You are here:

Slovenia / Supreme Court / X Ips 413/2012

Government of the Republic of Slovenia (Ministry of the Interior, the Police) The identity of the plaintiff is not publicly available (due to privacy concerns)

Policy area:
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding Body:
Slovenia / Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia
Type:
Decision
Decision date:
26/02/2014

Key facts of the case:

The Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije, VS RS) reviewed whether the right for respect of private and family life had been sufficiently considered when adopting the decision on the plaintiff’s removal from the Republic of Slovenia. Due to the appellate nature of the revision procedure at the Supreme Court (VS RS), almost no data on principal facts of the case are available in the explanatory part of the Order. However, the plaintiff evidently did not posses any valid identification document and no legal basis for his residence in Slovenia existed. From the Order and the subsequent judicial decision (Judgement of the Administrative Court I U 438/2014) one may deduce that the plaintiff used a forged travel document in official marriage proceedings. For this reason, he was convicted for forgery with a final judgement. As a consequence, he has been unable to obtain a residence permit and he has been issued a return decision in accordance with Art. 64 Aliens Act (Zakon o tujcih). In addition to the decision on his removal, he was prohibited from re-entering Slovenia for a period of two years. He argued that this interfered with his right to private and family life as his wife resided in Slovenia.

Outcome of the case:

In light of the lack of assessment by the Court of First Instance whether the inteference with the right to private and family life is appropriate and proportionate, the Supreme Court, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 93 of ZUS-1, granted the review and set aside the judgment under appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a new trial. The Court of First Instance will have to remedy these shortcomings in the retrial.