Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
UPRS Sklep I U 1854/2025-5 ECLI:SI:UPRS:2025:I.U.1854.2025.5 AI generated

Administrative court dismisses appeal filed after statutory deadline under International Protection Act.

Case Number UPRS Sklep I U 1854/2025-5
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The administrative court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against a decision rejecting a request for a new international protection procedure. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on November 3, 2025, well after the three-day deadline established by the International Protection Act. The court determined the appeal was time-barred because the procedural deadline expired on October 20, 2019, based on the fictional service date of October 17, 2025. Consequently, the court rejected the claim under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act for being filed untimely.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Second paragraph of Article 70 of the International Protection Act; First paragraph of Article 23 of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act: Appeals against administrative decisions under the International Protection Act must be filed within three days of service; failure to meet this preclusive deadline results in the dismissal of the appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
International Protection Act Administrative Dispute Resolution Act preclusive deadline fictional service time-barred appeal administrative review procedural dismissal

Cited Legislation

AI generated
second paragraph of Article 70 of the International Protection Act
fifth paragraph of Article 71 of the International Protection Act
first paragraph of Article 23 of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act
second paragraph of Article 36 of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act
AI generated
UPRS Sodba I U 794/2025-12
Appeal dismissed; new facts claim not accepted as it does not significantly increase protection probability.
UPRS Sodba I U 1216/2021-19
Court allows asylum seeker's request for new procedure due to new facts about father's life threat.
UPRS Sodba I U 750/2024-15
Administrative court dismisses asylum applicant's request for retrial due to lack of new facts under Article 64 of the International Protection Act.
UPRS Sodba I U 1537/2020-15
Appeal dismissed; applicant must prove new facts for asylum review, burden of proof remains on them.
UPRS Sodba I U 1162/2021-16
Appeal dismissed because asylum applicant failed to prove new facts or circumstances for international protection. The court ruled that repeating the same debt-related threat from the original application does not justify a new procedure. The applicant's claim of Taliban threats due to gambling debts was deemed insufficient and untimely. The court found no errors in the administrative decision regarding the lack of new evidence. The legal principle established is that repeated claims without new facts do not meet the threshold for reopening asylum proceedings. The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural requirements for international protection applications. The decision reinforces the need for genuine new circumstances to trigger a review of asylum status.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Tožba se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Tožba vložena po poteku zakonsko določenega roka (prekluzivnega) je prepozna in narekuje zavrženje tožbe.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Tožnik je 3. 11. 2025 vložil tožbo zoper sklep tožene stranke, s katerim je tožena stranka zavrgla njegov zahtevek za uvedbo ponovnega postopka za priznanje mednarodne zaščite.

2. Sodišče je tožbo poslalo v odgovor toženi stranki, ki je podala odgovor na tožbo ter hkrati posredovala upravni spis.

3. Tožba je prepozna.

4. V skladu z drugim odstavkom 70. člena Zakona o mednarodni zaščiti (v nadaljevanju ZMZ-1) se zoper vse sklepe, izdane na podlagi tega zakona, lahko vloži tožba na upravno sodišče v treh dneh od vročitve (drugi odstavek 70. člena ZMZ-1). Na podlagi petega odstavka 71. člena ZMZ-1 se v postopku sodnega varstva po tem zakonu uporablja zakon, ki ureja upravni spor, če s tem zakonom ni določeno drugače. ZMZ-1 posebnih določb v zvezi s tekom rokov ne vsebuje, Zakon o upravnem sporu (ZUS-1) pa roke ureja v 23. členu. Prvi odstavek 23. člena ZUS-1 med drugim določa, da rok za tožbo prične teči z vročitvijo upravnega akta stranki. Skladno z 2. točko prvega odstavka 36. člena ZUS-1 sodišče tožbo zavrže, če je ta vložena prepozno ali prezgodaj.

5. Sodišče je opravilo predhodni preizkus tožbe in s tem tudi preizkus njene pravočasnosti. Na podlagi vročilnice 1 v upravnem spisu je ugotovilo, da je bil izpodbijani sklep, s katerim je bil postopek končan, tožniku vročen s fikcijo vročitve dne 17. 10. 2025. Rok za vložitev tožbe se je tožniku iztekel v ponedeljek, 20. 10. 2019, tožnik pa je tožbo vložil 3. 11. 2025.

6. Iz navedenega izhaja, da je bila tožba vložena po poteku zakonsko določenega (prekluzivnega) roka in je torej prepozna. Sodišče jo je zato na podlagi 2. točke prvega odstavka 36. člena ZUS-1 zavrglo.

1 Iz vročilnice k izpodbijanem sklepu izhaja, da je bil tožnik o prispelem pismu obveščen 2. 10. 2025. Ker sodnega pisma v danem 15 dnevnem roku ni prevzel, mu je bilo 17. 10. 2025 sodno pisanje vročeno na podlagi fikcije vročitve.