262/2013 Coll. COMMUNICATION the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court Plenum adopted under file. Nose. PL US-st 37/13 of 13 August 2013, consisting of Stanislav Balik, Louis David, Jan Filip, Vlasta Formankova, Ivana Janu, Vladimir Kurka, Dagmar Lastovecká, Jan Musil, Jiří Nykodým, Paul Rychetský (Rapporteur), Vladimir Sládeček, Catherine and Simackova Milada T the proposal III. of the Constitutional Court under section 23 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court regarding its legal opinion for managing file no. Well.. III. The U.S. 665/11, which departs from the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court declared in its judgment of 15 April 2003 sp.. I. ÚS 752/02, dated 20 December 2006, file No.. I. ÚS 733/05, dated November 10, 2010 sp.. I. ÚS 2462/10 and dated September 5 SP. zn. II. The U.S. 670/12, the following opinion: The Minister of Justice, pursuant to section 399 it par. 1 of Act No. 141/1961 Coll., On Criminal Procedure (Criminal Procedure Code), as amended, which permitted extradition of persons from the Czech Republic and the foreign country for the purpose of prosecution or execution already imposed and custodial sentence or detention order consisting of deprivation of liberty , is not a decision on the appeal against the court decision was in accordance with § 397 paragraph. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to determine the admissibility of its release. While the court decides whether or not any of the reasons specified in section 393 of the Criminal Procedure, which would render extradition impermissible, the Minister of Justice following conclusions the court itself also is not reconsidered, and the factual findings of deals only with regard to the possibility.MP3 of using its powers to bring the matter before the if my doubts for review with the Supreme Court pursuant to section 397 it Sec 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Own decision of the Minister of Justice that permit extradition in addition to an assessment of its political aspects, whose evaluation courts principle is not limited to the determination of whether a court finally ruled that extradition is admissible, then see if there was any of the reasons specified in § 399 par. 2 and 4 of the Criminal Procedure and that possibly is no other factor which could constitute a legal obstacle to the extradition. For these reasons, the person whose extradition is sought, and to file constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court decision on a complaint against the decision of the Regional Court, which was about the admissibility of the extradition decision in the first instance and the decision of the Minister of Justice that permit extradition. Both of these decisions are in fact mutually differ in their purpose and subject to assessment, therefore have regard to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the decision on the final nature of the process means that the law provides for that person to protect games rights (§ 72 par 3 of Law No. 182/1993, on the Constitutional Court, as amended). The deadline for filing a constitutional complaint in the case of each of them considered separately. II. In proceedings on a constitutional complaint against the decision of the Minister of Justice, pursuant to section 399 it par. 1 of Act No. 141/1961 Coll., On Criminal Procedure (Criminal Procedure Code), as amended, which permitted extradition of the complainant from the Czech Republic and the foreign state, The Constitutional Court also considered whether the issue does not preclude the fact that the person whose extradition is sought the Czech Republic granted international protection, or that has not been a final decision on her application for international protection, including the possible judicial review. The purpose of those two conditions permit issuance is guaranteed that its implementation does not constitute and "of an obligation arising from the principle of non-refoulement within the non-meaning of Article. paragraph 33. 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, published together with the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967 under no. 208/1993 Coll., Art. 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has a commitment from the Treaty on the Protection of Human Rights take precedence over other obligations under international treaties. The Constitutional Court, however, this procedure does not review or even not reconsidered the legal conclusions contained in the court decision was former, that extradition is permissible. Kennel justification i. Reasons for submitting opinions 1. On 4 March 2011 the Constitutional Court delivered the constitutional complaint of AA against the decision of the Minister of Justice on 24 February 2011, ref No. 2727/2008-MOT-T/119, which was granted his extradition that the Russian Federation for the purpose of prosecution; the thing is kept under file. Well.. III. The U.S. 665/11. The complainant believes that the decision violated his rights as guaranteed by Article. paragraph 33. 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, published together with the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees of 31 January 1967 under no. 208/1993 Coll., and Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention") in conjunction with Art. 1 paragraph. