You are here

Home › Czech Republic › Subsequent application ›

EDAL case summaries

Error message

  • Notice: unserialize(): Error at offset 62 of 68 bytes in variable_initialize() (line 1202 of /var/www/web109/web/includes/bootstrap.inc).
  • Notice: unserialize(): Error at offset 2755 of 18711 bytes in variable_initialize() (line 1202 of /var/www/web109/web/includes/bootstrap.inc).

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

Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Inadmissible application, Assessment of facts and circumstances, Non-refoulement, Subsequent application

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.
Date: 06-03-2012

Czech Republic - Supreme Administrative Court, 17 September 2010, M.Y. v. Ministry of Interior, 2 Azs 14/2010-92

Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Unknown
Keywords: Inadmissible application, Non-refoulement, Personal circumstances of applicant, Relevant Facts, Subsequent application

The case concerned a subsequent application for international protection based on the right to a family and private life (Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) The application was rejected as inadmissible by the Ministry of Interior (MOI) on the basis that Art 8 considerations were deemed not applicable in asylum cases. However, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) made two important findings. Firstly it held that even if an application was considered to be inadmissible, there was an obligation to evaluate the risk of refoulement under Art 33 of 1951 Refugee...
Date: 17-09-2010

Czech Republic – Supreme Administrative Court, 23 June 2010, A.B. v. Ministry of Interior, 4 Azs 16/2010-47

Country of Decision: Czech Republic
Country of Applicant: Algeria
Keywords: Subsidiary Protection, Serious harm, Inadmissible application, Non-refoulement, Subsequent application

Even if the conditions for considering a subsequent application as inadmissible are fulfilled, the Ministry of Interior is still obliged to consider whether the applicant is in danger of serious harm upon return to his or her country of origin.
Date: 23-06-2010

Filter by case summary type

Filter by applicable legal provisions

Filter by date

Filter by country of applicant

Filter by country of decision