9/2010 Sb.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court decided on 1 May 2004. December 2009 in Parliament consisting of the President of the
Pavel Rychetský Court and judges Stanislav ass-bag, of Franz Duchoně,
Vlasta Formánkové, Vojena Güttlera, Paul Holländera, Ivana Janů,
Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecké, Jan Nykodýma, Jiří Musil,
Miloslava Excellent, Wagnerové and Michaela Židlické Of the proposal
The Supreme Administrative Court to revoke the provisions of § 32 paragraph. 2 (a). and)
Act No. 325/1999 Coll., on asylum and on the amendment of Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the
The police of the Czech Republic, as amended (the law on asylum)
as amended, with the participation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament
The CZECH REPUBLIC and the Senate of the Czech Parliament as parties to proceedings
as follows:
The provisions of § 32 paragraph. 2 (a). and Act No. 325)/1999 Coll., on asylum and on the
Amendment of the Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the police of the Czech Republic, as amended by
amended (asylum Act), as amended,
repealed on the date of publication of the finding in the journal of laws.
Justification:
(I).
The definition of things, the arguments of the appellant's
1. On 1 May 2004. July 2009, the Constitutional Court received the proposal to repeal section
Act No. 325/1999 Coll., on asylum and on the amendment of Act No. 283/1991 Coll., on the
The police of the Czech Republic, as amended, (asylum Act),
as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "law on asylum"), and more specifically
§ 32 paragraph. 2 (a). zakotvujícího 7-day period) for submission to the administrative
action against the decision of the Ministry of the Interior on the application for the grant of
international protection for those cases where the application is rejected as
manifestly unreasonable.
2. the applicant stated that under the brand 1 Azs 72/2008
proceedings on the complaint of the Ukrainian national
action against the resolution of the regional court in Prague, which was rejected
his action against the decision of the Ministry of the Interior of the rejection of the application for
the granting of international protection as obviously unreasonable. The decision of the
the Department of Cassation delivered was the complainant the day 3. 3.2008. On 5 July 2004.
3.2008, attacked the action in which, inter alia, stated that it is not able to
properly construct itself, and therefore calls for the appointment of a representative for the Court
the proceedings, which would be its filing said. The District Court upheld and resolution
from day 1. 4.2008 the complainant instituted the representative; both then called to
within 5 days from the receipt of the request the action properly added, and instructed them
about the consequences of failure to meet the challenges. This resolution was a representative of the complainant
delivered 3 June. 4.2008. Day 10. 4.2008 the action was completed. On 23 December 2005.
4. the 2008 Regional Court refused, saying that the five-day period provided for
elapsed day 8. 4.2008. In a subsequent complaint the complainant
argued that the challenge was to reach his representative mentioned on Thursday
day 3. 4.2008, ended a five-day period in the Tuesday 8. 4.2008. Due to the
It provided for the Deputy during so short a time
the complainant personally meet and know the contents of the file, the Court
the time limit for completion of action to fulfil.
3. Because the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that section 32, paragraph. 2 (a).
and you cannot interpret constitutionally) conformally to the complainant was not reduced in the
the right to judicial protection, he turned to the Constitutional Court with a proposal for its
the cancellation.
4. Although the law on asylum does not contain the competency of exclusion, which would
judicial review of the decision rejecting the application for the award of the international
protection for the obvious nedůvodnost better, is referred to the provisions of the
due to the very short time limit for submission of claims under the Supreme Administrative
the Court of judicial protection of the applicants failed, inoperative. The basic law
guaranteed by article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter also
"the Charter") is then given to only iluzorně. The time limit itself to
as constitutionally may not appear to be a nonconformist, but its constitutionality is
should be considered in the process of its application, in the context of the standards
follow-up, as well as the social context in which it is set.
5. The Supreme Administrative Court points out that the administrative justice system, in which
mode of judicial review applications for the grant of international protection takes place,
controls the policy of the layout and the principle of concentration control. Among other things,
means that the action has not yet extended to nenapadené statements or decisions
It extended to other points of the plaintiff can only claim within the time limit for the submission of
Action (section 71, paragraph 2 of the administrative judicial procedure). Its a default judgment cannot be
waived (article 72, paragraph 4, of the judicial code of Administration). The existence of this
strictly pojímané the concentration of proceedings is in the administrative judiciary
the two-month period to offset a general action against
decision of the administrative authority. The plaintiff also regularly passed
dvouinstančním administrative procedures and disputes the decision of the Board of appeal
administrative authority. The law on asylum, however, drawn into this system
extends the special treatment that creates the jednoinstanční administrative procedure
concerning applications for international protection and provides significantly shorter time limits to
bringing actions against the decisions in these matters. The combination of this
short deadlines and the General rules of administrative justice leads in the final
effect of the restriction of the right to judicial protection.
6. The Supreme Administrative Court also points out the position in which
most of the applicants is located. As a general rule, a person without the knowledge, or with just a
minimal knowledge of the Czech language and Czech cultural and legal
environment. If the request is manifestly unreasonable as a viable trading strategy, issue
The Ministry of the Interior decision within 30 days from the initiation of the proceeding. After his
delivery to only 7 days on bringing an action. In so short a time is
very difficult to competently handle the action. In addition, applicants are
as a rule, have to rely on the help of non-governmental organisations or ex officio member
appointed legal representatives. Anyway, the appointee has to
the extension of the action only so many days, how many are from the statutory seven day
period, which began to run the delivery of an administrative decision, left. So in the
the specific case now includes the highest administrative court it was only 5
days of work, but in other cases it may be even less
days. It is necessary to consider the time required to contact the applicant,
where appropriate, the provision of an interpreter, the arrangement of the case and the preparation of the
the argumentation. Implications for practice are such that applicants in many
cases within the prescribed period the proper application is not enough, respectively
Yes, but the lack of processing time are not necessarily reflected in its quality.
