Slovakia - Regional Court in Bratislava, 20 March 2012, A. A. v Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic, 9Saz/47/2011
| Country of Decision: | Slovakia |
| Country of applicant: | Afghanistan |
| Court name: | Regional court in Bratislava |
| Date of decision: | 20-03-2012 |
| Citation: | 9Saz/47/2011 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Revocation of protection status
Description
In the EU context, the decision by a competent authority to revoke, end or refuse to renew the protection status of a person including inter alia: in relation to refugee status cessation in accordance with the Geneva Convention; misrepresentation or omission of facts, including the use of false documents, which were decisive for the granting of refugee status; or if they have been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, which constitutes a danger to the community of a Member State; in relation to subsidiary protection status cessation in accordance with QD Art. 16, exclusion per Art.17 or on any of the grounds set out in Art. 19 |
|
Cessation of protection
Description
Pertaining to thecircumstances in which a person may no longer be considered to be a refugee or to be eligible for subsidiary protection. |
Headnote:
The Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic may not revoke subsidiary protection in a procedure on extension of subsidiary protection initiated under Section 20(3) of the Asylum Act on the basis of an application to extend protection.
Under Section 20(3) of the Asylum Act, the procedure may result only in a decision to extend or not to extend protection.
Facts:
The applicant requested an extension of subsidiary protection under Section 20(3) of the Asylum Act. The Migration Office then initiated a procedure on the extension of subsidiary protection and, after examining the application, issued a decision revoking the applicant’s subsidiary protection.
The applicant appealed against the decision, seeking to have the decision set aside.
Decision & reasoning:
The Regional court in Bratislava set aside the decision of the Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic under Section 25Oj(2)(e) of the Civil Court Procedure and referred the case back to the Migration Office.
Under the Asylum Act, an asylum procedure may be a procedure to grant asylum, a procedure to withdraw asylum, a procedure to extend subsidiary protection or a procedure to revoke subsidiary protection.
The applicant requested an extension of subsidiary protection under Section 20(3) of the Asylum Act. On the basis of his application, a procedure on the extension of subsidiary protection was initiated. Under the Asylum Act, a foreigner who requests an extension of subsidiary protection is a party to the procedure.
The party to a procedure on the revocation of protection is the foreigner in respect of whom the revocation procedure is initiated. The procedure may be initiated at the request of the party or at the instance of the administrative authority.
It is a fact that the applicant asked the Migration Office for an extension of protection, and this initiated a procedure on extension of the protection provided to the applicant. The outcome of such a procedure can only be a decision to extend or not to extend the protection. It follows from the operative part of the Migration Office’s decision that the Migration Office failed to issue either of these types of decision – it did decide, however, to revoke the subsidiary protection, and thus failed to decide on the subject of the procedure. This led to a defect which affected the legality of the contested decision.
The procedure for revocation of protection status is a separate asylum procedure, which, under the generally binding regulations on administrative procedures, may be initiated either at the request of the party or at the instance of the administrative authority. Such a procedure was not, however, initiated. If an administrative authority, in the case of an application for extension of protection, decides instead to revoke that protection without even initiating a procedure on the revocation of protection status, its decision cannot therefore be lawful.
Outcome:
The decision was set aside and the case was referred back to the Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic.
Subsequent proceedings:
Procedure before the Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic on the extension of protection.