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (the "Constitution"). Minister of Justice, because it should authorize the issue before the end of the proceedings on his request for asylum. 2. And to the Constitutional Court submission received on 8 April 2011, the complainant expanded his grievance asking for a proposal that repeal and the decision of the High Court in Prague on 22 September 2010, ref. No. 8 That 85/2010 and the resolution of the Municipal Court in Prague 9 February 2010 SP. zn. NT 475/2008, which was former that his extradition is permissible. The complainant considered that their conclusion as factually incorrect, does not agree that there was no specific reasons of extradition inadmissibility under section 393 of the Criminal Procedure and highlights the consequences of these decisions in terms of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Even before but the Constitutional Court could proceed with the substantive examination of the constitutional complaint in this part, the snake to address the question of whether it was filed within the deadline it pursuant to § 72 par 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court, amended on 31 December 2012. This was undoubtedly the extent to which the constitutional complaint was directed directly against the Minister of Justice. In the opinion of III. of the Constitutional Court, which is the subject of this opinion and the reasons for which are detailed below, but this decision can not be regarded as businesses and a decision on the last procedural remedy to protect the complainant's rights in accordance with § 72 par 3 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll. Constitutional Court, as amended (the "Act on the Constitutional Court") , where such a breach should have been court decisions on the admissibility issue. The deadline to file a constitutional complaint against it is therefore necessary that the unwind from the delivery of the resolution of the High Court the complainant, which took place on Oct. 5, 2010, which in this case means that the scope of the constitutional complaint filed late. For the same reason, can not be proceeding on a constitutional complaint against the decision of the Minister of Justice's review or reconsider the conclusions of the court or on the basis of which it was the former that the complainant's extradition is permissible. II. The statement 3. The purpose of the extradition procedure (or extradition proceedings) is finding all the facts is that the Minister of Justice on the request of a foreign country and extradite this person from the Czech Republic for criminal prosecution or to serve a longer sentence imposed imprisonment or protective measure consisting in deprivation of freedom. Minister of Justice, unless the termination of the proceedings (§ 399 par 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code), release either allow (§ 399 par. 1 of the Criminal Code) or not allow (§ 399 par 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code). However, if the said court inadmissibility of extradition, Justice Minister announces requiring only the state can not allow the extradition (art. 399 par. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code), without even published and formal decision. 4. Issuance of the person for any of the above purposes is fundamentally affects their constitutionally guaranteed rights and aggressively interferes with their relationships and therefore with regard this Art. 36 para. 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") can not decide he Excluded from judicial review. The legislature was aware of this requirement and projected it into extradition proceedings in a way that the Minister of Justice that permit extradition conditional on the obligatory assessment of the admissibility of the extradition by the ordinary courts. Whether in a particular case is not due to any of the grounds of inadmissibility of extradition under section 393 of the Criminal Procedure and adjudicated by the county court. Such a decision may, and the person whose extradition is sought, and the state prosecutor to file a complaint, decided by the Supreme Court. Should the Court has II that extradition is not admissible, it could not happen and this franchise. Minister of Justice would have to respect their decision, unless he rose to their abolition after referral to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 397 it Sec 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which would be in doubt if its powers. Even in this case, however, its own decision on the admissibility of the extradition depended on the decision of the court. 5. With regard to that specific design extradition proceedings snake III. Senate Constitutional Court to ask whether the decision Minister of Justice in relation to him, the previous court ruling on the admissibility the issue of the nature of the decision on the appeal that the law gives the complainant to protect his rights. Unless it were so, it would be a constitutional complaint pursuant this section 75 para. 1 of the Constitutional Court is admissible only against him, and only together with its decisions could be challenged and a court decision on the admissibility of his release, as did the complainant. 