Asylum in Slovakia Saved Our Client from Extradition to the Russian Federation

Introduction

Our client filed a criminal complaint about corruption in the Russian Federation, which led to the conviction of dozens of Russian officials and police officers. In the end, it proved fateful for him: first his company became a target, then his family, and ultimately he himself.

In the Russian Federation, he had built a company whose sale would have made him a millionaire – in euros, not rubles. He filed the criminal complaint because a narrow circle of people was trying to seize his company, and he was defending himself against them by legal means. In the end, however, he had to leave the company behind in the Russian Federation and flee with his family, because, in retaliation by those who had been convicted, the client who had reported the criminal activity was himself charged and later indicted.

He therefore fled the Russian Federation and settled in the Slovak Republic. When he learned that the Russian Federation would seek his extradition, he came to us for help. It is no exaggeration to say that our client’s life was in our hands – based on the information we gathered, we could write a separate article about Russian prisons and the considerable number of brutal deaths that occur in them.

It took us almost two years to secure international protection for him, owing to the considerable complexity of the case caused by our client’s dual citizenship. If you are wondering how often asylum is granted in the Slovak Republic, the answer is: not very often – since 2010, the Migration Office has granted asylum to just under nine percent of applicants.

Client Profile

Our client is a citizen of the Russian Federation and also a citizen of another country outside the European Union, and he has lived most of his life in the Russian Federation. He grew up there, studied there, and later built a successful company there from the ground up. At a time when his company was growing rapidly and gaining value, it caught the attention of people who used corrupt practices to try to acquire sole ownership of it – put simply, to steal it from him.

To put an end to these attempts and stop these individuals, our client reported them to the Russian law enforcement authorities. As a result of his criminal complaint, dozens of Russian officials and police officers were subsequently convicted.

One would expect this to change our client’s situation for the better, but the opposite was true. Originally, his only enemies were the people targeting his company, but his criminal complaint significantly widened the circle of his enemies. In the end, not only his company but also our client himself became a target, and fabricated criminal prosecutions were brought against him, in the course of which members of his family were also questioned.

Over time, our client’s life became so complicated that fleeing the Russian Federation was the only way he could protect himself and his family from persecution by Russian law enforcement authorities and courts. He therefore decided to flee with his family, and they settled in the Slovak Republic. After the war in Ukraine broke out, he began to openly and publicly criticize the Russian Federation, both for failing to protect him from the attempts to seize his company and for causing the conflict in Ukraine. Eventually, in addition to the other criminal prosecutions, the Russian Federation began prosecuting him for expressing political views that oppose Russian propaganda.

Our client’s fear of extradition was eventually realized, and the Russian Federation requested his extradition for criminal prosecution; as is customary with politically motivated prosecutions, those were not included in the extradition request. However, we had anticipated extradition proceedings from the outset and were prepared for them, because we also had to plan for the scenario in which our client would not be granted asylum. We will not, however, discuss the extradition proceedings in detail in this article.

The First Round of the Asylum Proceedings

In asylum proceedings, nothing can be undone, and we conducted what has so far been our most challenging asylum proceeding accordingly. The asylum proceedings took almost two years in total, because the Migration Office’s first decision was annulled by the administrative court and the case was remanded to the Migration Office for further proceedings. The Migration Office’s second decision was favorable, and our client was granted so-called political asylum under Section 8(a) of the Asylum Act.

Our path to asylum began when our client, fearing extradition to the Russian Federation, approached our law firm for a legal consultation. At the consultation, he told us he feared that the Russian Federation would soon request his extradition and that his goal was never, under any circumstances, to have to return to the Russian Federation, because, given all the circumstances of the case, he would face at the very least torture there and very likely death. In light of the circumstances, our recommendation was clear – to apply for asylum in the Slovak Republic.

This is because the legal status not only of an asylee but also of an asylum applicant means that extradition is, under Section 501(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,[1] inadmissible – in other words, while asylum proceedings are pending, extradition is inadmissible, and this applies not only to asylees but also to asylum applicants. By initiating asylum proceedings, we therefore gained two things – first, the chance to obtain asylum for our client and thereby secure not just temporary but lasting inadmissibility of his extradition, and second, time to prepare thoroughly for extradition proceedings without an ace up our sleeve, that is, in case we were unsuccessful in the asylum proceedings.

