Up-1229/06

The equal protection of rights in judicial proceedings requires that parties must be given the opportunity to state their positions on facts and circumstances which are important for a decision. In the discussed case, the administrative authority decided on the basis of the first indent of the second paragraph of Article 35 of the Asylum Act, which determines that the competent authority decide on the matter immediately and dismiss the asylum application as manifestly unfounded if the application is based on intentional deception or if the procedure is being abused, in conjunction with the fifth indent of the first paragraph of Article 36 of the Asylum Act, which determines that the procedure is deemed to be subject to deception and abuse if an application is filed with the purpose of postponing deportation. The administrative authority dismissed the asylum application in accordance with the aforementioned provisions as manifestly unfounded only on the basis of the circumstance that the complainants filed an application eight days after coming to the Republic of Slovenia from which it allegedly follows that they filed such with the purpose of postponing deportation, regardless of the fact that the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the Asylum Act do not determine a preclusive time limit for filing an asylum application as regards the date of entering the respective state. In the Act it is only determined that aliens must file an asylum application with the competent authority as soon as possible. Due to the fact that the complainants were not given the opportunity in administrative proceedings to state their positions on the facts and circumstances relevant for a decision, their right to the equal protection of rights determined in Article 22 of the Constitution was violated. As the Supreme Court did not remedy the violation, also this fact violated the complainants' right determined in Article 22 of the Constitution.