Judicial review of the detention order

Slovenia

Country Report: Judicial review of the detention order Last updated: 31/03/21

Author

Asylum seekers are informed orally about the reasons for their detention in a language they understand by the officials of the Ministry and by their legal representatives if they are represented.

Applicants have the right to challenge the detention order before the court. They can file the action before the Administrative Court within three days of notification of the decision. The Court has to conduct an oral hearing and take a decision in three days.[1] In 2020, out of 217 issued detention orders, 206 were challenged before the court.[2]. However, some individuals were not able to access refugee counsellors to obtain representation and thus to challenge detention orders. In 8 cases, the appeals were dismissed because they were not lodged within the 3-day time limit.[3] In 108 cases, the appeal was granted and the detention order was lifted.[4]

There is no automatic review of the lawfulness of detention. However, the President of the Administrative Court can decide that a supervision of the application of the measure in practice needs to be performed, and appoints one or more judges together with instructions on the timeframes, places or specific asylum seekers that have to be included in such supervision. If it is concluded that the reasons for detention of a certain asylum seeker no longer exist, the President of the Administrative Court can order the termination of the measure.[5] Informally collected data shows that such review was used once in 2018 at the initiative of the refugee counsellor of the applicant. Based on the new evidence presented to the Administrative Court the President of the Administrative Court issued a release order for the detained applicant.[6] Since the ruling of the Supreme Court in March 2019 affected the grounds that can be used for detention of asylum seekers, automatic review of the lawfulness of detention of asylum seekers based on the IPA was not used in 2019.[7] In accordance with informally collected information, it was used at least two times in cases of detention of foreigners in the return procedure based on the Aliens Act.

While the duration of court procedures is a problem in other types of procedures such as judicial review of rejection and Dublin decisions, the time limits set in law are generally respected in detention cases. Judicial review is effective in the sense that many detention orders are annulled by the court. However, the outcome of cases have been very unpredictable, often depending on the individual judge deciding on the case.

 

[1]           Article 84(6) IPA.

[2]           Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, January 2021.

[3]           Ibid.

[4]           Ibid.

[5]           Article 84(5) IPA.

[6]           Administrative Court, Decision I U 1010/2018-7, 7 May 2018.

[7]           Supreme Court Decision, X Ips 1/2019,13 March 2019, available in Slovenian at: https://bit.ly/2Q5VHnF.

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