Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 6 March 2013, J. J. v. Ministry of the Interior, 3 Azs 6/2011-96

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
06-03-2012
Citation:
3 Azs 6/2011-96
Additional Citation:
No. 2642/2012 Sb., SAC (Collection of Judgements of the Supreme Administrative Court)
Court Name:
Supreme Administrative Court
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Czech Republic - Asylum Act (325/1999 Coll.) - Art 25
Czech Republic - Asylum Act (325/1999 Coll.) - Art 10(a)
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Headnote: 

If a subsequent application for international protection is submitted, the administrative authority must evaluate whether the applicant has presented any new facts that, through no fault of the applicant, had not been the subject of examination in the previous proceeding. Otherwise, the application is inadmissible and the proceedings must be stopped.

Facts: 

The applicant from Nigeria filed a second application for international protection in the Czech Republic, which was found to be inadmissible by the Ministry of the Interior who stopped the proceedings. The Municipal Court revoked the decision of the Ministry since, according to the Court, the administrative body was obliged to evaluate whether conditions for granting subsidiary protection had arisen, as the non-refoulement principle derived from Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is to be examined in every case. The Court referred to older jurisprudence  of the Supreme Administrative Court no. 4 Azs 16/2010-47.

The Ministry of the Interior filed a cassation complaint on a point of law with the Supreme Administrative Court on the grounds that neither the Act on Asylum nor the Procedures Directive imposes an examination of the merits if the application is inadmissible and the proceeding are stopped. In her application, the applicant mentioned the same facts (fear of her father who wants to marry her) that had already been the subject of examination in the preceding application. Given the varying jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court, the matter was referred to extended senate.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The extended senate persisted in its conclusion that new facts, which the administrative body is obliged to examine in the proceedings, may relate either to new statements made by the applicant or that circumstances ceased to exist in the country of origin. New facts that should lead to a substantive decision may relate either to the matter of asylum or to that of subsidiary protection. In such a case the application may not be evaluated as identical to the previous one, and therefore may not be evaluated as inadmissible.

The decision on inadmissibility of an application“must always include a reasoned conclusion of the administrative body that 1) the applicant does not state any new facts or findings regarding asylum or subsidiary protection in the subsequent application for asylum or subsidiary protection, or 2) if such facts or findings are reported, then they may only be those facts and findings that could have applied in the previous application, and 3) that circumstances did not change in the country of origin to the extent they could have given rise to the validity of a new application for international protection”.

In the case in question, however, there were no new facts or findings and the administrative body was therefore entitled to stop the proceedings.

Outcome: 

The judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague was revoked.

Observations/Comments: 

Judgment 4 Azs 16/2010-47, to which the Municipal Court in Prague refers, is also available on the database.

Case Law Cited: 

Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 3 Azs 29/2010-63

Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 5 Azs 8/2010-43

Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 5 Azs 4/2010-122