Up-2195/06

Reference no.:
Up-2195/06
Objavljeno:
Official Gazette, No. 85/2007 and OdlUS XVI, 104 | 11.09.2007
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:2007:Up.2195.06
Abstract:
As the Ministry of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as MI) did not examine the constitutional complainants in a regular asylum procedure, it violated their right to make statements determined in Article 22 of the Constitution. Thereby it deprived them of the possibility to take a position on the facts which were essential for a decision in a regular asylum procedure, i.e. on the facts which were important for a decision whether the constitutional complainants fulfilled conditions for obtaining the status of refugees or subordinately the status for subsidiary protection. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court decided that such decision of MI was correct, also the Supreme Court violated the constitutional complainants' right to make statements determined in Article 22 of the Constitution.
 
In the legal action and in the appeal the legal representative of the constitutional complainants called attention to the poor psychological condition of the applicant and motioned that an expert witness be called. Possible psychological problems of a constitutional complainant could influence the complainant's answers upon filing an asylum application and upon his/her examination. Therefore, the Constitutional Court ascertains that the issue of the psychological health of the constitutional complainant can be relevant for a decision whether the challenged decision of MI was correct.
 
In the appellate proceedings the Supreme Court itself decided on the constitutional complainants' legal action, and therefore it was obliged to address in the reasoning of the judgement not only the allegations of MI, but also all the relevant allegations of the constitutional complainants, as well as to take a position on the legal representative's motion that an expert witness be called. However, the Supreme Court not only dismissed the allegations contained in the legal action on the psychological problems of the constitutional complainant, it also did not at all address the legal representative's motion that an expert witness be called. Thereby, it violated the constitutional complainants' right to the equal protection of rights determined in Article 22 of the Constitution.
 
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
constitutional complaint
Type of act:
individual act
Date of application:
16.11.2006
Date of decision:
11.09.2007
Type of decision adopted:
decision
Outcome of proceedings:
annulment or annulment ab initio
Document:
AN03034