20.500.12556/DKUM-97932 Pregled sodne prakse upravnega sodišča s področja mednarodne zaščite diplomsko delo univerzitetnega študijskega programa Varstvoslovje Overview of administrative court judgments in the field of international protection V diplomskem delu je bila analizirana sodna praksa Upravnega sodišča Republike Slovenije na področju mednarodne zaščite. Analizirano je bilo odločanje sodišča o tožbah prosilcev za mednarodno zaščito ter ugotovljeni najpogostejši razlogi za ugoditev tožbam ter njihovo zavrnitev in zavrženje. Analiza je zajemala odločitve, ki so bile sprejete v obdobju od dne 5. 1. 2017 do dne 11. 3. 2025. Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je največ tožb zavrnjenih, in sicer 395. Sledijo tožbe, ki jim je bilo ugodeno, teh je bilo 295, najmanj pa je zavrženih tožb, in sicer 71. Med najpogostejšimi razlogi za zavrnitev tožb so bile ugotovitve, da v azilnih sistemih drugih držav članic Evropske unije niso bile izkazane sistemske pomanjkljivosti, zakonitost in sorazmernost ukrepov omejitve gibanja ter ne izkazan utemeljen strah pred preganjanjem ali tveganje za resno škodo. Pri tožbah, ki jim je bilo ugodeno, so prevladovali razlogi, povezani z neizpolnjevanjem pogojev za omejitev gibanja, nepopolno ugotovljenim dejanskim stanjem glede obstoja sistemskih pomanjkljivosti v azilnem postopku države, v katero naj bi bil prosilec predan, ter izpolnjevanjem pogojev za priznanje statusa begunca. Pri zavrženih tožbah je najpogosteje šlo za primere, ko je tožnik samovoljno zapustil azilni dom. Na podlagi analize je bilo ugotovljeno, da sodišče v večini primerov potrjuje odločitve pristojnega organa, hkrati pa pomembno prispeva k varstvu pravic prosilcev za mednarodno zaščito. This thesis analyzed the case law of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia in the field of international protection. It examined the court’s rulings on appeals filed by applicants for international protection and identified the most common grounds for granting, dismissing, and striking out such appeals. The analysis covered the period from January 5, 2017, to March 11, 2025. It was found that the majority of appeals were rejected, namely 395. This was followed by granted appeals, of which there were 295, while the fewest were declared inadmissible, namely 71. Among the most common reasons for rejecting claims were findings that no systemic deficiencies had been demonstrated in the asylum systems of other European Union member states, the legality and proportionality of measures restricting movement, and the failure to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution or a risk of serious harm. In cases where appeals were granted, the prevailing reasons were related to the failure to meet the conditions for restricting movement, an incomplete assessment of the factual situation regarding the existence of systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure of the country to which the applicant was to be transferred, and the fulfillment of the conditions for granting refugee status. In cases where appeals were dismissed, the most common scenario involved instances where the appellant had left the asylum center of their own accord. Based on the analysis, it was determined that in most cases the court upholds the decisions of the competent authority, while at the same time making a significant contribution to the protection of the rights of applicants for international protection. mednarodna zaščita upravni spor sodna praksa international protection administrative dispute case law true true false E. Jelenko Slovenski jezik Angleški jezik Diplomsko delo/naloga 2026-04-27 20:29:09 2026-07-07 11:25:47 2026-07-08 03:11:15 0000-00-00 00:00:00 2026 0 Ljubljana 2026 Ljubljana IX f., 92 str. 0000-00-00 Zaloznikova Objavljeno NiDoloceno 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 342.565.4(043.2) 283885571 UN_Jelenko_Eva_2026.pdf UN_Jelenko_Eva_2026.pdf 1 8B9C258846E33F86E14FF1DF7284496B 6b59bcf15b9085943fd4128375d4970c97a123a7e8b58e17b4ac75164e0a393d 2463d87e-4aa9-11f1-a4b2-00155d0001a1 https://dk.um.si/Dokument.php?lang=slv&id=205914 Fakulteta za varnostne vede 0 0 0