for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment. PIC provides legal representation throughout the whole first instance procedure which includes representation during the application and all subsequent personal interviews, legal assistance throughout the asylum procedure, preparation of country of origin information and help with accessing refugee counsellors when judicial review needs to be lodged. In 2022 PIC represented more than 811 individuals in the asylum procedure. PIC remains the only NGO providing legal assistance to asylum applicants.

PIC has an office next to the Asylum Home in Ljubljana, the accommodation facility where the majority of applicants reside during the international protection procedure. PIC lawyers are available to asylum applicants by phone and email every working day between 8 am and 3 pm. Additionally, they also organise in person meetings and visit the Asylum Home or its branches and the Foreigners Centre.

In 2021 the Ministry of Interior published a new AMIF call for individuals, particularly refugee counsellors to provide free legal help and representation to asylum seekers during the first instance. Under the program free legal help and representation would not be provided to all asylum seekers. Vulnerable and detained asylum seekers would be provided with free legal help and representation for lodging the application while others could be provided with the services during the personal interview if they asked for representation.  Non-governmental organisations were not able to apply to the call. The call was not public but was instead sent to a limited number of refugee counsellors that were selected by the Ministry of Interior. Out of the applications 6 refugee counsellors were selected for the call based on the offered price and their references. The project lasted from April to the end of November 2022. The project implementation was very inconsistent and discriminatory against vulnerable individuals. PIC estimates that throughout the project implementation (1.4.2022 – 30.11.2022) only 135 asylum seekers were provided with free legal help and representation, more than 60% being unaccompanied minors. In the time period of the project implementation 4,282 asylum seekers lodged an application for international protection meaning that less than 3% were provided with free legal help by the AMIF project. Vulnerability assessment is not conducted before or while lodging the application therefore access to free legal aid within this pilot project was not provided to the majority of eligible individuals.

Legal assistance on appeal

Legal assistance in the appeal procedure is provided to applicants by refugee counsellors.[59] They are graduate lawyers, selected by public tender and appointed to the position by the Ministry of Justice for a term of 5 years. Before starting work, they have to pass an exam and participate at a seminar on law of international protection for a minimum duration of 10 hours.[60] In line with the new amendments of the IPA they also have to pass a security check and obtain permission to access classified information.[61]

There is no “merits test” on the basis of which the applicant can be refused legal assistance.

Applicants therefore have access free of charge to refugee counsellors who initiate judicial review on their behalf and represent them in court. In January 2023 , the list included 36 refugee counsellors.[62] A new public call was published in October 2021; the procedure of appointing new refugee counsellors was finalised by in March 2023 . The list now contains 44 refugee counsellors.[63]

The amendments of the IPA include several novelties regarding the work of refugee counsellors. According to the new provision refugee counsellors have to pass a security check and obtain permission to access classified information.[64] The provision has been heavily criticised by NGOs and lawyers as refugee counsellors are the only legal professionals in Slovenia that have to do so in order to be able to represent their clients. Since refugee counsellors are bound by confidentiality and should have access to all the relevant information pertaining the case the provision is not necessary for the function of the refugee counsellors.  Since the new refugee counsellors were appointed based on the provisions of the former IPA passing the security check and obtaining the permission was not needed at the last appointment. It is therefore not clear how the provision would be applied in practice.

One of the most notable and problematic changes of the IPA are the new grounds for dismissal of the refugee counsellor. Under the new provisions the refugee counsellor can be dismissed from their role by the Ministry of Justice if it is established that they:

  • are aware of the true identity of the asylum seeker;
  • have the identity documents of the asylum seeker;
  • are aware of the asylum seeker’s actual age, in case the asylum seeker claims they are underage; or
  • are aware of facts based on which the asylum seeker is not eligible for refugee status or subsidiary protection and does not disclose these facts to the Migration directorate.[65]

According to the Administrative Court’s case law the activities of refugee counsellors, as established by the IPA, are identical to the activities of attorneys.[66]  As refugee counsellors carry out the same activities as attorneys they share the same rights and obligations in relation to their clients; mainly this relates to the obligation to respect attorney-client privilege under which the communication between the attorney and client is protected as confidential. Violation of this obligation is considered a severe violation of the attorney’s duties. Regarding the obligation to protect attorney-client privilege, the Constitutional Court[67] notes that the duty to protect attorney-client privilege is not the privilege of the attorney but his/her obligation, together with the protection of his/her clients’ human rights as enshrined in the Slovene Constitution, mainly the protection of privacy and personal rights, protection of secrecy of letters and other media and protection of personal data. This ensures the respect of the right to judicial review and the right to appeal.

