Czech Republic / The Supreme Administrative Court / 5 Azs 53/2018 – 27

PLAINTIFF: J. N. S. DEFENDANT: THE GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF THE FOREIGN POLICE (ŘEDITELSTVÍ SLUŽBY CIZINECKÉ POLICIE)
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Asylum and migration
Borders and Visa
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
The Supreme Administrative Court
Typ
Opinion
Decision date
29/03/2018
  • Czech Republic / The Supreme Administrative Court / 5 Azs 53/2018 – 27

    Key facts of the case:

    The Plaintiff was issued a decision on his administrative detention for the purpose of administrative expulsion by the Police. He appealed to the Defendant who upheld the decision. Therefore, the Plaintiff challenged the decision before the Regional Court in Ostrava. The court cancelled the decision of the Defendant. The Defendant filed a cassational complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. In the meantime, the Plaintiff was released from the detention facility. The Supreme Administrative Court reasoned that, according to the newly adopted § 172, par. 6 of the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals, judicial review of the decision on administrative detention must be dismissed if a foreign national (or an asylum-seeker) is released from the detention facility. The Supreme Administrative Court noted that in 2017 he had asked the CJEU a preliminary question (C-704/17, D. H. vs. Ministry of the Interior, not decided yet) concerning the dismissal of a cassational complaint filed by a foreign national, since this provision in the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals could limiting access to the courts and to effective remedy, as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter and Article 15 of Directive 2008/115/EC (the Return Directive). However, this does not apply to the cassational complaint filed by the Police, because an administrative body does not enjoy such protection under EU law, and § 172, par. 6 of the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals applies. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    Should the Supreme Administrative court dismiss a cassational complaint filed by the Police against a decision on administrative detention, if the foreign national has already been released?

    Outcome of the case:

    This result of this case must be understood in the context of the newly adopted § 172, par. 6 of the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals, which forbids judicial review of a decision on administrative detention once the detained foreign nationa has been released. The original intent of this legislation was to ease the burden on the administrative courts, because the judicial review of decisions on administrative detention constitutes a heavy burden on the courts and must be done within 7 days. However the new legislation basically makes it impossible for an already released foreigner to get a judgment certifying unlawfulness of the decision on administrative detention and possibly demand compensation. The Supreme Administrative Court recently confirmed that § 172, par. 6 of the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals does not apply before the court of first instance, because the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by the Return Directive and the Charter has a direct effect. However there is no direct right to an appeal (cassational complaint). Until the preliminary question is answered, courts do review decisions on the administrative detention of foreign nationals already released or wait to perform a review until the CJEU has answered. But when a cassational complaint is filed by the Police and the foreign national has already been released, there is no reason not to apply § 172, par. 6, of the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals, since there is no breach of the right guaranteed by EU law. Therefore, in such cases the Supreme Administrative Court will dismiss the cassational complaint filed by the Police.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    [16] By contrast, the 10th Senate of the Supreme Administrative Court, with respect to a case where  a cassation complaint against a decision on the administrative detention of an asylum-seeker should have been dismissed according to the similar Article 46a, par. 9, of Act No. 325/1999 Coll. (the Asylum Act), contacted the CJEU based on a decision from 23 November 2017, No, 10 Azs 252/2017-43, with the following preliminary question: ‘Does the interpretation of Article 9 of the Reception Conditions Directive together with Article 6 and Article 47 of the Charter  domestic legislation that forbids the Supreme Administrative Court from reviewing a judgment of a lower court on administrative detention after the foreigner has been released from the detention facility?” The proceeding in question is listed by the CJEU under C-704/17, D. H. vs. Ministry of the Interior.

    [19] In this case the Supreme Administrative Court did not come to the conclusion that dismissing the proceedings on a cassational complaint could negatively affect the rights of a formerly detained foreign national, namely his right to judicial protection, because any decision on merits made by the Supreme Administrative Court could not make the position of the foreign national any better – only worse, if the cassational complaint were successful.

    [21] A foreign national´s right to effective judicial protection granted under Article 15 of the Return Directive cannot represent an obstacle to the application of § 172 par. 6 of the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals if the foreign national was already granted judicial protection in a judgment of a lower court that had cancelled the decision of the Police. The proceedings on the cassational complaint could not make the foreign national’s position any better.

    [22] Therefore the Supreme Administrative Court did not see any reason why not to apply § 172 par. 6 of the Act on the Residence of Foreign Nationals, especially when this provision does not differentiate whether the cassational complaint was filed by a foreign national or by an administrative body.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    [16] Oproti tomu desátý senát Nejvyššího správního soudu pro případ, kdy mělo být podle obdobného ustanovení § 46a odst. 9 zákona č. 325/1999 Sb., o azylu, v účinném znění (dále jen „zákon o azylu“), zastaveno až řízení o kasační stížnosti ve věci zajištění žadatele o mezinárodní ochranu, usnesením ze dne 23. 11. 2017, č. j. 10 Azs 252/2017 - 43, řízení přerušil a obrátil se na Soudní dvůr Evropské unie s následující předběžnou otázkou: „Brání výklad čl. 9 směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady 2013/33/EU (Úř. věst. L 180, 29. 6. 2013, s. 96) ve spojení s čl. 6 a 47 Listiny základních práv Evropské unie takové vnitrostátní právní úpravě, která znemožňuje Nejvyššímu správnímu soudu přezkoumat soudní rozhodnutí ve věcech zajištění cizince poté, co je cizinec ze zajištění propuštěn?“ Uvedené řízení o předběžné otázce je Soudním dvorem vedeno pod označením C-704/17, D. H. proti Ministerstvu vnitra.

    [19] Za této situace Nejvyšší správní soud neshledal, že by se zastavení řízení o kasační stížnosti žalovaného mohlo jakkoli negativně dotknout práv původně zajištěného cizince, a to zejména jeho práva na účinnou soudní ochranu, neboť ani v případě meritorního rozhodnutí o kasační stížnosti žalovaného by výrok takového rozhodnutí Nejvyššího správního soudu nemohl postavení žalobce jakkoli zlepšit, pouze, v případě vyhovění kasační stížnosti žalovaného, jeho postavení zhoršit.

    [21] Právo na účinnou soudní ochranu cizince, mající svůj odraz v čl. 15 návratové směrnice, tak nemůže být překážkou aplikace § 172 odst. 6 zákona o pobytu cizinců za situace, kdy účinná soudní ochrana již byla žalobci poskytnuta pravomocným rozsudkem krajského soudu, který vyhověl jeho žalobě proti rozhodnutí žalovaného o nepropuštění ze zařízení, a tedy řízení o kasační stížnosti žalovaného by již nemohlo postavení žalobce zlepšit.

    [22] Nejvyšší správní soud proto neshledal žádný důvod, proč by § 172 odst. 6 zákona o pobytu cizinců neměl být v dané věci aplikován, obzvláště za situace, kdy citované ustanovení výslovně dopadá i na rozhodnutí o nepropuštění ze zařízení a zároveň nijak nerozlišuje, zda kasační stížnost byla podána žalobcem či žalovaným správním orgánem.