7. The situation of not having regard to the above mentioned strictly pojímanou
the concentration principle of correct interpretation, according to which the Court has the option or
even the obligation to provide for the extension of the application deadline. However
benevolent in its case-law interprets the concept of "point defence", his
existence cannot be inferred for example. from blanketních claims that in
the case of the unsuccessful applicants for international protection are not exceptional.
8. The Supreme Administrative Court also notes that the existing dispute
the seven-day time limit was introduced by an amendment to the asylum Act effective from
1.1. 2003. The motive of introducing restrictive modifications, as is apparent from the
the explanatory memorandum was the acceleration of the asylum procedure in cases where the
the applicant clearly does not meet the conditions, and financial and security
the reasons; The Supreme Administrative Court considers that another reason was
the need to respond to a significant increase in the number of applicants for international protection
in the years around the turn of the century, raising the concern of flooding affected
authorities. In any case, in his opinion, cannot accelerate the procedure to the detriment of
the procedural rights of the parties. To shorten the time limit is not, moreover, no reason
of special interest, as is the case for example in the judicial review of the things
the election. The reason for shortening the certainly cannot be the financial aspects and
also, in General, the applicant cannot be regarded as a security threat. In addition, from
the year 2001 is contrary to the constant decline in the number of applicants,
the current situation is comparable with the numbers from the beginning of the 1990s. years. The highest
the Administrative Court is of the opinion that streamlining asylum procedures can be
achieved by other means; as an example of the practice of some countries,
that the requirement of the existence of remedies resolves the existence of special
kvazisoudních tribunals, composed of experts on immigration
the issue. However, if the Czech legislature voted the way review of these
the decision in the judicial procedure of the administrative mode, in which the rights and
of interest to a large extent dependent on the activity of the participant in the moment of the submission of
action, then it cannot at the same time deprive their rights effectively options
defend the determination so short the claim period.
II.
The opinion of the participants in the proceedings and the Ministry of Interior of the CZECH REPUBLIC
9. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its observations to the
the content of the proposal, said that the deadline was under consideration in asylum law
introduced by the amendment submitted by the Government, saying that the proposal is fully in
accordance with international obligations, in particular the Convention on the status of
refugees of 1951 (Note red.: published under no. 208/1993 Coll.), and
also the print newsletter said that the proposed adjustment is in the
accordance with EU law. Things are dealt with by the Committee for defence and security and
adopted a number of amendments, the relevant period shall, however, not attacked
was not. The law was then duly approved and announced. The Chamber of Deputies,
the objection period dealt with again in the context of discussing the Government's
a draft law amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of the
of the administrative code. It was stated that the present printing, which brought
the new wording of section 32 of the asylum law, in accordance with resolution on the minimum
guarantees for asylum procedures, and respecting the requirements of the ratified and
renowned international treaties on human rights and fundamental
freedoms, which the Czech Republic is bound within the meaning of article. 10 of the Constitution.
Constitutionally the legal Committee adopted a comprehensive amendment, to which, however,
is assumed by the new wording of section 32 of the asylum law. This part of the amendment taken
the asylum law was then presented in their original language in the framework of the
parliamentary amendment of another law and thus was received and
announced. The legislature acted in the belief that adopted laws
are in accordance with the constitutional order. The assessment of the constitutionality of the editing leaves
at the discretion of the Constitutional Court.
10. the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is the same beliefs, namely that
part of the asylum law is concerned, in accordance with constitutional order and the
international obligations. In its comments to the content of the proposal states that
the aim of the already mentioned several times, the amendment of the asylum Act should be
the tightening of the conditions for the granting of asylum in the sense of effective exclusion
cases of abuse of this right. Procedural tools (among others) are thus
should be adjusted to reflect the diverse behavior of the applicants and led to
to speed up things. A more effective approach was by the petitioner
dictated by the number of applications and a steep increase (in 2000 already 8788 cases
the development of the 2001 even suggested 20,000 cases). I was therefore
expanded the number of reasons "obvious nedůvodnosti", shortened the period for administrative
decision (from 90 to 30 days) or reduced repair process
the deletion of the possibility to file a corruption. After the referral of the draft amendment to the Senate
It discussed its committees; Some have recommended to return the Bill
with amendments that would require to alleviate some of the
unnecessarily strict asylum law, however right now
the investigated period, none of these proposals involved. It also leaves the Senate
the final decision on the reasoning of the Constitutional Court.
11. With regard to the material of the proposal considered by the Constitutional Court for the appropriate
Moreover, the opinion on the content of the request a proposal from the Ministry of the Interior,
on the section of the State administration shall perform its activities.
12. The Minister of the Interior, responded to the challenge of the detailed expression. The Ministry of
mainly from the introduction of the contested takes provisions to
the legal order of the Czech Republic concerning its compliance with the constitutional order
and does not identify with the appellant's argument that it cannot be interpreted
constitutionally Conformal manner. The case, from which the proposal under consideration
The Supreme Administrative Court, it is not the first case of řešícím
the issue of time limits according to the asylum Act, the plaintiff now has delivered on
a matter of different opinion. So for example. in the decision of the SP. zn. 2 Azs 117/2004 of 26. 10.
