Key facts of the case:
The respondent, Mr. H. M., a citizen of the Republic of Armenia, was found guilty in 2005 of having committed to have participated in a criminal act and sentenced to a punishment of expulsion of 10 years . In 2013, he was arrested by the police on the territory of the Czech Republic and detained. Consequently, administrative expulsion was imposed on him. Despite the imposed duty, he didn’t leave the territory of the Czech Republic and was again detained, in conformity with the Act on the Residence of Foreigners. During this detention, he filed a claim for asylum and the Interior Ministry decided he would be detained according to the Asylum Act. After the detention according to the Asylum Act had ended, the police again decided he should be detained according to the Act on the Residence of Foreigners. The legal issue at stake was the length of detention of a foreigner on whom administrative expulsion has been imposed and who filed a claim for asylum and the legal conditions of time limits for the detention of a foreigner.
Outcome of the kase:
The Municipal Court in Prague decided that the total length of detention of Mr. H.M. exceeded the maximum time limit set for detention in the Act on the Residence of Foreigners – 180 days - and abolished the decision of the police. The Regional Police Directorate appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.
In assessing the legal question posed, the Supreme Administrative Court must not set aside the fact that the detention of a foreigner (regardless of whether on the basis of the Act on the Residence of Foreigners or the Asylum Act) is an institute interfering in his/her fundamental right to personal freedom, guaranteed by a number of international and national instruments, namely Article 5, section 1, letter f) of the Convention (ECHR) (….), that is referred to by Article 52, section 3 in connection with Article 6 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, and Article 8, section 1 and 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic. (…).
Při hodnocení předložené právní otázky Nejvyšší správní soud nesmí odhlédnout od skutečnosti, že zajištění cizince (ať již na základě zákona o pobytu cizinců či zákona o azylu) je institutem, jenž zasahuje do jeho základního lidského práva na osobní svobodu, garantovaného řadou mezinárodních a vnitrostátních instrumentů, zejména čl. 5 odst. 1 písm. f) Úmluvy (….), na nějž je odkazováno i čl. 52 odst. 3 ve spojení s čl. 6 Listiny základních práv Evropské unie, a čl. 8 odst. 1 a 2 Listiny základních práv a svobod. (….)