To be honest, statistically speaking, the chances of being granted asylum are not good. Asylum proceedings very rarely end with international protection being granted. Statistics published by the Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic, which decides on granting international protection, show that from 2010 to 2026, asylum was granted to only 8.98% of applicants and subsidiary protection to only 12.63% of applicants.[2] For this reason, we put maximum effort into every asylum proceeding from the outset and never take any of them lightly.

The granting of international protection, which comprises asylum and subsidiary protection, is currently governed by the new International Protection Act,[3] which, among other things, repealed the previous Asylum Act.[4] In our case, however, the entire asylum proceedings were conducted under the Asylum Act, pursuant to the transitional provision in Section 88(1) of the International Protection Act.

During the asylum proceedings, our client attended two personal interviews – the first when he filed his declaration with the Foreign Police that he was applying for asylum or subsidiary protection in the Slovak Republic, and the second more than a month later, this time at the Migration Office. In the first interview, the police officer asked our client predetermined questions, which are publicly available; in the second interview, however, the Migration Office employee asked questions specific to his particular case, which are therefore neither known in advance nor published. It should also be noted that, as a general rule, an asylum applicant may not consult with their legal representative during the interview; the legal representative may be present at the interview, may monitor how it is conducted, and may comment on it at the end, but may not intervene in it in any way. It is therefore essential to prepare the client as well as possible in advance so that he or she has an idea of what may be decisive for the Migration Office.

The records of personal interviews are very important evidence in asylum proceedings, which is why it was crucial how our client answered the questions asked during the interviews, since later contradictions or changes in answers can, in asylum proceedings, reduce the applicant’s credibility and lead to a stricter assessment of the application under Section 19a(3) of the Asylum Act.

Apart from the interview, the Migration Office did not ask us for anything else, but over the course of the asylum proceedings we submitted several filings with supporting exhibits setting out the grounds for granting our client asylum. The Migration Office contacted us only a few days before issuing its decision, giving us the opportunity to review the asylum file and comment on the evidentiary basis for the decision – and, at our request, it even accommodatingly extended the deadline for doing so.

Reviewing the asylum file confirmed what is usually the case – the Migration Office had gathered a large amount of material for its decision. It drew information both from publicly available sources and from so-called polythematic country-of-origin reports prepared by the competent department within the Migration Office.

The polythematic reports were produced as follows: the Migration Office employee assessing our case submitted questions about our client’s countries of origin to that department, which then answered them and cited the sources on which it based its answers. The questions covered in the polythematic reports focused mainly on: (i) establishing facts that the Migration Office itself considered material to the decision; and (ii) verifying the truthfulness of the assertions and arguments we had presented to the Migration Office in the asylum proceedings.

The Migration Office’s first decision was a disappointment, as it neither granted our client asylum nor provided him with subsidiary protection. It did not surprise us, however, because we knew that our client’s case was very challenging overall and that his dual citizenship could be a major obstacle in the asylum proceedings; we were therefore well prepared for judicial review. We turned to the administrative court and filed an administrative action against the Migration Office’s decision.

Annulment of the Decision by the Administrative Court

An administrative appeal must be approached differently from filings in asylum proceedings, because entirely different facts are key for the administrative court than for the Migration Office in asylum proceedings. At the same time, we knew we had many arguments available that could be raised before the administrative court, but we had to select the core arguments worth developing in detail.

We therefore built the appeal on several core arguments, and our choice proved right, as the administrative court sided with our line of argument, which in this case we structured on a subordinative (hierarchical) principle that allowed us to lay a solid foundation for the entire argument. This means that all the supporting arguments built on one another, and the supporting arguments in turn built on the core arguments, which gave them a solid base that was difficult to challenge.

The administrative court then found that the facts of the case had not been fully and accurately established, and in particular that neither the documentary evidence we had submitted to the Migration Office (our filings and their exhibits) nor even the documentary evidence the Migration Office had obtained itself (the polythematic reports) had been sufficiently examined. The administrative court therefore annulled the Migration Office’s decision and remanded the case to the Migration Office for further proceedings.

In the further proceedings before the Migration Office, we focused on the issues the Migration Office regarded as disputed and insufficiently proven. The key one was whether our client could avail himself of international protection in his second country of origin, of which he is a citizen in addition to the Russian Federation. If he could avail himself of that country’s international protection, he should not be seeking international protection from the Slovak Republic, of which he is not a citizen.