The provision that allows the refugee counsellor to be dismissed from the function is therefore in direct violation of the Slovene Constitution. NGOs have urged the Slovene Ombudsman to submit the provisions to the Constitutional Court for review, however this was not done. In addition, refugee counsellors submitted the provisions for review to the Advocate of the Principle of Equality.  The Advocate of the Principle of Equality stated in his decision that asylum seekers have the right to an effective legal remedy and judicial review and that the provision of the IPA renders that right void and null. He noted that confidentiality between the asylum seeker and the refugee counsellor is the basis for exercising the right to an official legal remedy. The Advocate of the principle of Equality also issued a recommendation to the Ministry of Interior to change the discriminatory provisions relating to lawyer-client privilege regarding asylum seekers and refugee counsellors.[68]  In February 2022 opposition parliamentarians submitted the provision to the Constitutional Court for constitutional review however the decision was not taken by the end of the year.[69]

In 2020, asylum seekers faced challenges in accessing the refugee counsellors. Until the end of April 2020 all asylum seekers were represented by PIC lawyers that helped asylum seekers in obtaining a refugee counsellor to represent them before the Administrative Court. The AMIF project that enabled PIC to represent asylum seekers was concluded at the end of April 2020. Since then, the Migration directorate serves asylum seekers the list of refugee counsellors, together with a decision, in their language by post. The list includes the instructions that they must obtain the help of the refugee counsellor themselves or contact the Migration directorate to provide one for them. In practice many individuals cannot access refugee counsellors before the deadline for the appeal. Detained asylum seekers face problems in accessing the help of refugee counsellors since many have no access to a phone. Lack of translation, wrongly translated decisions and illiteracy also prevent asylum seekers from obtaining the representation of refugee counsellors. Asylum seekers therefore either leave Slovenia without filling for the judicial review or rely heavily on social workers, PIC or other NGOs to help them find a refugee counsellor. There have also been reported cases of more than one refugee counsellor lodging an appeal at the Administrative Court against the decision of an asylum seeker.

Refugee counsellors are entitled to the assistance of a translator for the amount of 2 hours or 4 translated pages per case.[70] They are not entitled to reimbursement for extraordinary legal remedies,[71] however they are entitled to reimbursement for the appeal procedure before the Supreme Court.[72] They are still not entitled to reimbursement for representation before the Constitutional Court, the ECtHR or the CJEU.[73]

The financial compensation of the refugee counsellors is half the amount of the official attorney’s fee.[74] The remuneration and reimbursement of expenses for their work are granted by the Ministry of Interior.[75] The refugee counsellor is not entitled to financial compensation in the following instances:

  • if the applicant has left the premises of the Asylum Home or its branch (and not returned) three days before the appeal was lodged before the Administrative Court;
  • the applicant retracts the power of attorney before the legal remedy is lodged;
  • the refugee counsellor does not lodge the legal remedy in time; or
  • another refugee counsellor has already lodged the legal remedy.[76]

In practice refugee counsellors are often not reimbursed fully for their representation as the Ministry does not approve the reimbursement claims in full or in the same manner as reimbursement claims approved by the court in other proceedings. In addition, refugee counsellors can only issue a reimbursement claim after the decision in the procedure becomes final.[77] This means that in practice, refugee counsellors can issue the reimbursement claims after several months or even years due to the lengthiness of the procedures.

In accordance with the new amendments, legal remedies before the Administrative and the Supreme Courts will no longer be free for all asylum seekers. The new provisions state that the Ministry of Interior will demand reimbursement of costs, or a proportionate part of the costs, for refugee counsellors from asylum seekers with sufficient means of subsistence.[78] In order to be able to do so the Ministry of Interior will demand that the asylum seeker submits documentation regarding their financial situation (e.g. bank statements). The following revenue will count as means of subsistence: revenue from employment contracts; unemployment benefits; revenue from other forms of work contracts; pension; revenue from self-employment; annuity, rent or lease; benefits rewarded by a court decision, with the exception of maintenance.[79] In 2022 the Ministry did not enforce the provision.[80]




[1] Article 47(1)-(2) IPA.

[2] Article 47(3) IPA.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Državni zbor: Besedilo Predloga zakona o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o mednarodni zaščiti, available in Slovene at:

[5] Article 47(4) IPA.

