Slovakia - Migration Office, 27 April 2010, M. v Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic, 1Sža/36/2010

Facts:

The decision of the Migration Office was delivered to the Appellant and an interpretation provided on 18.8.2009. It was clear from the Appellant‘s statement of 18.8.2009 that the Appellant understood the contents thereof. The Appellant lodged an appeal with the Regional Court in Košice against the decision of the Migration Office on 18.9.2009.

The Regional Court rejected the appeal on the grounds that it had been lodged out of time.

The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision, seeking to have it set aside and referred back on the grounds that he was a Pakistani national and did not speak the Slovak language. According to the Appellant, guidance on appeal provided in a language not understood by the Appellant does not constitute proper guidance, and therefore he was free to lodge an appeal against the contested decision of the Respondent within six months of service. According to the Appellant, if the Respondent acted in its mother tongue, then he should be able to do so as well. If the Appellant, in order to successfully lodge an appeal, had to find someone who would again help him to translate the decision in order to exercise his rights, equality between participants is substantially impeded.

Decision & reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the Appellant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Regional Court, in which the appeal was turned down.

It follows from the Respondent’s administrative file that the Appellant received the Respondent’s decision on 18.8.2009 and it was interpreted to him from Slovak into Urdu by an interpreter. It is clear from the Appellant’s statement of 18.8.2009 on receipt of the decision that he understood the contents thereof, as is borne out by the receipt date and signature of the Appellant, as well as the delivery slip with the same date. The 30-day period for lodging an appeal started from 19.8.2009 and the final day of the period was 17.9.2009. The Appellant submitted an appeal for postal delivery on 18.9.2009 and was thus clearly out of time. As the Appellant did not claim that, in the interpretation of the decision, he had not been informed about the possibility of lodging an appeal, the appeal court concluded that he had been properly informed, in a language which he understood. The Appellant’s right to a procedure in language he understood had not been violated by the Respondent, and the fact that the Respondent delivered the decision to the Appellant in the Slovak language did not amount to a curtailment of the Appellant’s rights.

It does not follow from any of the provisions of the Asylum Act or the Administrative Procedure Code that the Respondent must deliver a decision to an asylum applicant in his or her mother tongue or a language that he or she understands.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Regional Court in Košice, ref. no. 5Saz/65/2009-17, of 2 November 2009.