2004 the Supreme Administrative Court held that the wrong has already been
refusal to provide the regional court if that Court regard to his
Tween after the deadline. This is the period of judicial and
Therefore the obligation of fruitless expiry of automatically disregard to supplement
cannot be inferred at a later date. Similarly, in decision SP. zn. 9 Ip 1/2009 of the
12.2. 2009 reviewed by the Supreme Administrative Court as a denial of Justice
the procedure of a regional court, which rejected the submission for its shortcomings, without
would take into account that the time limit for their removal was due to specific
obstacles for persons the petitioner unrealistic. Therefore, according to the case-law
the Ministry of the Conformal solutions without the constitutionally required in the contested
the provisions seeking to intervene. From the design cannot be inferred, why
the appellant had to depart from this solution.
13. in relation to the right to judicial protection, the Ministry considers it appropriate
pick up as the basic premise that the contested provisions of the law on
asylum, judicial review of the decision in a case marked by international protection
an independent Court of law does not preclude, and that even most of the asylum Act
submitted actions accorded suspensive effect.
14. With reference to the conclusion of the Constitutional Court, presented in resolution sp..
IV. TC 533/06 of 30 October. 1.2007 (N 17/44 SbNU 217) ^ * and the views of the legal
theory, the Ministry denies the proposal the decided opinion, according to which
represents the deciding on applications for the grant of international protection
decisions concerning fundamental rights and freedoms.
15. The Ministry denies that the seven-day period means iluzornost rights
on the judicial protection. This time limit does not apply to all actions in matters
international protection, but only those where the speed control for target
eliminate the cases that clearly don't have asylum. As to the
cases which are not related with international protection, and the only abusers
asylum instruments for other purposes, in particular the legalization of their stay, which
However, the use of the mechanisms provided in the Act No. 326/1999 Coll., on stay of
foreigners in the territory of the Czech Republic and amending certain laws. Therefore, the only
a burden on the system, and a short period is therefore on the spot. A similar adjustment
based on the different length of the time limits for individual asylum procedures
common in other EU countries, for example. Germany, France, Great Britain,
Belgium, etc.; in some countries, the period in question even more
shorter. Otherwise, the length fits into the context of specifically defined time limits
in the cizineckém law; the Ministry refers to find sp.. I. ÚS
609/01 of 5. 3.2002 (published in SbNU), in which the Constitutional Court
dealing with ústavností shortened, the 30 day period for the filing of administrative action
against the decision according to the Act No. 326/1999 Coll., mutatis mutandis, the Supreme Administrative
the Court in the decision of the SP. zn. 5 As 7/2009 of 16. 4.2009 stated that
statutory time limit for the submission of 10 day action against the decision of the administrative
authority on the expulsion of foreigners, though it is significantly shorter than the time limit,
the application of the law on foreigners, a judicial review of such a decision
excesívním way does when shortening the period balances by providing
suspensive effect the application. In addition, the determination of the shorter tracks
a legitimate target in the form of limits on the time a person just exiled
strictly necessary. It is therefore not in breach of article. paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter nor the article. 1
Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the protection of human rights and freedoms (hereinafter as
"The Convention"). To the appellant's argument concerning the impact of the principle of concentration of control
on the position of the plaintiff, the Ministry points out that the solution is in the
the meaning of the findings of the Constitutional Court finding SP. zn. IV.-2170/08 from 12. 5.
2009 an extensive interpretation of the claim. In addition, the concept of policy
the concentration of proceedings, as it presents itself in the design of the Supreme Administrative Court,
Therefore, the legal representative can provide to supplement the action only as many
days, the rest of the seven-day deadline for its submission, it is referred to in
the Ministry considers too restrictive. Furthermore, the Ministry does not agree with the
the view that at the present time, when the number of applicants are falling, is already
the adjustment under consideration. The legislative amendment was not
motivated by the sharp increase in the agenda, but the effort to streamline the management and
to exclude cases where the asylum system is abused only.
16. Cancellation of the contested provisions, according to the Ministry in violation of the
the sense and purpose of the legislation was to inadvertently delete the difference
between refusing an application as manifestly unfounded and the classic. It was
It would also be against the current trend of European law, which
the existing asylum procedures corresponding to the adjustment. The Ministry therefore
It is recommended that the proposal be rejected.
III.
The diction of the contested provisions
17. the provisions of § 32 paragraph. 2 (a). and) the asylum Act reads: "In the period 7
days from the date of notification of the decision to bring an action against a decision of the
the application for the grant of international protection, which this request is rejected as
manifestly unreasonable. "
IV.
The conditions of the appellant's evidence, active constitutional conformity
the legislative process
18. the proposal he handed the Supreme Administrative Court in connection with the management of that
It is in progress, and to the cancellation of the proposed procedural provisions of the Act
the asylum is one of those who must apply it. His locus standi
so based on the provisions of § 64 paragraph. 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the
The Constitutional Court, as amended by later regulations (hereinafter referred to as "the law of
The Constitutional Court ").
19. The Constitutional Court within the meaning of the provisions of section 68, paragraph. 2 of the law on the constitutional
the Court dealt with the way the adoption and release of law No. 2/2002 Coll., which
amended asylum Act and certain other acts, which was contested
the provisions of the law on asylum. From the expression of both participants, as well as
and its Web site (www.psp.cz) shows that the Chamber
the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic discussed the proposal as no. 921.
