A.B., a Russian national, applied for international protection in Slovakia on 22 August 2024 after arriving on 13 October 2023 on a Schengen visa issued by the Republic of Hungary. He claimed fear of persecution due to his political activism and affiliation with opposition movements, particularly the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), which was associated with Alexei Navalny and was considered an extremist group in Russia.

The applicant stated that he had participated in protests, distributed campaign materials and was nominated by Navalny’s team to a commission for the mayoral election in Moscow. In 2019, he was detained during a protest along with his minor son and subjected to physical mistreatment by the police. Following the incident, the police-initiated proceedings against him before a commission for the protection of minors, which were eventually closed. He was fined the equivalent of 175 euros for his participation in the protest. His subsequent complaint before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was upheld in a judgment of 25 May 2023 in which several violations of the Convention were noted (unlawful deprivation of liberty, irregularities related to detention and the right to a fair trial).

In his asylum application, he claimed that after his departure from Russia in October 2023, security agents of the FSB came to his home, questioned his wife and demanded that she sign a statement declaring that she and A.B. were not affiliated with extremist organizations. After this, his wife contacted him in Slovakia and urged him not to re-enter Russia, and to seek asylum. The applicant also stated that he was on a list of names of FBK supporters, which he downloaded from Telegram in 2018. He claimed being afraid of being killed or imprisoned for his activities in opposition groups, and that the authorities would come after his wife again.

By decision of 19 December 2024, the Ministry of the Interior (the Ministry) denied asylum and subsidiary protection. The Ministry stated that while the applicant had entered Slovakia to visit his son who was studying in the country, he changed his mind after being contacted by his wife regarding the FSB’s visit to his home and decided to apply for asylum. Thus, he claimed he was a refugee “sur place”. The Ministry concluded that his political activities were minor, and that even if he had been detained after a protest in 2019, the fine for participating did not amount to persecution. Additionally, despite this incident and the ECtHR’s finding in his favour, the applicant had decided to stay in Russia without encountering further problems. The Ministry dismissed the credibility of the statements concerning the list of FBK supporters and the wife’s testimony. The Ministry also considered highly unlikely for the applicant to encounter any issue or to be apprehended upon return since he was able to legally travel outside Russia on two occasions after the unauthorised event in 2018 and also considered that he was not of interest to the Russian authorities.

As for subsidiary protection, the Ministry held that the applicant´s own statements confirmed that no criminal proceedings had ever been brough against him, and that he had never been imprisoned. He had not engaged in any activities which could lead to the imposition of the death penalty, which had not been abolished in Russia, but was not enfrced since 1996, when a moratorium on this penalty was adopted. The Ministry also considered that the applicant was not at risk of being tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, since even if he had been subjected to police violence while in custody in one instance in 2018, this was an isolated incident which was not of a persecutory nature. Likewise, there was no international or internal armed conflict in the interior of teh Russian Republic, despite the threat of conflict near the Ukrainian border. Thus, the applicant was also denied subsidiary protection. On 24 January 2025, the applicant appealed the decision to the Administrative Court in Bratislava arguing that the Ministry failed to properly assess the credibility of his claim, his political background the risk of persecution in light of the ECtHR judgment, the evidence submitted and country-of-origin information on the situation of Navalny supporters in Russia.

The Administrative Court reiterated that, under Article 4(5) of the recast Qualification Directive, when assessing credibility , national authorities must apply the principle of the benefit of the doubt, must obtain all available evidence on the international protection claim, including to investigate country-of-origin information. The court referenced jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court according to which a thorough investigation is to be conducted by the authorities, on the applicant’s evidence and statements about alleged persecution.

It held that the Ministry’s decision was inadequately reasoned, because it relied on assumptions rather than evidence, and failed to conduct proper supplementary investigation of the facts such as the applicant’s political activities, based on his statements and those of his wife. The court considered that the Ministry did not reason why it rejected the evidence produced by the applicant and it did not organise an additional interview to clarify aspects related to the inclusion of the applicant on the FBK list. Also, the court considered that the Ministry failed to investigate facts related to the applicant’s political activities as it did not ask questions on his involvement in support activities for the Navalny’s group but simply considered the unlikelihood of being at risk of persecution.

The court also noted that the Ministry did not compare the information and evidence submitted by the applicant with country of origin information concerning the political climate in Russia and the actions of Russian authorities towards Navalny’s supporters, which documented widespread repression of Navalny supporters and the legal persecution of FBK members as extremists.  

The court considered that the Ministry insufficiently considered the  fact that the applicant was detained in Russia, heard by the police, called and heard before a committee for protection of rights of minors, with his wife, thus drawing the attention of Russian authorities, and also insufficiently considered the fact that he successfully litigated a case against the Russian authorities before the ECtHR.

Consequently, the Administrative Court upheld the appeal, annulled the Ministry’s decision and referred the case back for further proceedings. It ordered the Ministry to ensure the proper establishment of the facts in a comprehensive manner, to assess the credibility of the applicant’s story, conducting additional questioning of the applicant and his wife and son if needed. It also ordered it to consider all relevant information on Russia’s human rights situation, particularly that of Navalny and FBK supporters.