You are here:

Key facts of the case:

A Chinese national requested permission for a temporary residence in The Czech Republic. The Ministry for Homeland Security asked the applicant to eliminate inadequacies in the request – there had been two different addresses where he had claimed to live. One stated in a lease contract which was part of the request and a different address in a contract of health insurance. The other inadequacy was insufficiently proved close family relation with an EU citizen. The applicant added only an already presented statutory declaration of Mrs.Ch. L. who claimed that they live together, and, if needed, suggested to carry out an oral testimony of Mrs.Ch. L. Furthermore a few months later, the applicant added to the request another proof – a decision of another public authority(Czech Republic foreign police)n. CPR-8226-6/ČJ-2011-9CPR-C220 which was based on proven fact, that there is a close relationship between the applicant and Ch.L and that they live with each other and do raise a minor. The Ministry didn’t decide in his favor. The applicant appealed to the Commission for deciding foreigner’s issues and the appeal was turned down. The Applicant filed a suit in a first instance administrative court. The court ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. The court stated that it is in the interest of the applicant to prove the allegation and that the public authority can’t do its own investigation, for it is obliged to respect the right for a privacy and family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, by Article 10 (2) of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms(Czech constitutional act) and – when applied on situation regulated by European Union law – Article 7 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, the Ministry and the Commission did not evaluate substantial proof, which was the decision of the foreign police (mentioned above), who found in this decision that the conditions for awarding the permission for a temporary residency were fulfilled. Therefore the Supreme Administrative Court revoked decisions of the former deciding bodies and transferred it back to The Ministry for a repeated hearing.