The first reading took place on 16. 5. in 2001, the second of the day 19. 9. in 2001, and the third
reading on 21. 9. in 2001, when the Bill was approved and referred to the
The Senate. The it on your 10. the meeting of 25 October. 10.2001 (resolution No. 189)
return the lower Chamber with amendments, when from the present 66
Senators voted 60 to return, 3 were against and 3 voting
were delayed. 27 June. 11.2001 at their 43. a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies acted
the proposal again and approved it in the version approved by the Senate (resolution
No. 1866); for the 168 Members voted from the present 110, against 53.
The President of the Republic signed the law March 14. 12.2001 and 7 May. 1.2002
the law was duly promulgated in the collection of laws.
20. The Constitutional Court has stated that the reference constitutional law was adopted
Conformal legislative procedure.
In the.
Your own review
21. The Constitutional Court has examined the proposal and the reasons given below, came to the
the conclusion that the annulment of the contested provisions of the law on asylum is the reason.
22. First, it should be recalled that the Constitutional Court is the body protection
the constitutionality (article 83 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC.). In proceedings for the annulment of laws and other
legislation acts in the position of the so-called. the negative of the legislature and
its task is to assess the constitutionality of the contested legislation or
their limited parts, possibly to assess whether the contested
interpret and apply the legislation constitutionally Conformal manner. The constitutional
the Court is not entitled to assess the appropriateness, effectiveness, or doctrinal
the purity of the legal standards, as this competence is the responsibility of always
lawmakers.
23. Thus, as revealed in the narrative part of the grounds, is the Constitutional Court
before the task to assess whether the seven-day claim period gives even the applicants
the real possibility to submit the decision rejecting the request for
the granting of international protection as a manifestly unjust administrative control
Court, or whether the length of the time limits for the initiation of the proceedings shall be the law of the Court of
a review of only a blank proclamation.
24. The issue of time limits and their linkages to the constitutional guarantees,
The Constitutional Court in its case-law has already dealt with more than once.
25. So for example. in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 33/97 of 17 February 1997. 12.1997 (N
163/9 SbNU 399; No. 30/1998 Coll.) The Constitutional Court of the concept of limits in General
the plane said: "the purpose of the Institute is to reduce the legal time limits
entropy (uncertainty) in the application of the rights or powers of time
limitations the State of uncertainty in legal relations (which plays, in particular,
an important role in terms of the taking of evidence in cases of disputes), speeding up
the decision-making process in order to achieve the intended objectives of a real. These
the reasons have led to the introduction of time limits already thousands of years ago. "
26. the scope of the constitutional review of the legal provisions of the zakotvujících period
then, the Constitutional Court had defined in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 46/2000 of 6 September 2000. 6.
2001 (N 84/22 SbNU 205; no 279/2001 Coll.), which stated: "the Mission of the constitutional
the Court is in the control of constitutionality. In this context, this Court may
only disturb the unconstitutional provisions, or parts of them, however, is not his
the task of the reparovat the consequences that arose from the fact that the plaintiff has not exercised
his right within a specified period. Cancellation time limits violates the principles of the rule of
the State as it significantly interferes with the principle of legal guarantees, which is
one of the fundamental elements of contemporary democratic legislation
systems. The period cannot in itself be unconstitutional. You may, however, as follows
appear with regard to the particular circumstances. "
27. On those conclusions, then, the Constitutional Court has established the award SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
6/05 of 13 June. 12.2005 (N 226/39 SbNU 389; no 531/2005 Coll.). Again
here stated that "prima facie period without further cannot show
the characters of unconstitutionality, "and that" the unconstitutionality of the deadline may be pronounced
only in the dialogue with the specific circumstances of the considered things ". For
the particular circumstances, or contextual aspects assessing
the constitutionality of the period, having regard to its previous case-law of the Constitutional Court
marked:
"1. inadequacy of (disproporcionalitu) the time limits in relation to the time it
limited application of the constitutionally guaranteed rights (right),
as defined by time constraints of subjective rights ".
Here to find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/03 dated 9. 7.2003 (N 109/30
SbNU 499; no 211/2003 Coll.) jamming the provisions of § 3 and § 6 of the law No.
290/2002 Coll., which constituted a disproportionate restriction of ownership rights,
violation of article. 11. 1 in conjunction with article. 4 (4). 4 of the Charter of fundamental
of rights and freedoms (Constitutional Court considered in Conformal rozhodovaném
the context of such legislation, which would limit was based only in
completely necessary time range, which you can understand only the minimum
time, and it's clearly prima facie "transitional" period, but not the period
ten years);
"2. the arbitrariness of the legislature in the determination of the period (its anchoring or
cancellation) ". Within the meaning of this perspective, the assessment of the constitutionality of the period
the Court proceeded in case sp.. PL. ÚS 2/02-find of 9 June. 3.2004
(N 35/32 SbNU 331; no 278/2004 Coll.), which called for the unconstitutional
repeal of the provisions of section 879c to section 879e of the Civil Code made by the
Act No. 229/2001 Coll., which the legislature intervened to legitimate
expectations of the exact circuit operators just one day before the
the expiry of the period within which an acquisition of ownership in
as a result of the bodies which act in confidence in advance of the State
the conditions were just a day before the expiry of the said time limit
confronted with arbitrary procedure;
"3. the constitutionally neakceptovatelnou inequality of two groups of subjects, which is
the result of the cancellation of certain legal conditions for the application of law for the
the unconstitutionality, while this clearing for the operators
as a result of the expiry of the time limits due to the possibility of derogation without further
the application of the rights does not open ". Here it was dependent on the findings of the SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
3/94 of 9 December 1999. 3.2004 (N 38/1 SbNU 164/1994, no. 164/1994 Coll.) and sp.