[6] Article 47(5)-(6) IPA.

[7] Article 47(8) IPA.

[8] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, March 2022.

[9] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, March 2023.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, March 2023.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Article 46(1) IPA.

[15] Article 38(1) IPA.

[16] Article 37(2) IPA.

[17] Article 37(4) IPA.

[18] Article 46(2) IPA.

[19] Article 21(2) IPA.

[20] Article 45(5) IPA.

[21] Article 37(7) IPA.

[22] Article 37(9) IPA.

[23] Article 37(8) IPA.

[24] Article 37(1) IPA.

[25] Article 37(6) IPA.

[26] Article 6 (6) IPA.

[27] Information provided by the Migration directorate, February 2021.

[28] Information provided by the Migration directorate, March  2022.

[29] Article 6(1)-(2) IPA.

[30] Article 11(1) IPA.

[31] Supreme Court, Decision I Up 226/2017.

[32] Article 6(10)-(11) IPA.

[33] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, March 2023

[34] Article 6(6) IPA.

[35] Article 6(13) IPA.

[36] Information provided by the Migration directorate, March 2022.

[37] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, March 2023.

[38] Article 6(12) IPA.

[39] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, March 2023.

[40] Article 37(7) IPA. 

[41] Article 70(1) IPA.

[42] Articles 70(1) and 71(1) IPA

[43] Information provided by the refugee counsellors, March 2022.

[44] Article 70(3) IPA.

[45] Official statistics provided by the Administrative Court, February 2023.

[46] Supreme Court decision, X Ips 22/2020, 26. 8. 2020, available at:

[47] The decision of the Supreme Court follows the decision of the Constitution Court Up 360/16-22, 18.6.2020 and the decisions of the ECtHR,  Appl. No 32303/13, Judgment of 13 March 2018, Mirovni inštitut v. Slovenia, available at: and ECtHR, Appl. No 58512/16, Judgment of 30 June 2020, Cimperšek v. Slovenia, available at:

[48] Official statistics provided by the Administrative Court, February 2022.

[49] Decisions can be found at:

[50] Article 64(4) Administrative Dispute Act.

[51] Official statistics provided by the Administrative court, February 2023.

[52] Article 70(4) IPA.

[53] Article 71(4) IPA.

[54] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, March 2023.

[55] Official statistics provided by the Administrative Court, May 2023.

[56] Available in Slovene at:

[57] Article 72 IPA.

[58] Available in Slovene at:

[59] Article 9(1) IPA.

[60] Article 12 Rules on knowledge testing of candidates for refugee counsellors and on the training of refugee counsellors at the Judicial Training Centre.

[61] Article 9(4), intendant 7 IPA.

[62] Ministry of the Interior, Imenik svetovalcev za azil / begunce, available in Slovenian at:

[63] Ibid.

[64] Article 9(4), intendant 7 IPA.

[65] Article 9(10) intendant 6,IPA.

[66] Administrative Court decision, U 2135/2004, 14. November 2005, available in Slovene at:; Administrative Court decision, I U 1858/2015, 16. November 2016, available in Slovene at:

[67] Constitutional Court decision, Up-2530/06, 14. April 2010, available in Slovene at:; Constitutional Court decision, U I 115/14, 21. January 2016, available in Slovene at:

[68] Zagovornik načela enakosti, Ocena diskriminatornosti zakona ali drugega predpisa po 38. členu ZVARD, 10 June 2022, available at:

[69] 24.ur: Določbe zakona o tujcih in mednarodni zaščiti v ustavno presojo, 10 February 2022, available in Slovene at:

[70] Article 11(1) IPA.

[71] Article 11(4) IPA.

[72] Article 11(1) IPA.

[73] Ibid.

[74] Article 5(1) Rules on the access of applicants for international protection to refugee counsellors and on the remuneration and reimbursement of the expenses of refugee counsellors, Official Gazette of RS, No. 22/17.

[75] Article 11(1) IPA.

[76] Article 11(2) IPA.

[77] Article 11(4) IPA.

[78] Article 11(5) in relation to Article 11(1) if the IPA.

[79] Article 8(2)-(3) Rules on the access to refugee counsellors, remuneration and reimbursement of the expenses of refugee counsellors, and criteria for calculating the reimbursement of the expenses from the person with sufficient own means.

[80] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, March 2023.

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