At this stage, we were stretched to our limits, as we felt that all the essential arguments had already been made and that we had submitted everything we could to the Migration Office. In this case, however, the whole situation was complicated by our client’s dual citizenship, which was the greatest obstacle in the entire asylum proceedings.

At the same time, we knew that if we wanted to succeed, we had to come up with something new – and we did: we changed our procedural strategy and submitted evidence to the Migration Office that would be very difficult to challenge. The change in procedural strategy ultimately paid off, and we have since used it in other asylum proceedings as well.

The Change in Procedural Strategy and the Obstacles in the Asylum Proceedings

Asylum law, asylum, and subsidiary protection have so far been very rarely discussed topics. Legal articles and publications on these topics are few and far between, but we feel that, given the current situation in the world, more is starting to be written about them and asylum is becoming an increasingly well-known legal institution. Compared with other sectors or areas of law, sources of legal doctrine are therefore considerably limited. In asylum proceedings, what matters most is practical experience and knowledge of how the Migration Office actually proceeds and how it assesses applicants.

Asylum proceedings are governed by the principle of substantive truth, meaning that the Migration Office is required, under Section 32(1) of the Administrative Procedure Code,[5] to establish the actual facts of the case accurately and completely. However, one cannot rely on the Migration Office doing the legal representative’s work, that is, actively and extensively searching for evidence in favor of the asylum applicant. In asylum proceedings, the legal representative’s main task is therefore (unsurprisingly) to find and provide the Migration Office with all the information and evidence that justify, beyond reasonable doubt, granting asylum or subsidiary protection to the client.

Over the course of the asylum proceedings, we therefore submitted a large volume of documents to the Migration Office justifying the granting of international protection to our client. Of course, this does not mean that the more pages of documents a legal representative submits, the better; but if the client’s position is difficult in some respect, convincingly and credibly proving otherwise requires an above-standard amount of argument, evidence, and overall effort.

This case was particularly challenging because our client had dual citizenship, which was a significant obstacle in the asylum proceedings that had to be overcome. We would note here that the asylum proceedings we are writing about were conducted under the old Asylum Act, so, as a matter of principle, the information below should be read as referring to the former legislation. In the same breath, however, it should be added that the conditions for granting asylum or subsidiary protection under the new International Protection Act are comparable, so the information below is also relevant to proceedings for granting international protection under the new International Protection Act.

In cases where asylum applicants do not have dual citizenship, the main goal in asylum proceedings is, simply put, to prove a fear of persecution and to prove that, because of this fear, the asylum applicant is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin.

If the applicant’s goal is to obtain subsidiary protection, they must show substantial grounds for believing that, if returned to their country of origin, they would face a real risk of serious harm.

Asylum proceedings are specific, however, in that an application for asylum is not filed separately from an application for subsidiary protection; both are decided in a single proceeding. If the applicant is not granted asylum in the international protection proceedings, the Migration Office decides ex officio on granting subsidiary protection.

Dual citizenship, however, means that, in addition to the above, the asylum applicant must also prove a fear of persecution in their second country of origin. If the applicant’s second country of origin is considered a safe country of origin under Section 2(l) of the Asylum Act, the applicant should also prove that, in their case, it cannot be considered a safe country of origin or that they cannot return there, which is closely related to the fear of persecution in that country.

Our client’s dual citizenship was not the only obstacle we faced, however – another was proving that our client’s criticism of the Russian Federation was not opportunistic. After the war in Ukraine broke out, he began to openly and publicly criticize the Russian Federation, including its president, and it was necessary to prove that the purpose of this criticism was not to create grounds for being granted asylum or subsidiary protection. It was a demanding task, but we managed to deal with it in such a way that the issue ultimately lost its relevance.

In addition to proving that the conditions for granting asylum or subsidiary protection are met, an equally important task of the legal representative is to rebut everything the Migration Office has obtained that weighs against the client. On further reflection, we believe this may even be the single most important aspect of asylum proceedings. We had the impression that the most important materials for the Migration Office were the polythematic reports mentioned above, which it had obtained for the purposes of our asylum proceedings.

