The applicant, a national of Afghanistan, applied for international protection in Slovakia in 2024, after finishing his studies in Slovakia and not being able to extend his residence permit. He claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion and membership of a particular social group, particularly in connection to his former employment with USAID and the previous government in Afghanistan, as well as his studies abroad. By decision of 21 November 2024 (20Saz/1/2024), the Ministry of the Interior (the Ministry) refused to grant the applicant international protection. By judgment of 25 April 2025, the Administrative Court in Bratislava annulled the Ministry's decision and remitted the case for re-examination. By decision of 10 November 2025, the Ministry refused to grant international protection for the second time. The applicant again challenged that decision before the Administrative Court in Bratislava.
By judgment of 17 March 2026, the Administrative Court in Bratislava partly allowed the applicant's appeal. The court agreed with the Ministry's refusal of refugee status, holding that the applicant had not demonstrated an individual risk of persecution. In parallel, the court annulled the Ministry's refusal of subsidiary protection. The court noted that the Ministry's decision stated that, according to the country of origin information (COI), people in Afghanistan can suffer serious harm in the form of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Taliban governs the country in an unpredictable way, unaccountable to any laws or regulations. The society may be characterized as a constantly changing form of anarchy, where respect for fundamental rights cannot be consistently expected. The majority of the population under the rule of Taliban can perceive their safety to be threatened.
According to the COI, the court noted that although the Taliban had declared a general amnesty for former government employees, extrajudicial executions and other human rights violations of these persons had been documented, and observance of the amnesty remained inconsistent and ad hoc. The Ministry therefore erred in concluding that the applicant is not at risk of facing a death penalty because he had not violated any laws or Sharia, or because the areas of Kabul or Paktia would be safe.
The court also considered that the applicant's visits to Afghanistan in 2022 and 2023 should not be considered unrequired, given that the purpose was to see his children, nor do they prove that the applicant could currently travel and live in Afghanistan safely, given the time passed since the last visit and the constantly changing situation. The fact that the applicant passed through the airport in Kabul during these visits also does not mean that interaction with other officials would be safe, given that security control over the airport is, according to COI, exercised by a private company and Taliban is not visible at the airport.
Additionally, the court stated that returns to Afghanistan carried out by some EU Member States do not remove the obligation to conduct an individual assessment of the application, referring also to UNHCR calling for suspension of forced returns to Afghanistan.
Finally, the court pointed to the previous decision-making by the Ministry, generally granting subsidiary protection to Afghan applicants for being at risk of suffering serious harm in the form of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In conclusion, the Administrative Court in Bratislava annulled the refusal of subsidiary protection and ordered the Ministry to reassess the case in line with the court's binding legal opinion, based on complete and current COI, particularly concerning the Taliban's observance of its general amnesty for former government and USAID employees.