Slovakia - M.A. N. v Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic, 29 May 2013, 4Saz/2/2013

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
29-05-2013
Citation:
4Saz/2/2013
Court Name:
Regional Court in Kosice
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Slovakia - Zákon 480/2002 Zb. o azyle a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (Act No 480/2002 on asylum and amending certain other acts) - § 13(a)
Slovakia - Zákon 480/2002 Zb. o azyle a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (Act No 480/2002 on asylum and amending certain other acts) - § 2(f)(3)
Slovakia - Zákon č. 71/1967 Zb. o správnom konaní (Act No 71/1967 Coll. on administrative procedure) - Section 3(4)
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Facts: 

The Applicant, who had been granted subsidiary protection and whose country of origin was the Somali Republic, Mogadishu, requested an extension of subsidiary protection in the territory of the Slovak Republic (note: in the territory of the Slovak Republic, subsidiary protection is provided for a period of one year, with the possibility of extension).

The Migration Office, in a decision of 24 January.2013, refused to extend the Applicant’s subsidiary protection on the grounds that the current situation in the Applicant’s country of origin was identified as stable or improving. It added that the forces of Al Shabab had been forced out of the city of Mogadishu by government troops and that the internal conflict was no longer on-going in the territory of the capital city. The administrative authority argued that internally displaced persons were returning from the Afgoye corridor to the city of Mogadishu, the number of inhabitants in Mogadishu was increasing, the security situation in the city and the provision of humanitarian aid had improved, there were presidential and parliamentary elections, and international NGOs and diplomatic missions had returned. The administrative authority also stated that the occurrence of asymmetrical militant incidents in the city did not amount to a situation of serious and individual risk to life or the inviolability of the person due to indiscriminate violence during an internal armed conflict.

The Applicant filed an appeal against the decision with the Regional Court in Kosice, arguing that the administrative authority had included in the administrative file only one-sided, positive and insufficient information from the country of origin. Also, at the time when the decision was issued, many reports were available from various sources confirming the use of attacks, bombardments and guerrilla tactics by the Al Shabab group in Mogadishu. In support of his claims, the Applicant also appended a statement made by the IOM Slovensko organisation on 22 january .2013, declaring that it was not currently carrying out assisted voluntary returns to south and central Somalia due to the security situation. The Applicant stated as a second ground of his appeal that the administrative authority, shortly before issuing its decision, provided subsidiary protection on grounds of risk of serious harm to applicants coming from Afgoye, which is 25 km from the city of Mogadishu.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The Regional Court in Kosice reversed the decision of the Migration Office on the grounds that it considered the administrative authority’s conclusions to be deficient, since the statement of reasons lacked clear, concise and in particular up-to-date conclusions on the security situation. The nature of the appended reports was also clearly wrong, as these were reports of a mainly political and economic nature. The duty of the administrative authority in further proceedings was to supplement the evidence with up-to-date reports on the current security situation and also to address the statement of the IOM organisation on the non-implementation of voluntary returns to this area.

The Court did not uphold the second ground of appeal. The fact that the administrative authority provided applicants in other cases with a certain form of international protection is not of itself a reason to question the legality of a decision made by the administrative authority, nor can it be concluded from this that the administrative authority had failed to respect the principle of predictability of administrative authority decisions, as enshrined in Section 3(4) of Act No 71/1967 on administrative proceedings.

Outcome: 

Appeal upheld

The Regional Court in Kosice set aside the decision of the Migration Office and referred the case back to the Office.