6. From the current law that the Constitutional Court, The approach to solving issues are not treated uniformly. For the first time that the games explicitly expressed in the judgment of 15 April 2003, file no. I. ÚS 752/02 (N 54/30 SbNU 65), ruling on a constitutional complaint against the decision of the Minister of Justice and the resolution of the High Court and county court issued in an admissibility issue. As is apparent from its encoding, the Constitutional Court saw in the fact that "the mere admissibility of extradition does not mean that extradition, there is" reason that "the decision of the Minister of Justice authorizing extradition should be seen as a last resort, the law provides that protect the rights of the complainant." While based on the principle of subsidiarity of the constitutional complaint. "The constitutional judiciary is based primarily on a review of matters in which there is no other way to remedy the unconstitutionality, and in the case of an unauthorized edition of the Minister of Justice would only decisions of the general court for infringement of the rights guaranteed by the standards of the constitutional order." For these reasons, and the constitutional complaint against the decisions of the courts on the admissibility of extradition, which would be brought before the permit issued by the Minister of Justice, should be dismissed as inadmissible under the exhaustion of remedies to protect rights. 7. In this manner defined relationship with the Minister of Justice, that permit extradition to the court, the decision on its admissibility in the case file. . I. ÚS 752/02, of course, reflected in the assessment of the timeliness of the constitutional complaint against decisions by municipal courts. The Constitutional Court in this case unfolded deadline for its submission from the receipt of the Minister of Justice, not the delivery of the order of the High Court. The same procedure is yet evident from the findings of 20 December 2006 sp.. I. ÚS 733/05 (N 230/43 SbNU 605), dated 10 November 2010 sp.. I. ÚS 2462/10 (N 221/59 SbNU 195), dated September 5, 2012, file no. Zn. II. The U.S. 670/12. Yet we can not overlook the fact that the Constitutional Court in a number of cases admitted and constitutional complaint against a resolution of the High Court, ruling on a complaint against the decision of the Regional Court on the admissibility of extradition without insisting that a request for extradition must decide the justice minister. As an example, in the first place the judgment of 4 February 1999, SP. zn. IV. U.S. 427/98 (N 20/13 SbNU 147), which concerned the previous but similar legislation (cf. § 380 and 382 of the Criminal Procedure, as amended effective 31 October 2004). Point out, however, even for judgment of 3 January 2007, file no. Well.. III. U.S. 534/06 (N 1/44 SbNU 3), as well as a number of resolutions, in which the constitutional complaint was rejected as manifestly unfounded (eg. And resolution dated June 15, 1999, file No.. I. ÚS 507/98, dated April 5, 2006, file no. Well.. II.-165/06, dated September 9, 2008, file no. Well.. III. US from 1757 it 1708 and dated 29 January 2013, file no. I. TC 48/13, available on http://nalus.usoud.cz). The reasons for this different approach, the Constitutional Court has in its judgment dated October 10, 2012, SP. zn. IV. U.S. 353/12, which stated that the Minister of Justice "is not-strictly speaking, and the decision on the appeal, which the complainant legal system for the protection of his rights, in other words, is not a procedure that would have been available to the complainant. It is not excluded-because the legal system any "standstill" period for the minister does-that the implementation of extradition after the Minister of Justice may occur before the deadline for filing a constitutional complaint. Denying the possibility.MP3 this file and the constitutional complaint has been the decision of the appeals court would in many cases could prevent the effective protection of the fundamental rights of individuals "(Judgment. Well.. IV. TC 353/12, paragraph 20). 8. The Constitutional Court in the castle with the opinion (III). of the Constitutional Court, according to which the constitutional complaint against both the decision of the Minister of Justice authorizing extradition and against the Supreme Court decision, which was expressed, that extradition is permissible. In both cases in terms of their course, and the final decision, each of It can, as described below, to lead it and "of fundamental rights and freedoms of the person whose extradition is sought. The conclusions stated in its judgment. Zn. IV. U.S. 353/12, under which a constitutional complaint is admissible is already against the Supreme Court decision, it is therefore right, the Constitutional Court, however, deemed it necessary to add that the sense odchýliv the same time from the legal opinion expressed in the said judgment. . I. ÚS 752/02 and implicitly contained in judgments. . I. ÚS 733/05, sp.. I. ÚS 2462/10, et al.. II. The U.S. 670/12, the time limit for lodging a constitutional complaint against him may depend exclusively from its delivery, and not even from the receipt of the decision of the Minister of Justice. 