The applicant, a national of the Russian Federation, applied for international protection in Slovakia, citing a fear of military conscription and deployment to the war against Ukraine, where he might die, as well as fear of persecution in the form of imprisonment due to his online activity expressing political opinion for the opposition. When already abroad, the applicant had been contacted by unknown persons who warned him against his online activity, he received summons for military service, which he did not obey, and 10 days later a criminal investigation was opened against him for public incitement of extremist activity consisting in overthrowing the regime and discrediting the special military operation in Ukraine.

By decision of 20 March 2026, the Ministry of the Interior (the Ministry) refused to grant the applicant refugee status and granted subsidiary protection for one year. The Ministry argued that the applicant did not qualify for refugee status because military service and punishment for refusing to perform it cannot be automatically considered as persecution; it was not established that a potential punishment would be disproportionate and motivated by the applicant's political opinion, therefore not constituting persecution; and it was not established that Russian authorities were aware of the applicant's political opinion shared on social media. At the same time, subsidiary protection was granted because imprisonment for refusing to perform military service could not be ruled out and, considering the conditions in Russian prisons, the applicant may suffer serious harm. The applicant challenged the refusal to grant him a refugee status before the Administrative Court in Košice.

By judgment of 17 July 2026, the Administrative Court in Košice annulled the Ministry's refusal to grant refugee status. The court held that, while summons for military service generally do not constitute persecution, the Ministry failed to assess the nature of the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In light of the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment in 2 Sak 5/2021, the Ministry should have assessed whether the conflict was contrary to fundamental rules of human conduct, and whether the punishment for refusing military service in such conflict may constitute persecution. In this regard, the Administrative Court in Košice held that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is in fact a military action condemned by the international community as contrary to fundamental rules of human conduct, and therefore any punishment for desertion or refusal to perform military service in this conflict in itself constitutes persecution.

In conjunction with the conflict's nature, the Ministry should have also assessed the reasons (political, nationality, religion, ideological) behind Russia's military action, whether these reasons overlap with the reasons for applicant's fear of persecution, and whether due to these reasons the applicant could be disproportionately punished for refusing military service and persecuted for his online activity. Furthermore, the Ministry should have assessed whether the applicant would be forced to take part in international crimes or acts falling within the scope of the grounds for exclusion as set out in Article 12(2) of the recast Qualification Directive.

Finally, the court also held that, contrary to the Ministry's opinion, the criminal investigation opened against the applicant for his online activity showed that the authorities were aware of the applicant's political opinions published on social media.

In conclusion, the Administrative Court in Košice annulled the Ministry's refusal to grant the applicant a refugee status and ordered the Ministry to re-examine the application in alignment with the court's binding legal opinion. The Ministry shall assess the nature of the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine and, in connection to this, the relevance of the reasons for applicant's fear of persecution.