A. B., a national of the Russian Federation, lived in Ukraine for 35 years. In 2022, he was questioned twice by the Ukrainian police about his potential political views and contacts with other Russians. The applicant left Ukraine in 2024 and applied for international protection in Slovakia as an applicant sur place, based on the developments that took place in Russia since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. A. B. claimed that he could not return to Russia, as he would be at risk of persecution due to his political opinion critical of the Russian government and because he had lived for a long time in Ukraine, where his son also fights for the Ukrainian army. Since 2022, the applicant shared pro-Ukrainian and anti-war material on social media, and after applying for international protection he published further critical posts concerning the Russian authorities.

By decision of 14 April 2025, the Ministry of the Interior (the Ministry) refused to grant the applicant international protection. By judgment of 20 August 2025, the Administrative Court in Bratislava annulled the decision and remitted the case for re-examination. By decision of 11 March 2026, the Ministry refused to grant international protection for the second time. The applicant again challenged the decision before the Administrative Court in Bratislava.

By judgment of 30 June 2026, the Administrative Court in Bratislava annulled the Ministry's refusal to grant international protection and remitted the case for another re-examination. The court found that even through the application was made in connection to the developments that took place in Russia since 2022, the Ministry had relied on events before 2022 to reject the application – including that the applicant renewed his passport in 2018 and travelled to Russia in 2021 – and failed to address how the post-2022 developments in Russia may impact his risk of persecution.

The Ministry had further failed to examine the submitted country of origin information (COI) about repression of Russian returnees, according to which authorities at times inspect their personal electronic devices during border controls, as well as investigate their connections with Ukraine. The court asserted that the applicant would likely be inspected and interrogated upon his return, which could lead to the discovery of the critical online activity. The Ministry had therefore wrongly assessed the applicant's online activity as low-profile and low-risk. The court also noted that Russian authorities persecute not only famous activists, but also regular citizens with limited social media outreach.

The court further considered the Ministry's advice to delete the critical posts to be unacceptable and contrary to the applicant's right to freedom of expression. Moreover, the deletion would not ensure that the online activity could not be recovered otherwise, highlighting the difficulty to definitively erase any online content. Finally, the Ministry erred in considering that the applicant's recent critical online activity was abusive only because it took place after he applied for international protection. The court stated that an application for international protection does not preclude applicants from expressing their political opinions, or from expressing them more actively.

In conclusion, the Administrative Court in Bratislava annulled the Ministry's decision and ordered the Ministry to again reassess the application in line with its legally binding opinion, apply the reasonable likelihood standard, and evaluate the applicant's fear of persecution prospectively and comprehensively, considering his individual circumstances, especially his links to Ukraine and the online activity.