A.B., a national of Afghanistan, applied for international protection in Slovakia on 15 July 2024. He claimed that before the Taliban takeover, he had worked for 13 years in the Afghan Ministry of Education and in various international organizations, including UNESCO and American organization USAID. He studied in France and Slovakia. He alleged that the fact that he had lived and studied in Europe may expose him to persecution by the Taliban because of imputed political beliefs or membership of a particular social group. He referred to the Taliban's failure to honour its promised amnesty for former civil servants and claimed that there are no security borders in the country. Additionally, he claimed that his asylum application was his last option to legalize his stay in Slovakia.

The Ministry of the Interior (the Ministry) denied the applicant international protection on 21 November 2024. It relied on statements from the applicant during his initial interview, where he had mentioned that his doctoral studies had been cancelled by STU Bratislava due to failure to issue his educational certifications. Thus, applying for asylum was his last option to stay in Slovakia. According to the Ministry, this revealed the applicant's motivation to be granted asylum to bypass bureaucratic hurdles in renewing his residence permit. The Ministry also mentioned that the applicant had voluntarily returned to Afghanistan three times between 2022 and 2023, allegedly for holidays, and that he had not encountered any problems with the Taliban there. Finally, the Ministry noted that the applicant's brother also worked for the Ministry of Education, but that the Taliban takeover had no impact on his employment, since he continued to work for the same employer. For these reasons, the Ministry refused to grant the applicant asylum or subsidiary protection, since it considered that he had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of serious harm. The applicant challenged the decision before the Administrative Court in Bratislava.

In its reasoning, the Administrative Court emphasized that while it is the asylum seeker's responsibility to prove persecution by means of his credible testimony, the administrative authority must gather all available evidence that can refute or confirm the credibility of the statements and obtain information on the country of origin. The authorities are also obliged to conduct an interview with the applicant in a manner which would allow them to assess whether there were grounds for granting international protection.

The court found that the Ministry had conducted the interview in a superficial manner, particularly regarding the applicant's fears of persecution, his visits to Afghanistan and the status of his brother. The court held that the applicant's reasoning had been consistent and there was no doubt that he was seeking asylum primarily because of the risk of persecution associated with his previous work as a civil servant and for foreign organisations, and that the Ministry had placed undue emphasis on the fact that his residence permit was about to expire. Additionally, the court affirmed that the Ministry had not inquired on the reasons behind the applicant's visits to Afghanistan nor on the situation of his brother, but had ultimately based its denial of international protection on these facts, which it supplemented with assumptions which were not apparent from the interview or supported by the administrative file.

The court argued that the Ministry's decision lacked a thorough evaluation of the applicant's individual circumstances, such as his work for the Afghan government and for American international entities. It could not be ruled out that these facts could lead the Taliban to target the applicant upon return, due to political beliefs or other asylum-relevant grounds potentially attributed to him. The Ministry had also failed to properly analyse the situation in the country of origin, particularly the treatment of returnees, the risks faced by individuals affiliated with the former government or Western organizations and the availability of state protection in Afghanistan. The court ordered the ministry to obtain information on the claims raised by the applicant, and to assess them in light of updated country information and in the context of the EUAA Country Guidance Afghanistan (May 2024) as well as the UNHCR Guidance note on the international protection needs of people fleeing Afghanistan (February 2023). The court asserted that the fact that the applicant visited his home country could not alone constitute a reason for not investigating the grounds on which the applicants based his fears of persecution.

With regards to the refusal to grant subsidiary protection, the Ministry considered that the Taliban exercise their power inconsistently and unpredictably, resulting in a constantly changing form of anarchy that does not guarantee respect for basic human rights and causes people to fear for their personal safety. However, it concluded that the applicant faced no objective danger as he was able to voluntarily return to his home country. This position was dismissed by the court which considered that the Ministry's failure to properly assess the risk of persecution and serious harm in light of sufficient country information, based solely on unspecified visits of the applicant to his home country, was unjustified. It noted that according to this ministry, no armed conflict was taking place in Pakhtia Province or in Kabul, and that occasional security incidents did not amount to serious harm. However, in this regard, the court highlighted a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Diakite v Belgium, C-285/12,) which qualified the situation in the area where the applicant originates as an armed conflict. Furthermore, the court dismissed the ministry's reliance on the aforementioned EUAA country guidance which considers that there is no risk of an ordinary civilian to be personally affected by indiscriminate violence in Pakhtia Province on the basis that this report was not included in the administrative file.

In conclusion, the Administrative Court in Bratislava upheld the appeal, annulled the Ministry's decision and returned the case for further proceedings, instructing the administrative authorities to reassess the applicant's eligibility for asylum and subsidiary protection, considering his professional background, Western affiliations, and updated country-of-origin information.