Zn. PL. ÚS 24/97 of 3 December 2004. 6.1998 (N 62/11 SbNU 111; no 153/1998),
which was the abolition of provisions defining the beginning of the period for the
the application of the restitution claim open to the possibility of their application for
those authorized persons who as a result of the conditions of permanent residence in the
the time limits of the original claims successfully assert could not.
28. In following up on these in the past, made the proposition, which are even now
applicable, i.e. the Constitutional Court notes that the contested statement period
as such cannot be unconstitutional. It is for consideration whether the legislature and
What is the time limit for the implementation of the law provides. Indeed, it is not even
disputed, since unconstitutionality period the appellant sees exclusively in
its length, or that it is too short. But not even the length of the claim
time limits itself fundamentally cannot be the reason for its cancellation. Conclusion on the
her (not) the constitutionality can be done except after evaluating other contextually
operating circumstances. The appellant in this sense refers to the principle of
controlling the administrative judiciary, and that the principle of the disposition and the principle of
the concentration of management, which, in conjunction with a short notice to the applicant of the
the granting of international protection to realize the possibility of judicial review to considerably
make it difficult, and in some cases even impossible. Also ignore
cannot be a specific life situation, in which most of the applicants for
international protection is located.
29. The Constitutional Court has considered carefully these objections when assessing the period of
aspects of the above defined, i.e. whether neakceptovatelně discriminates
one group of applicants for international protection, whether the legislature
determined arbitrarily and whether it is not excessive.
30. There remains the question of the constitutionality of that particular claim period
the Constitutional Court has already dealt with in resolution SP. zn. I. ÚS 609/01
(available at http://nalus.usoud.cz/). It ruled on the constitutional
complaints related to the proposal to repeal the provisions of section 172, paragraph. 1 of the law
No. 326/1999 Coll., on stay of foreigners on the territory of the Czech Republic, according to which
"the action against an administrative decision must be made within 30 days from the
notification of the decision of the administrative authority in the last stage, or from the date of
communication from another decision of the administrative authority, if not further defined
otherwise. Deadline cannot be waived. " The complainant claimed that in
as a result of this adjustment occurs to the discrimination against foreigners, as regards their
the right to judicial protection, as provided for in a 30 day time-limit for bringing an action
It is precisely with regard to this, that this is a foreigner often not familiar with the Czech
language-unreasonably short. The Constitutional Court as manifestly
unfounded refused, arguing that the contested provisions of any of the constitutional
kautel is not contrary. In a recital stated that "of the constitutional law
the viewpoint is fundamentally in the present legislature, whether, and in what areas
right of legal regulation lays down the special law, the deadline for submitting
administrative action, i.e.. the time limit is different from the General time limit of two months from the
notification of the decision of the administrative authority in the last stage, which is
enshrined in the provisions of section, paragraph 250b. 1 the first sentence of The l.
the determination of the special period (different from General editing according to the cited
the provisions of s. l.) -which can be found in the form of a 30-day
for example, in the period the provisions of § 17 paragraph. 6 of Act No. 526/1990 Coll.
prices or in the provisions of section 16. 4 Act No. 498/1990 Coll., on
refugees, as amended-cannot be considered a standing
contrary to constitutional kautelami, as constitutionally the legal point is
to be considered as determining only whether this specific time limit for the submission of
administrative action respects the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights concerned
persons or not. The Constitutional Court considers that a special law
provided for different (30 days), the time limit shall not prevent the implementation of the basic
the right to judicial protection, in accordance with the provisions of the article. 36 of the Charter. Or from the
in terms of the Constitution cannot be guaranteed only by a general time limit for the
submission of administrative actions, as if it were a denial of the rights of the State to
editing a special period in the Special Act No. 326/1999,
the point of view of the subject of the legislation (and personal scope) refers to (stay)
foreigners in the territory of the Czech Republic. Indeed, the complainants in the constitutional
the complaint alleged discrimination of foreigners-link in relation to their
the right to judicial protection-with the allegedly disproportionately short 30-day
the deadline for the submission of administrative action, those who are often lack
the Czech language. The Constitutional Court, however, believes that the establishment of
a special 30-day period to submit the administrative action does not occur,
that the public authorities had spared the constitutionally guaranteed the basic right of foreigners to
the Court of protection, since this period referred to the basic law, does not change the
or make an inaccessible to foreigners. On the contrary, from the constitutional point of view
creates for the realization of this fundamental right in relation to all (this
the law affected) individuals of the same conditions without discrimination.
The Constitutional Court therefore concludes that the provisions of section 172, paragraph. 1 on the time limit for
submission of administrative action is clearly not constitutionally and is therefore a conformist
disturb. " The proposition, according to which the constitutional guarantee cannot be inferred the General time limit for
submission of administrative action and that the determinant is only whether the Special
period respects the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, without further
applicable also for the proposal now under consideration. In others, however, responded
The Constitutional Court referred to the resolution on the specific context of the Special
the provisions of the Aliens Act; the resolution is mainly covered the 30
day period, reviewed the constitutionality of the period is now 7-day, therefore,
significantly shorter. In addition, under the management of the Aliens Act is not
strictly jednoinstanční, as in the case of asylum administrative
control, which allows you to evaluate the conditions of access to administrative
the Court compared to modify the standard to a certain extent benevolentněji.
31. the period from the point of view of the individual groups of asylum seekers.
32. The subject of the asylum Act, inter alia, the procedure for granting
international protection in the form of asylum or subsidiary protection and the management of
the withdrawal of asylum or subsidiary protection [§ 1 (b)) the asylum Act].