9. Although the decision that permit extradition substantively follows the court's decision on its admissibility, the Minister of Justice can not be considered as another instance of the decision in an appropriate court proceedings. As an executive body would eventually such a position could not have, as well as court decisions could not reconsider, change, or cancel. The purpose of the judicial assessment of the admissibility of the extradition even before his decision is to provide the highest possible guaranteed under national law, that if a particular person does not permit its release "of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the games. The Act assumes that at the time of the decision of the Minister of Justice authorizing extradition has been the question of the admissibility of the issue resolved, and thus realize that the release will occur in a relatively short period of time (see. The eg. The length of the extradition custody pursuant this section 400b paragraph. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code) which would, by definition, any subsequent protection of the rights of the person at the very least difficult or impossible. For these reasons, the Minister of Justice himself or not reconsidered or replace decisions of the courts and the factual findings of deals in essence only with regard to the possibility.MP3 of using its powers to bring the case in the event of doubt on its review of the Supreme Court pursuant to section 397 it Sec 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code. And any change is detected is the circumstances (§ 400b paragraph. 6 of the Criminal Code) may result from the Minister of Justice only to the conclusion that this decision is out of date and enable edition of it can not be assumed, but not to make a new assessment of admissibility Edition performed independently, ie without a prior court decision. 10. Equity of decision of the Minister of Justice for permission issuance is limited to determining whether the court finally ruled that extradition is admissible, then see if there was any of the reasons specified in § 399 par. 2 and 4 of the Criminal Procedure and that possibly is no other reality, which would constitute a legal obstacle to the extradition. Unless the law entrusts the possibility.MP3 of issuing disallow even when the view of the courts, there are no legal reason for which the extradition was inadmissible, he does so in particular with regard to the fact that his decision has a political dimension and matters of extradition, it can be considered a manifestation of national sovereignty [see. judgment of 29 January 2008 , file no. Nose. PL US 63/06 (N 21/48 SbNU 223; 90/2008 Coll.), Paragraph 26; accessible like any other mentioned Constitutional Court decision also on http://nalus.usoud.cz]. At its discretion, therefore it is exploring other, ie. Political (and within them especially foreign policy) aspects of the issue of a specific person and the foreign state, which by definition can not be further defined by law and subject to scrutiny especially in terms of the possibility.MP3 of applying political and constitutional responsibility. Courts conversely assessment of the political aspects of the issue of principle is not. 11. The conclusions, however, do not question the nature of the Minister's decision as final decisions in the extradition proceedings, the participant is the nature of things and the person whose extradition is sought. Now the Minister of Justice is the legal basis for the implementation of extradition, and the associated interference with their fundamental rights and freedoms. On the possibility.MP3 's file and the constitutional complaint against him does not alter neither the specific nature of the extradition procedure, which assumes that the person whose extradition is sought, apply its procedural rights, especially in relatively separate court proceedings. 12th For all those reasons should be considered and a decision on the last procedural means to protect its rights pursuant to § 72 it par. 3 of the Constitutional Court as the Minister of Justice that permit extradition in terms of the extradition procedure, and the decision of the High Court, which It was the former that extradition is permissible to have this character in relation to legal proceedings on the admissibility issue. The person whose extradition is sought, may thus even before the decision of the Minister of Justice to obtain and review and decision on the admissibility of extradition would be the Constitutional Court, albeit a legal impediment for the Minister's decision by filing a constitutional complaint constituted only in the event of a postponement of the contested decision of the court pursuant to § 79 paragraph of it. 2 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court. 13. In conclusion of this part of the opinion, the essence of which is the question of the admissibility of the constitutional complaint in matters of extradition, the Constitutional Court considers desirable to bring the power of the Minister of Justice submit it in case of doubt the matter to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 397 it Sec 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not constitute a remedy that would and available complainant (cf. the Judgment. Well.. IV. TC 353/12, paragraph 20). It is a special remedy contained in the Criminal Procedure Code for the duration of its effectiveness (originally in its § 380, para. 2, subsequently, until 31 October 2004, the expiry, an amendment by Act No. 539/2004 Coll. its § 380, para. 3), which has been and continues to be designed first and foremost to the Minister of Justice as the authority allowing the release had the opportunity that apply in relation to the decision of the court's addressees , not only for the benefit of the person to be extradited. The complainant can not rely on the fact that the justice minister exercises his authority, as well as its usage can not claim any procedural means by which it would have to be decided [see. mutatis mutandis, similar arguments in relation to § 62 of the Family Code, namely the judgment of 8 July 2010 sp.. PL US 15/09 (139/141 58 SbNU; 244/2010 Coll.), Paragraph 41]. For the decision on the last device that was the law provides for the protection of his rights, so it is always necessary that you consider and the resolution of the High Court, ruling on a complaint against the Regional Court's decision on the admissibility of extradition under § 397 paragraph. 