A. B. C. D., a national of Colombia, claimed that he and his wife had been extorted by an armed group in Colombia, which demanded “war tax” payments and threatened to kill their minor son. The applicant reported the incident to the police, which explained that it was common and advised to pay the extortioners. After the family relocated within Colombia, armed members of another group, the FARC, tried to forcibly recruit their son in 2024. The family fled Colombia and applied for international protection in Slovakia on 14 September 2024. The applicant cited fear for his and his family's life if returned to the country of origin.

By decision of 5 March 2025, the Ministry of the Interior (the Ministry) refused to grant the applicant international protection. By judgment of 27 June 2025 (19Saz/1/2025), the Administrative Court in Košice annulled the Ministry's decision and remitted the case for re-examination. By decision of 30 January 2026, the Ministry rejected international protection for the second time. The applicant again challenged the decision before the Administrative Court in Košice.

By judgment of 29 May 2026, the Administrative Court in Košice annulled the Ministry's decision. Regarding the refusal to grant refugee status, the court considered it illogical for the Ministry to conclude that the attempted forced recruitment concerned only the applicant's son and not the applicant himself. The court held that the applicant's and his son's asylum stories had to be assessed together, because of their parent-child relationship and because the applicant fled Colombia precisely in order to protect his son's life.

The court recalled that, under Section 2(d)(6) of the Act on Asylum, serious human rights violations of minors constitute persecution. The country of origin information (COI) collected by the Ministry confirmed that children in Colombia were subjected to various forms of abuse. Moreover, the family's previous experience of the attempted recruitment of their son added weight to the applicant's claim. The Ministry therefore failed to take into account the son's status as a minor and properly assess the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution in connection with his son's attempted recruitment.

The court reiterated the legal opinion expressed in its previous judgement, that the applicant's refusal to allow the FARC to recruit his son could lead the group to impute a political opinion to the applicant, as it could be perceived as opposition to its activities. The applicant's actual political activity or opinion was not decisive. The Ministry failed to follow this legal opinion and did not obtain COI about treatment of persons who refuse to cooperate with the FARC.

The court further noted that, in accordance with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, applicants cannot always be required to first seek internal protection in their country of origin. In those cases, the Ministry needs to assess whether internal protection would be available (1Sža/10/2014, 10Sža/17/2015). In this regard, the Administrative Court in Košice held that the Ministry had failed to properly examine whether the applicant would have access to effective internal protection, in accordance with Article 7 of the recast Qualification Directive (recast QD), in the political and security context in Colombia.

Furthermore, the court disagreed with the Ministry's reasoning that it would be illogical to grant international protection to a Colombian national because Colombia had been designated as safe country of origin at Union level. The court reminded that, as stipulated in Recital 3 of the Regulation (EU) 2026/464, designation of a country as safe country of origin cannot constitute an absolute guarantee of safety for its nationals, even for those who do not belong to a category of persons for which an exception is made when designating that country as a safe country of origin, and therefore does not dispense with the need to conduct an individual examination of the application. Also, in accordance with Recital 19, the concept of a safe country of origin may only be applied when the applicant cannot justify why this concept is not applicable to them, in the framework of an individual assessment.

Regarding the refusal to grant subsidiary protection, the Administrative Court in Košice held that the Ministry had failed to properly assess the COI when it selectively relied mostly on the number of security incidents in the area where the applicant lived and determined that there was no internal armed conflict in that area. In contrast, the court considered that internal armed conflict continued in Colombia and the Ministry failed to take into account the applicant's heightened individual risk of suffering serious harm, arising from his refusal to allow the recruitment of his son by the FARC.

In relation to this, the court referred to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), according to which a lower level of indiscriminate violence is required for granting of subsidiary protection where an applicant faces a heightened individual risk (Elgafaji, C-465/07, 17 February 2009); and assessment of a serious and individual threat to a civilian's life or person, under Article 15(c) of the recast QD, cannot be systematically based on number of civilian casualties, but needs to take into account all relevant circumstances characterising the situation in the country of origin (CF and DN, C-901/19, 10 June 2021).

Finally, the court also held that Ministry failed to justify its rejection of humanitarian protection, a national protection status, considering that the applicant had been diagnosed with anxiety, depression and panic disorder.

In conclusion, the court annulled the Ministry's decision for the second time and remitted the case for another re-examination. It ordered the Ministry to reassess, in line with the court's conclusions, the risk faced by the applicant and his son in light of the refusal of recruitment by the FARC, taking into account the son's status as a minor, and considering that their asylum stories have to be assessed together.