The asylum procedure is an administrative proceeding, which shall be decided by the Ministry of
of the Interior. If the Ministry finds in its decision, that are filled with
the reasons for the granting of asylum, international protection in the form of asylum or
supplementary protection grants (section 28 (1)). In the opposite case, i.e.
If he does not find reasons to grant or one of the forms of international protection,
the request shall be refused (article 28 (2)). Adverse decisions can be divided into two
categories. On the one hand can go about cases where the complainant, although grounds
for which asylum granted, but in his particular case detected and
are not confirmed. The Ministry may reject the application, or as a clearly
unfounded, and that in the cases exhaustively listed in section 16 of the Act on the
asylum. As to the cases in which the applicant seeks to circumvent or exploit the asylum
the rights for the purpose of legalization of stay on the territory of the Republic or from other
reasons. In the link to qualitatively quite different character of the reasons
rejection of the application is determined and the length of the period for the submission of the Board
the action. In general it is 15 days, but if the request was rejected as manifestly
unreasonable, may be brought only within 7 days from the date of delivery of the
the decision; the same regime applies to cases where the decision of the
applications submitted in the securing device for aliens or if management
stopped due to the inadmissibility of the application for the granting of international
the protection.
33. With regard to the conditions for the possibility of using the judicial protection are, therefore,
applicants classified into two categories. Given the general requirement
principle of equal access to constitutional guarantees, it is therefore necessary to deal with
the social need and the ospravedlnitelností of such a Division. According to the
the purpose of this Ministry is the deadline to eliminate the cases that "clearly
they do not have the substance of asylum ". A burden on the system and the speed of execution is
an important aspect of this type of cases. Between these arguments and the length of the
the claim period, the Constitutional Court, however, does not see the immediate connection. Aspect
speed is important and in the asylum law was reflected, inter alia, by
that was reduced to a two-month period, the general statement of 15 days. Category
manifestly unfounded applications is certainly qualitatively from other applications
different and some procedural peculiarities, such as the closed enumeration of reasons for
You can decide on the application, and thus shortening the time limit for the issue of
administrative decision for 30 days from the date of initiation of the proceedings for grant
international protection, are therefore justified. Closed enumeration of reasons
then leads to less demands on the taking of evidence and the reasons for the decision. This
the consequences of that are acceptable categorization of applications, which, in its
basically speed up and facilitate the proceedings in cases lacking a
the essence of asylum; This also manifests itself in the Elimination of these cases.
However, if it is to be subjected to judicial review and concluded that the asylum
the essence of the specific case actually is missing, cannot be a mere
access to court only for this group of applicants is limited further by reducing the
the claim period.
34. The Ministry in its opinion stated that the practice of different time-limits for
the so-called. standard asylum procedures and accelerated procedures is absolutely normal
in other EU Member States, and can be found even shorter deadlines. To
the Constitutional Court notes that the comparative argument foreign
laws left the party, because, as has been said, the guest
the constitutionality of the period is the evaluation of the kontextuálním. Of fundamental importance to
other legal rules that affect the presentation of the case to the Court, and therefore
how it is manifested in our period of Czech life, where is the administrative
proceedings in the matters of asylum jednoinstanční and administrative judiciary controlled by the
the principle of disposition and management of concentration, which the lawsuit puts the specific
claims. For example, let it be given in this context to relevant parts of
adjustments to the asylum procedure and the subsequent judicial review in the Federal
Republic of Germany (see article Petra Lavického and Sylva Šiškové: Over a new
by modifying the procedure for cassation complaints in asylum matters, Právní rozhledy
19/2005). The fabric there is regulated by law on asylum procedures
(Asylverfahrensgesetz, BGBI. And 1992,1126). Management is the single stage,
leads before the Federal Office for migration and refugees. His decision
You can challenge the action, have been brought to the Administrative Tribunal. The claim period is
two weeks from the notification of the decision, state the facts and to propose evidence
You can within the time limit of one month; the Court may not make the evidence and take into account the
claims made after the expiry of this period, but only under the condition that would
their admission has caused a delay in the proceedings, the delay was not
done enough and the participant has been advised of the consequences of missed periods.
35. On the issue of arbitrariness in determining the limits of the legislature.
36. the adjustment of judicial review of the asylum decision is continuous. According to the
Act No. 498/1990 Coll., on refugees, effective since 1. 1.1991, led
the procedure for recognition of refugee status, the Ministry of the Interior, and against his
the decision was originally accepted in all things decay, after 31 December 2006. 12.
1993 then only in case of the listed types of decision. Law
He admitted the submission of the proposal on the review of the decision by the Court, but only
against the decision of the Minister of the Interior issued in proceedings on decomposition. On 1 January 2005.
1.2000 took effect, the existing law on asylum. The procedure for granting asylum
According to this regulation was originally a two-stage decision in the cases
on the refusal of asylum, and the decision to reject the proposal on the initiation of
the grant of asylum as manifestly nedůvodného, when the law permitted the filing of
the decomposition. In the event that the degradation has been accepted, thus statistically in the
most of the cases, it was the submission of administrative action to be admissible against
the decision about it; However, the action was not unlike previous
legislation dependent on the scope of decision and action can be
to challenge any decision. Filed the lawsuit was granted the suspensory
effect. The adoption of law No. 2/2002 Sb. with effect from 1. 2.2002
the complete elimination of the possibility of a review of the decision of the Ministry of the Interior in
rozkladovém control. On the Court, the applicants continued to be turned, not with
action, but with the remedy facing against the nepravomocnému
decision of the administrative authority. The time limit for filing the appeal was
compared to General reduced to 15 days from the date of notification of the decision and, in
exhaustively defined cases, inter alia, also just in case the rejection
applications for asylum as manifestly unfounded, for 7 days. Starting with 1. 1.
