Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Czech Republic / Supreme Administrative Court / 5 Azs 7/2016-22

Plaintiff: S. A. H.
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Administrative Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
25/02/2016

Karta praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej

Title I: Dignity

Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Title II: Freedoms

Article 19 - Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Czech Republic / Supreme Administrative Court / 5 Azs 7/2016-22

    Key facts of the case: 

    The plaintiff, a citizen of Iraq, was seized by the Police on the territory of the CR as he had no documents and no visa. The Police issued a decision on his administrative expulsion and on his administrative detention to implement the expulsion. The plaintiff filed an administrative action against the decision on administrative detention. The Municipal Court in Prague (Městský soud v Praze) found the decision of the Police lawful. Afterwards the plaintiff filed an appeal with the court of cassation.

    The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the Police and the Municipal Court in Prague did not deal with the requirement of a realistic prospect of removal, which is a necessary condition for administrative detention. In the case of the plaintiff, there is no realistic prospect of removal because he comes from Mosul in Iraq, which is currently controlled by ISIS. Consequently, the administrative expulsion would contravene the non-refoulement principle set out in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in Articles 4 and 19 of the Charter. 

    Outcome of the case: 

    The Supreme Administrative Court decided that the Police must always take into account the non-refoulement principle and examine the situation in the home country of the foreign national when making a decision about administrative detention. The decisions of the Police and the Municipal Court in Prague were annulled because they failed to take into consideration the realistic prospect of removal in the case of this plaintiff. 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    From above it was concluded that, especially if the plaintiff has not filed an application for international protection, the possible obstacles to expulsion must be examined as carefully as they would be in proceedings on international protection, because the obstacles to expulsion set out in Article 179 of the Act on Residence of Foreign Nationals correspond to the reasons for granting subsidiary protection (see also the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court No. 5 Azs 236/2015 – 34 from 17 December 2015, mentioned above). Especially if the plaintiff has not applied for international protection, this examination is the only guarantee that the non-refoulement principle (set out in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in Articles 4 and 19 of the Charter and in Article 5 of the Return Directive) will not be violated. The non-refoulement principle has an absolute character and binds states not to return a foreign national to the territory of a state where he/she is in danger of being subjected to capital punishment (execution), torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see also e.g. the decision of the European Court of Human Rights from 15 November 1996, Chahal against United Kingdom and a decision from 28 February 2008, Saadi v Italy or the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court from 14 June 2007, No.  9 Azs 23/2007 – 64, published under No. 1336/2007 Coll. of the Supreme Administrative Court), including cases when such injury is caused by indiscriminate violence prevalent in the country (see also the decision of the European Court of Human Rights from 11 January 2007, Salah Sheekh v the Netherlands or the decision from 17 July 2008, NA v the United Kingdom or the decision from 28 June 2011, Sufi and Elmi v the United Kingdom or the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union from 17 February 2009, Case No. C-465/07 Elgafaji).

     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Z uvedeného rovněž vyplývá, že obzvláště za situace, kdy stěžovatel nepodal žádost o mezinárodní ochranu, musí být možné překážky vycestování posouzeny stejně důkladně, jako by tomu bylo v řízení o mezinárodní ochraně, neboť důvody znemožňující uvedené v § 179 zákona o pobytu cizinců odpovídají důvodům pro udělení doplňkové ochrany podle § 14a zákona o azylu (srov. výše uvedený rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu ze dne 17. 12. 2015, č. j. 5 Azs 236/2015 - 34) a právě v případech, kdy stěžovatel nepodal žádost o mezinárodní ochranu, představuje takové posouzení jedinou záruku, že nedojde k porušení principu non-refoulement (zakotveného mj. v čl. 3 Úmluvy, resp. čl. 4 a 19 Listiny základních práv Evropské unie a v čl. 5 návratové směrnice), který má absolutní povahu a stanoví státům povinnost nenavrátit cizince na území státu, ve kterém mu hrozí trest smrti (poprava), mučení, nebo jiné nelidské či ponižující zacházení nebo trestání (srov. např. rozsudky velkého senátu Evropského soudu pro lidská práva ze dne 15. 11. 1996, Chahal proti Spojenému království a ze dne 28. 2. 2008, Saadi proti Itálii či rozsudek Nejvyššího správního soudu ze dne 14. 6. 2007, č. j. 9 Azs 23/2007 - 64, publikovaný pod č. 1336/2007 Sb. NSS), včetně případů, kdy je taková újma způsobena všeobecným nerozlišujícím násilím panujícím v zemi, do níž má být cizinec navrácen (srov. např. rozsudky Evropského soudu pro lidská práva ze dne 11. 1. 2007, Salah Sheekh proti Nizozemsku, ze dne 17. 7. 2008, NA proti Spojenému království a ze dne 28. 6. 2011, Sufi a Elmi proti Spojenému království, nebo rozsudek velkého senátu Soudního dvora EU ze dne 17. 2. 2009 ve věci C-465/07 Elgafaji).