1 of the Criminal Code. Now against the complainant must file a constitutional complaint if it believes that the issue of admissibility assessment questions by ordinary courts was and "of his fundamental rights. III. The verdict II 14. As a result of the legal opinion, according to which a decision on the last procedural remedy to protect the right that is allegedly infringed in the proceedings on the admissibility of extradition, considered to have the resolution of the High Court, is also a lack of authority of the Constitutional Court, in proceedings and constitutional complaint against the decision of the Minister of Justice for permission to examine the extradition , respectively. reinterpreted or replace any legal conclusions of the ordinary courts regarding the admissibility issue and keep it in this sense pledged assets during his next steps. This would be entitled only to the proceedings on the constitutional complaint aimed directly against an order of the High Court. However, if such a constitutional complaint was filed and the Constitutional Court would have upheld and therefore annulled the decision of the court, this should be reflected in the assessment of the constitutional complaint against the decision of the Minister of Justice. This would subsequently ceased to be the necessary conditions for issuing permits. 15. The Constitutional Court proceedings against the Minister of Justice that permit extradition only assesses whether it has been for all conditions under the rule of law, respectively. whether in their assessments or committed arbitrary interpretation, which would be extremely inconsistent with the principles of justice. In this sense, of course, it is the flagship of a final order of the court, which decided that extradition is permissible. This condition would not have been fulfilled if its enforceability has been suspended by order of the Constitutional Court under section 79 of the Act, par. 2 No. 182/1993 Coll., On the Constitutional Court, or as a result of the preliminary measures of the European Court of Human Rights under Article. 39 of its Rules of Procedure. Release, it would not be possible to permit even if it was a person whose extradition is sought, or granted international protection has not yet been finally completed proceedings on the application for the grant, including a possible judicial review. 16. With respect to the latter condition, it should be noted that in the decisions of the Minister of Justice essentially reflects the obligation of the Czech Republic, according to Art. 1 paragraph. 2 of the Constitution that comply with the obligations imposed on it under international law. The Constitutional Court has in the past said that if the Collision under international agreements, obligations arises primarily from the content of those contracts in relation to Art. 1, paragraph. 1 of the Constitution, according to which the Czech Republic is the rule of law, priority obligations from agreements on the protection of human rights. "Respect and protection of fundamental rights are the defining elements of the substantively understood law, because if they coexist contractual obligation and right and protecting fundamental contractual obligation and which endanger it tends that the first obligation of the right must prevail (cf. the Judgment. Zn. U.S. 752/02). This finding is in relation to measure is the resulting principle of non obligation-non-refoulement is a commitment that extradition, ie. extradition for criminal prosecution or enforcement of a foreign state's 17. The essence of the principle of non-State non-refoulement the apart of it or deport the authorize the issuance of refugee in another country, which would be threatened his life or personal liberty on the basis of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion (Art. 33, paragraph 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of refugees), respectively. which would have threatened that violate his right to life (art. 2 of the Convention) or to be subjected it to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 3 of the Convention) (see. The eg. The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 April 2005 in Shamayev and other complaints against Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02., section 335, dated November 8, 2005 complaint and Bader Kanbor against Sweden, no. 13284/04 section 41, and 42, and of the 28 February 2008 in the case of Saadi v Italy complaint No. 37201/06, section 125). The existence of these circumstances can be independently assessed, first, in the proceedings on granting international protection, conducted pursuant to the Act No. 325/1999 Coll., On Asylum, as amended, both in court proceedings on the