The IPA requires foreigners re-applying for international protection in the Republic of Slovenia to undergo a subsequent application procedure in the cases where:
- Their previous asylum application was finally rejected;
- Their previous asylum application was explicitly withdrawn or
- Their previous asylum application was implicitly withdrawn and more than nine months have passed; or;
- Their procedure for extending the subsidiary protection was stopped;
- Their request for extending subsidiary protection status has been finally rejected;
- The beneficiary has not applied for extension of subsidiary protection in time.
A person returned to Slovenia under the Dublin Regulation whose procedure was stopped due to implicit withdrawal of their asylum application, i.e. absconding, has the right to lodge a new asylum application which is not examined as a request for subsequent application. However, if the procedure was finally concluded in their absence, they have to undergo the subsequent application procedure (see Dublin).
New evidence or facts have to arise either after the issuance of the prior decision or existing at the time of the first procedure but not presented by the applicant for justified reasons in order for the new asylum application to be allowed. The lodging of a new application is also allowed if it is proven that explicit withdrawal of the previous application was made under threat or compulsion.
An applicant cannot be removed from the country until their request for subsequent application is finally processed.
The responsible authority in the subsequent application procedure is the Migration Directorate of the Ministry of Interior. If it establishes that the aforementioned conditions are met, it allows the person to lodge a new asylum application. If the conditions are not met, it dismisses the request for the subsequent application as inadmissible.
The procedure for lodging a subsequent application is not defined in law. However, in practice this is done orally through an interview which is conducted in the same way as in the regular procedure. This includes assistance of legal guardians in case of unaccompanied children and possible representation by PIC.
If a person submits a request for a subsequent application after their previous request for a subsequent application has already been dismissed or a first new application has been rejected, the request for the subsequent application is dismissed.
The dismissal of a first request for a subsequent application can be challenged by judicial review before the Administrative Court, which is the same legal remedy as in the regular procedure. The time limit for lodging the application for judicial review was shortened from 8 to 3 calendar days. An application for judicial review has suspensive effect. The procedure is the same as that described under Admissibility Procedure. Free legal assistance by refugee counsellors is guaranteed by law, as in all other cases of judicial review under the IPA. In case judicial review is filed against the decision to dismiss the second or third subsequent application, the application for judicial review does not have automatic suspensive effect.
In 2021, 34 individuals lodged the first request for a subsequent application and 9 persons lodged their second or third request for a subsequent application. Only 1 requests for a subsequent application was granted and, therefore, 1 applicant was able to lodge a subsequent application:
|Subsequent applicants: 2021|
|Country of origin||Number of applicants|
Source: Migration Directorate.
By the end of the year, 3 requests for a subsequent application and the subsequent application remained pending.
 Article 64(1) IPA.
 Article 65(6) IPA.
 Article 64(3) IPA.
 Article 64(2) IPA.
 Article 36(1) IPA.
 Article 65(4) IPA.
 Article 65(5) IPA.
 Article 70(2)-(3) IPA.
 Article 70(3) and 65(5) IPA.
 Official statistics provided by the Migration Directorate, March 2022.