2003, which came into effect Act No. 217/2002 Coll., the legislature returned
the model review final decision of the Ministry of the Court on
the basis of the action.
37. the conditions of judicial review including the deadlines for bringing actions (proposal)
so, while in a time of change, of course, without sudden twists or shifts in the
extreme positions, for example, from a broad review by the General rules of
After its exclusion. The legislature now in the contested provisions of the
missed some crucial and in unexpected ways in the mode
the examination of the asylum decision, nerozvrátil proven and established
the model. Lawmakers argued the need for speed and efficiency
asylum procedures, referred to (closer to the unspecified and nerozvedenou)
practice laws of asylum States of the European Union. You cannot say that the
the period under consideration has been enshrined in the law on asylum procedure, the reporting
zákonodárcovy characters of arbitrariness. The modification is incomprehensible or internally
contradictory, the legislature passed and no doubt unpredictably
the introduction of shorter time limits for claim that group of applicants under the pretext of
streamlining and acceleration of asylum procedures did not follow their primarily
the effective disposal of those who may claim the protection of their
rights in court. Complications in its application to the practice (meant to be revealed
information of the petitioner, that is increasing as is the one that it
led to the submission of the proposal under consideration, i.e. those where the applicant within the time limit
females can only announce its intention to bring an action, add any reasons
But enough already).
38. The adequacy of the period.
39. By the contested provisions enshrined the period for bringing an action is legal
period, whose length cannot be changed by the Court. And cannot be
remitted her judgment, since it excludes the administrative court rules (section 72
paragraph. 4). Adverse effects of the deadline for the submission of the application, therefore, cannot be
ward off in any way. On the other hand are processors of claims
subject to relatively large claims; In addition to the General requirements for filing (section 37
paragraph. 2 and 3 of the judicial code), in particular the administrative placing of what
the action relates to who makes it, against whom and what it suggests,
the signature and the date, and a special Essentials shall have (§ 71 (1)
administrative judicial procedure), and the designation of the contested decision and the day
his delivery or other notification to the plaintiff, the designation of persons to the management
involved, if known to the applicant, the decision that the designation statements
the applicant challenges the claim, the points of which must be perceptible, from which
the factual and legal reasons, the applicant considers that the contested statements
the decision for the illegal or trivial, what evidence to prove their
the claim, the applicant proposes to carry out, and finally the draft judgment.
To extend the action to nenapadené statements yet of the decision or to expand it
on the other, the applicant may only claim points within the time limit for bringing an action (section 71
paragraph. 2, the second sentence of the order administrative). Therefore, strictly controls the management
conceived the principle of concentration. The principles of controlling the administrative judiciary
(though still in time before the adoption of the administrative judicial procedure) is the constitutional
the Court expressed in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/99 of 27.6.2000 (N 98/18
SbNU 355; No 232/2000 Coll.). Said here that "... any provision which
the fact that formalizes the administrative control of the judiciary, provides for de facto
the limits of access to the Court, therefore, the limits of one of the fundamental constitutional rights-
the right to judicial protection. All such provisions ... is therefore
necessary to interpret the spirit of the article. 4 (4). 4 of the Charter, that is, when the application
such provisions, conserve nature and sense of fundamental rights and freedoms.
... The Constitutional Court therefore assesses the contested provisions as
-to-interpret in constitutional limits, did not find it embedded
"disposition", or the principle of concentration control in the administrative
the judiciary is unconstitutional because, even though they may be criticized for that
moving away the principle of material truth, cannot see that particular and completely
undoubtedly contributes to the fulfillment of the constitutional law on the examination and
the decision of the matter within a reasonable time or without undue delay (article 6 of the
paragraph. 1 to the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, article. 38
paragraph. 2 of the Charter). " To this end, the Constitutional Court remains even now.
Breach of the principle of concentration, therefore you cannot solve the problem.
40. The applicant is obliged to already in the application, at the latest, in the statement of the period,
define the scope in which the administrative decision, and at least a basic
way to define the grounds on which the illegality of the decision. How
in principle, applicants cannot be expected from the practical problems with the definition of the scope of
assault, with the formulation of the pleas in law is different. Means the delimitation of
the factual and legal reasons for which the applicant considers that the decision for the
illegal and meaningless. The first difficulty is no longer alone in this interpretation
conditions, as proved by find sp.. IV.-2170/08 (available on the
http://nalus.usoud.cz/), in which the Constitutional Court pointed out the differences in the
the interpretation of the concept of the claim in the decisions of the boards point Supreme
Administrative Court. In any case, the consensus is that the action in the administrative
the judiciary must point the claim within the time limit for bringing an action. If
This is not so, the request is simply a notice of intent to apply to the administrative
the court action, which, however, does not have even when extensive interpretation of the concept of
statement of point no relevant effects. From the very beginning are so placed
quality requirements for the argument of the plaintiff. With regard to what
the applicant points out, therefore, that the plaintiff is as an asylum seeker in the
specific situation, when the usually focused in these circumstances
and the legal order, does not know the language, has no background, contacts and
depends on external assistance, it is not a formal requirement of the procedure
easily reachable. If the seven-day period, effectively
necessarily shortened by at least two other non-working days at the weekend, in which so
the applicant must make the applicant creates-is already excessive pressure.
