Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Sl: Supreme Court rules on the right to reception under Dublin Procedure

Input Provided By
EUAA Asylum Report
Sodna Praksa
Other Source/Information:
Referral to the CJEU
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Dublin Regulation III (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for IP); Revised Reception Conditions Directive (Directive 2013/33/EU laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection) and/or RCD 2003/9/CE;
Slovenia, Supreme Court [Vrhovno sodišče], X. v Judgement of Court of First Instance [No. 2142-496 / 2016/7 (1313-08) of 14 June 2016], I Up 10/2018 , ECLI:SI:VRS:2018:I.UP.10.2018, 04 April 2018. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
Case history
Related cases:
The Supreme Court ruled that a decision to transfer from Article 26 of the Dublin III Regulation does not constitute a "final decision" on an application for international protection within the meaning of Article 2 (b) of the Reception Directive and Article 2 (c) of the Dublin III Regulation, and consequently it can not entail the cessation of rights arising from the Reception Directive. A different interpretation may also lead to a situation which constitutes a violation of Article 1 of the European Charter. However, if the law can not be interpreted as complying with European Union law, then, in the event of a conflict between the statutory provision and the law of the European Union, in accordance with the principle of the primacy of European Union law, the law of the European Union must be applied. If it was decided that the Republic of Slovenia would not address the request for international protection due to its surrender to another Member State, the rights of the applicant can only be terminated by the actual surrender of the applicant to another State. The obligation to not apply the second paragraph of Article 78 of the ZMZ-1 in the mentioned cases applies also to all subsequent decision-making procedures of the defendant's bodies without the need for the court to adjudicate again in the administrative dispute.
Country of Decision
Court Name
SI: Supreme Court [Vrhovno sodišče]
Case Number
I Up 10/2018
Date of Decision
Country of Origin
Dublin procedure