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 |
| Court name: | Supreme Administrative Court |
| 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) |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Assessment of facts and circumstances
Description
The duty of the state to carry out an individual assessment of all relevant elements of the asylum application according to the provisions of Article 4 of the Qualification Directive, including considering past persecution and credibility; and the duty of the applicant to submit as soon as possible all statements and documentation necessary to substantiate the application. |
|
Non-refoulement
Description
A core principle of international Refugee Law that prohibits States from returning refugees in any manner whatsoever to countries or territories in which their lives or freedom may be threatened. Note: The principle of non-refoulement is a part of customary international law and is therefore binding on all States, whether or not they are parties to the Geneva Convention. |
|
Subsequent application
Description
Where a person who has applied for refugee status in a Member State makes further representations or a subsequent application in the same Member State. Member States may apply a specific procedure involving a preliminary examination where a decision has been taken on the previous application or where a previous application has been withdrawn or abandoned. As with all aspects of the procedures directive, the same provisions will apply to applicants for subsidiary protection where a single procedure applies to both applications for asylum and subsidiary protection. |
|
Inadmissible application
Description
Member States may consider an application for asylum as inadmissible pursuant toArticle 25 of the Asylum Procedures Directive if: “(a) another Member State has granted refugee status; (b) a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant, pursuant to Article 26; (c) a country which is not a Member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, pursuant to Article 27; (d) the applicant is allowed to remain in the Member State concerned on some other grounds and as result of this he/she has been granted a status equivalent to the rights and benefits of the refugee status by virtue of Directive 2004/83/EC; (e) the applicant is allowed to remain in the territory of the Member State concerned on some other grounds which protect him/her against refoulement pending the outcome of a procedure for the determination of status pursuant to point (d); (f) the applicant has lodged an identical application after a final decision; (g) a dependant of the applicant lodges an application, after he/she has in accordance with Article 6(3) consented to have his/her case be part of an application made on his/her behalf, and there are no facts relating to the dependant’s situation, which justify a separate application.“ |
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.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Czech Republic - Asylum Act (325/1999 Coll.) - Art 10(a) |
| Czech Republic - Asylum Act (325/1999 Coll.) - Art 25 |