ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
Slovenia - Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, 5 September 2013, I Up 309/2013
Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
05-09-2013
Citation:
I Up 309/2013
Court Name:
Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
European Union Law
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 19
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004
European Union Law > EN - Qualification Directive, Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 > Art 19
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Slovenia - Zakon o mednarodni zaščiti (ZMZ) (International Protection Act)
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Headnote:
In the procedure for extending subsidiary protection all reasons that the Applicant stated in his application for international protection are relevant and not merely the reasons on the basis of which subsidiary protection was recognised.
Facts:
The Ministry of the Internal (MI) rejected the application for extending subsidiary protection, for it considered that the reasons on the basis of which the subsidiary protection was recognised (the Applicant was a minor and the danger of the journey from Kabul to the Applicant’s home town in the Ghazni province) no longer apply.
Article 106 of the ZMZ stipulates that MI must confirm the reasons for extending subsidiary protection with the reasons given on the original application for international protection, i.e. the application that formed the basis for recognising subsidiary protection. According to the MI merely the reasons that formed the basis for recognising subsidiary protection are relevant in the extension procedure, while other reasons that the applicant might have stated in his application for international protection, but were not considered by the MI when recognising subsidiary protection, should not be taken into account.
MI concluded that the Applicant is now no longer a minor, thus the reason due to which he was recognised subsidiary protection no longer exists. MI also concluded that as an adult the Applicant is capable of organising a safe journey from Kabul to Ghazni or that he could settle in Kabul. The MI did not considered the Plaintiff’s statements as regards the consequence of rape being now even worse than at the time he handed in his application for international protection (the court of locals in the Plaintiff's village decided that the Plaintiff should not return home due to the shame he brought upon the village, if he does return he will be stoned, his family renounced him) for these were not the reasons on the basis of which subsidiary protection was recognised.
Decision & Reasoning:
According to the Supreme Court all reasons that the applicant stated in his application for international protection are relevant in the extension procedure for subsidiary protection, and not only those that were accepted as the basis for recognising subsidiary protection.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the MI and confirmed the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance.