admissibility of extradition under section 397 of the Criminal Code. 18th legislature defined the administrative procedures for granting international protection, which is pending before the Ministry of the Interior, and legal proceedings on the admissibility of extradition as two separate proceedings, each pursues a different purpose and whose course will not make another. Nevertheless, the outcome of both of them is that the decision of the Minister of Justice that permit extradition. The court ruling on the admissibility of extradition in assessing the different grounds under section 393 of the Criminal Procedure obligatory determines whether the person whose extradition is sought, asked for international protection as a result of which the present proceedings were completed. Were it found that its request was granted, it would have under section 393 of the point. (b) the Criminal Procedure Code) express the inadmissibility of extradition. In the opposite case, even if the rejection of this application would, however, was not bound by neither legal nor factual conclusions reached in the administrative proceedings and it is whether extradition would not breach the principle of non-refoulement within the non-meaning of Article. 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees conjunction with Art. 2, 3 and 6 of the Convention, respectively. If there are no other grounds for inadmissibility release, would have it fully assess separately [§ 393 point. k) l) of the Criminal Procedure Code]. But may also arise situations where the administrative authority shall decide on the application for international protection until after the court decides on the admissibility issue. Its origin must be accepted merely because the court is not obliged it to await completion of proceedings on granting international protection and the admissibility of the extradition may decide in the course of the [cf. The Supreme Court resolution dated June 26, 2001, file no. REF 11 Tcu 26/2001 (R 42/2002)]. However, it may be due to the fact that the application for international protection occurs in the final stage of these proceedings, or even afterwards. In any case, that the administration is not bound in further proceedings made by the factual and legal conclusions of the court and will be able in the procedure for granting international protection assessed separately. The court's decision that extradition is permissible also precludes administrative authority on international protection and for reasons which the court considered it sufficient for a finding of inadmissibility release. 19. For these reasons, it is clear that the person whose extradition is sought, has two sets of proceedings, under which it could obtain protection from interference with their fundamental rights and freedoms, which would result from a breach of the principle of non-non-refoulement. International protection is the reason for which the court had to pronounce the inadmissibility of extradition under section 393 of the point. (b) the Criminal Procedure Code). In this case, the justice minister could not decide on the extradition. This issue but would not occur even in the case if the court does declare that extradition is permissible for international protection would, however, occurred after his decision. Duty's Minister of Justice not to allow extradition in such a case the snake to be inferred directly from section 393 of the point. (b) the Criminal Procedure Code), which clearly establishes the relevance of the outcome of the international protection for deciding that permit extradition, and that the assessment of the facts that could possibly justify the granting of asylum or subsidiary protection to an applicant by the competent administrative authority can not be replaced court decisions in proceedings on the admissibility of extradition under section 397 of the Criminal Code. It remains to add that the Minister of Justice has the additional international protection taken into account, although it regards the assessment of the grounds of inadmissibility issue in accordance with § 393 of the Criminal Procedure editions, which are subject to the court's decision. This exception, however, given the nature of this ground of inadmissibility. Both the Court and the Minister of Justice, merely note the existence of a public authority's decision allows it to extradite the law even after a court ruled on the admissibility issue. Interpretation according to which this would prevent it to be considered as a ground of inadmissibility extradition would be with regard to fundamental rights and freedoms of it for which protection here it comes, the absurd. 