You are here:

Czech Republic / The Supreme Administrative Court / 5 Azs 13/2013 - 30

O. K. v The Ministry for Homeland Security

Policy area:
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding Body:
The Supreme Administrative Court
Decision date:

Key facts of the case:

The plaintiff was confined by the police on 20.5.2013. The same day an administrative proceeding about his expatriation was commenced. On the 24.05.2013 the plaintiff stated that he requests international protection according to s.3 of the Asylum Act. The defendant then issued a decision n.OAM-97/LE-BE-PS-2013, which stated that the plaintiff is obliged to remain in the facility for confinement of foreigners in B.B. until he leaves the Czech Republic, but no longer than till 29.9.2013. On 31. 7. 2008 the plaintiff was found guilty by a decision of Prague 1 District Court and sentenced to expatriation for 5 years from the 11. 11. 2008 till the 11.11.2013.

However, the plaintiff did not follow this decision and he did not leave European Union. He travelled to Italy, France and Germany. On 19.05.2013 he returned to the without a valid visa without knowing that his expatriation sentence had not yet expired. He got confined on 20.2.2013

The Plaintiff filed a suit against the decision of confinement in the Regional Court in Prague. It did rule in favour of the defendant. The Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. The court stated in its reasoning that the District Court was right about its reasoning as for the interpretation of a term “public order” in s.46a (1) (c) of the Asylum Act. If the plaintiff endangers public order, it is possible to confine him. 

Outcome of the case:

The Supreme Court stated, that endangering the public order here means: “Threat of such a behaviour, that will constitute real, present and enough grave threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. It is also necessary to consider individual circumstances of life of every particular foreigner and consider his life situation”. The administrative court stated that the confinement according to s.46a (1) (c) is in compliance with article 5 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The appeal was rejected.