Article 6 - Right to liberty and security
Article 52 - Scope and interpretation
The petitioner submitted a proposal for a constitutional review of Article 54 (1) of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. The petitioner states that the disputed article is contrary to Article 22 (2) of the Constitution which stipulates that "no one shall be deprived of their liberty nor their liberty may be restricted, save in so far as provided by law and as decided by a court of law". In the same vein, the petitioner considers that the restriction of freedom of movement to a foreign national, including accommodation of applicants for international protection, should not be decided on by an executive body, namely the Ministry of the Interior, but only by the court of law. The Constitutional Court considers that the relevant legal norms applicable in this case are Article 22 of the Constitution, Article 5 of the ECHR and Article 6 and 52 of the Charter.
“The Constitutional Court concludes that EU Member States can independently decide on the entry, stay and expulsion of foreign nationals. However, not only the provisions of the Constitution must be respected when standardising and deciding on measures that may restrict the movement of applicants for international protection and foreign nationals in transfer, but also other EU documents which themselves stipulate that decisions on the restriction of movement can be made by administrative or judicial bodies. However, in order to protect the right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution, the Convention and the Charter it is important that the restriction of liberty only takes place based on exhaustively listed grounds prescribed by law.” “The Constitutional Court emphasizes that, according to the general principle of interpretation, the provisions of legal regulations must, as far as possible, be interpreted in such a way as not to bring prejudice to their validity and compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or, in areas of EU regulatory competence, also with the provisions of the Charter.” “However, in accordance with Article 52 (1) of the Charter and Article 16 of the Constitution, any restriction to the exercise of recognized rights and freedoms must be provided by law and must not undermine the essence of those rights. Subject to the principle of proportionality, restrictions are possible only if they are necessary and if they actually correspond to the objectives of general interest recognized by the constitutional order of the Republic of Croatia or the EU or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.”
“Ustavni sud zaključuje da države članice EU-a mogu samostalno odlučiti o pitanjima ulaska, boravka i protjerivanja stranaca, međutim, pri normiranju te odlučivanju o primjeni mjera kojima se može ograničiti kretanje tražitelja međunarodne zaštite i stranaca u transferu moraju se poštovati ne samo odredbe Ustava, već i ostali dokumenti EU-a, koji i sami propisuju da odluke o ograničenju kretanja može donijeti upravno ili sudsko tijelo. Međutim, ono što je važno da bi se zaštitilo pravo na slobodu zajamčeno Ustavom, Konvencijom i Poveljom potrebno je da do ograničenja slobode može doći samo na temelju taksativno navedenih razloga određenih u zakonu.”
“Ustavni sud naglašava da prema općem načelu tumačenja, odredbe pravnih propisa moraju se, u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri, tumačiti tako da se ne dovede u pitanje njihova valjanost i sukladnost s odredbama Ustava odnosno u područjima koja su u regulatornoj nadležnosti EU-a, također i s odredbama Povelje. “ “Međutim, u skladu s člankom 52. stavkom 1. Povelje i člankom 16. Ustava, svako ograničenje pri ostvarivanju njima priznatih prava i sloboda mora biti predviđeno zakonom, i ne smije ugroziti bit tih prava. Podložno načelu razmjernosti, ograničenja su moguća samo ako su potrebna i ako zaista odgovaraju ciljevima od općeg interesa koje priznaje ustavni poredak Republike Hrvatske odnosno EU ili potrebi zaštite prava i sloboda drugih osoba.”