The polythematic reports contained mixed information – some favorable to our client, some unfavorable, and some that we assessed as neutral. We therefore had to evaluate them comprehensively and respond to them in such a way that they could not serve as grounds for refusing to grant asylum or subsidiary protection to our client.

The procedural strategy was therefore to comprehensively address all the arguments presented so far, to refute every single argument the Migration Office had presented in both the asylum proceedings and the administrative court proceedings, and, last but not least, to obtain additional evidence that is not publicly available but comes from highly credible sources, making its truthfulness and accuracy difficult to challenge. At the end of the day, this evidence proved more persuasive and credible than the evidence obtained by the Migration Office.

In the end, the change in strategy proved to be the right decision: after we submitted the additional arguments and evidence, the Migration Office acknowledged that granting asylum to our client was justified and fair, and after almost two years, it granted him asylum. We will not go into our procedural strategy in more detail, however, as it is part of our know-how.

Legal Status of an Asylee

Under Section 501(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the legal status of an asylee is one of the circumstances that render extradition inadmissible. This means that in extradition proceedings, the prosecutor will not have much work at the preliminary investigation stage, because it is indisputable that the conditions for declaring extradition admissible are not met in this case.

In addition, an asylee is treated as a foreign national who has been granted permanent residence. Since asylum is granted for an indefinite period, obtaining asylum relieved our client of the obligation to regularly renew his temporary residence in the Slovak Republic. Asylees also have access to the labor market and may therefore freely take up employment or run a business in the Slovak Republic.

In accordance with Article 34 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,[6] acquiring citizenship is also made easier for asylees – under the Act on Citizenship of the Slovak Republic,[7] asylees may apply for Slovak citizenship if they have lived in the Slovak Republic for at least four years immediately preceding the filing of their application for citizenship. An asylee may also apply for a special travel document for foreign nationals under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Travel Documents Act.[8]

Keep in mind, however, that the legal status of an asylee is not untouchable. Asylum may be withdrawn primarily when the reasons for which it was granted cease to exist, but it may also be withdrawn as a result of the asylee’s conduct after asylum has been granted. Such conduct may include, for example, communicating with public authorities of the country of origin, particularly consular posts, diplomatic missions, or embassies, which may in some cases be viewed as voluntarily re-availing oneself of the protection of the country of one’s citizenship.[9] We therefore advise the asylees we represent to discuss any such step with us in advance.

Conclusion

Because of how they unfold, litigation proceedings are often compared to chess – we make a move, the opposing party makes a move, and then it is our turn again, and sometimes the next move can make up for a previous bad one. Based on our experience, we would compare asylum proceedings – or, under the new legislation, proceedings for granting international protection – to free solo climbing without a safety rope, precisely because of the specific nature of these proceedings mentioned above.

In asylum proceedings, there is no room for correction – if you make a mistake, it is irreversible in the overwhelming majority of cases. The pressure in asylum proceedings is very palpable, and even more so when extradition proceedings are running in parallel with the asylum proceedings – in that case, many things have to be weighed at the same time.

We are always glad of every professional success, but we are happiest about the successes that significantly change our clients’ lives for the better – and being granted asylum is undoubtedly one of them. After the asylum proceedings were successfully concluded, our client told us that, after years, he finally felt relieved and was finally sleeping better.

When someone faces extradition, there is no trial run, because a single misstep can mean losing the chance to avoid extradition – our client realized this in time. If you are in the same situation, we will be glad to discuss it with you before you take your first step.

[1]      Act No. 301/2005 Coll., the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended.

[2]      Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic. Statistics. [cited September 9, 2026]. Available online at: <https://www.minv.sk/?statistiky-20>.

[3]      Act No. 69/2026 Coll. on International Protection and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended.

[4]      Act No. 480/2002 Coll. on Asylum and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended.

[5]      Act No. 71/1967 Coll. on Administrative Proceedings (Administrative Procedure Code), as amended.

[6]      Published in the Collection of Laws under No. 319/1996.

[7]      Act No. 40/1993 Coll. on Citizenship of the Slovak Republic, as amended, Section 7(2)(e).

[8]      Act No. 647/2007 Coll. on Travel Documents and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended, Section 13(1)(b).

[9]      The legal basis is set out in Section 15(2)(a) of the Asylum Act, which is underpinned by the legally binding and currently relevant Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1347 of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 14, 2024, which is also referenced in Section 36(2) of the International Protection Act.