It is then quite understandable that the reaction of the applicant for a short period
submission of blanketové action in order to underpin the statutory period, which is
associated with the expectations of challenges to complete the argument.
41. The Constitutional Court is aware of the possible objections, that while the abolition of the contested
the provisions of the statement of the period in the case of manifestly unfounded applications
be extended from seven to fifteen days (section 32 (1) of the asylum Act),
the combination of social factors for applicants for asylum and the principles of controlling
the administrative justice system will continue to operate, that a number of applicants of the litigation
judicial review in fact conduct. Still will be sure to experience the
the fact that the applicants submit their application will be blanketové at the very end
the claim period, making room for possible additions necessary formalities
remains minimal. However, the availability of judicial review
the decision will be, while respecting the principles of vigilantibus is for these
the applicant later. Without this, the Constitutional Court declared that
a 15-day period is a period of sufficient (it would be already beyond
the proposal defined the subject of the proceedings), notes that for persons in the
position of the applicant for asylum is in this (15-day) period
more real judicial review properly initiate.
42. You cannot accept the argument that shorter period balances the claim
grant suspensive effect the application. The administrative judiciary is designed
so that the central importance of the initial phase of the proceedings, just when must
the plaintiff not only to define the scope, but it must also concentrate at least
Basic direct argumentation itself. The applicant, who (as a result of
unreasonably short deadlines) duly nezažaloval, boon suspensive
effect any good.
43. Other circumstances, to which it was necessary in the assessment of the reasonableness of the period
taken into account, is that the claim is only for the applicant's failure into account
the coming of the procedural remedy. Therefore, it is necessary to
the construction of formal barriers to its application to proceed with restraint.
44. Finally, it is necessary to mention the problem of language. The applicant is in line with the
the provisions of section 22 of the Act on asylum, the assistance of an interpreter, but
of course, only in the administrative procedure, the administrative decision is then
does not resolve, with the help of an interpreter is only familiar with its contents. Administrative
action then must be drawn up in English. Even his procedural steps necessarily
complicates and makes it dependent on support, you must
to procure.
45. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court had to consider whether the contested provisions cannot be
unload the constitutionally Conformal manner. He came to the conclusion that the length of the
the period considered, in combination with the editing of a review of the decision rejecting the
the application for the grant of international protection as unfounded, apparently is so
short, that action cannot be regarded as an effective procedural means
axle, then the contested provisions did not disturb just in case, that the
the deficit can be overcome. It would have to be achieved through the effective
the extension of the period examined.
46. Such "extension" comes into consideration unless it is technically
in a way, that the submission of the application (and any, blanketové) will be
refer to the conservation of the claim period and the obligation of the Court to invite the petitioner
to eliminate the defects, or supplement the submission. The length of the time limits provided by the Court
for such a remedy should not be limited to seven days, but the Court
provide a "reasonable" period, that is, one in which according to its
the view and experience of the unsuccessful applicant could realistically make
to respond. This, however, the Constitutional Court deems unacceptable and contrary to the
in General, the concept of concentration control policies to be adopted. Even if it was
in fact, such a possibility to extend the deadline by a short statement of judicial
challenge limited on asylum Affairs (which in itself is difficult to
defensible and sustainable), fundamentally it would crush on Samos
the concept of administrative justice. Here, however, cannot be sacrificed, to were
relaxed deadlines too short on the impacts of the participants of one type of administrative
the proceedings. In addition, topple the principles of administrative justice, it would be
disproportionate effect, annulment of the contested provisions.
47. Ministry pointed out in its comments on the procedure chosen by the
The Supreme Administrative Court in the decision of the SP. zn. 2 Azs 117/2004 of 26 March 2004.
10.2004; rebuked by the regional court, contrary to section 37, paragraph. 5
the court order administrative regard to supplement the Outlook of administration
While the Court made after the deadline, but before the release of the
the decision in the case, and the Administration has rejected. The Constitutional Court does not agree with it.
The application of the provisions of section 37, paragraph. 5 the second sentence of the judicial code of the administrative
provides for the consequences of non-compliance of the invitation to correct a defect or supplement the submission.
Even if such an interpretation were adopted, that the administrative courts will be
take into account the corrections and submissions received at the after the deadline, but still
before the decision, the applicant's status would remain uncertain. Whether
such a filing was or was not taken into account, would be
depend only how quickly after the end of the time limit, the Court shall decide.
48. The contested provisions cannot be interpreted so as to make it unsuccessful applicants
gave guarantee an effective appeal.
49. It is therefore concluded that the provisions of the asylum Act under consideration by
limits the right of the applicant to pursue in court protection of their rights by establishing the
unreasonably short time limits for the submission of claims, in essence, makes the
the judicial protection of their professed only illusory (similarly find SP. zn. PL.
TC 12/07, promulgated under no 355/2008 Coll.). It is therefore inconsistent with article
paragraph 36. 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, according to which anyone who
claims that he was on their rights by a decision of a public authority, truncated
the Administration may apply to the Court to review the legality of such
the decision, unless the law otherwise, from the jurisdiction of the Court must not
be excluded examination of decisions concerning fundamental rights and
freedoms under the Charter, and article. 13 to the Convention for the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms of the garantujícího the right to an effective remedy before the
National Authority for anyone who was in the law of the Sea Convention, without prejudice to the admitted.
VI.
50. The reasons led the Constitutional Court to the conclusion that the proposal should be
under section 70, paragraph. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court.
51. From the oral proceedings was under section 44, paragraph. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court
abandoned, since from him could not be expect further clarification of the matter, and
all of the participants agreed with this procedure.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