20. Unlike a court, which could decide on the admissibility of extradition before the end of the proceedings on granting international protection, the Minister of Justice can not allow extradition until those proceedings finally completed, including a possible follow-up of judicial review (and the similar view, albeit for different reasons, reached on the complainant and the Supreme Administrative Court, whose remit does not however include a review of the Minister of Justice in the context of extradition proceedings; cf. judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court on 10 August 2010, ref. No. 4 Azs 10/2010-110). In a situation where the law allows simultaneous operation of the procedure for granting international protection as well as to the admissibility of the issue, can not be the person whose extradition is sought, denied the possibility.MP3 that games request for asylum was discussed, though its results may have relevance to the proceedings release even after the court stated that extradition is permissible. If the justice minister would authorize the issue before the end of the procedure for granting international protection, consider the request of that person could actually depend on the terms of its accidental circumstances, whether in the course of his will or will not be issued. The Interior Ministry itself would in many cases could be achieved by extending management situations when it due to the release of the applicant be gone before the proceedings on his request to stop. Such a procedure would naturally lead to the unequal status of applicants for international protection, without the existence of any legitimate reason. He would be granted signs of arbitrariness, as a result would not only violated the rights of a person to be extradited and fair trial under the Article. 36 para. 1 of the Charter, but also violated Art. 43 of the Charter, which the Czech Republic has committed itself to receive and deal with requests for asylum because of persecution for exercising political rights and freedoms. The "of these rights would, however, can not be the case if the person whose extradition is sought, he asked during the extradition proceedings on granting international protection in the same or similar reasons, ie. Without changing the material circumstances, repeated after the Management completed its first application. Under these circumstances the games release, the nature of things could cause interference with the rights described above. 21. Would it outlined interpretation of § 393 point. (b) the Criminal Procedure Code), the existence of statutory procedural guarantees the principle of non-refoulement, non-which, given the existence of two management represents and higher, but not a necessary standard for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms related. Likewise, this principle can not be understood in the sense that a foreigner that seek political asylum, which derives from Art. 43 of the Charter, has generally take precedence over obligations under international law that foreign countries that publish persons for the purpose of prosecution or imprisonment. Such a preference would be possible within the limits of the constitutional order and the international treaties it is, which are for the binding on the Czech Republic, the inferred in the case of an obligation arising from the above-mentioned principle of non-refoulement, non-but not in the case of a particular procedural right guaranteed in the asylum procedure. Given the limits of the advantages card of the principle of non-non-refoulement are expressed primarily in Art. 1 point. (F) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which excludes from the scope of this Convention, the person whom is serious reason to believe that he committed such. And a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity or a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to admission to that country games as a refugee. 22nd proceedings on the application for international protection generally loses its meaning if the applicant is extradited and the foreign state before its expiry, and the same conclusion applies with regard to the follow-up to judicial review. In this context, of course, you can not underestimate the risk of unacceptable delays in the length of the extradition procedure, which is associated with the conditioning of the Minister of Justice that permit extradition end of the above procedure. This risk is however not in itself constitute a reason for that should be the person whose extradition is sought, denied the law stemming from opportunity apply for international protection and to enforce it in the context of consideration of the reasons that would justify the granting of international protection, and therefore inadmissible to release. It is the primary responsibility of the Ministry of Interior, in cases where the subject of proceedings for the extradition of the applicant proceeded as efficiently as possible and without delay, and in this respect, using it means that him Asylum Act provides [eg. section 10a. e) or section 16 para. 2 of the Asylum Act]. In this regard it can also appeal to the process of regional courts in proceedings against the decision of the Ministry is of an Interior (article 32 of the Administrative Procedure Code) and the Supreme Administrative Court in any subsequent proceedings on a cassation complaint against the decision of the regional court. IV. Conclusion 23. As mentioned conclusions deviate from the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court declared in its judgments nos.. I. ÚS 752/02, and .us 733/05, the Constitutional Court i. 2462/10 and II. The U.S. 670/12, submitted III. Senate Constitutional Court under section 23 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the relationship of the Minister of Justice that permit extradition under section 399 par. 1 of the Criminal Code and court decisions on the admissibility of extradition under section 397 of the Criminal Procedure with regard to the admissibility of constitutional complaints, the deadline for its submission and the scope of review that assess the: that his arguments in its entirety, endorsed and adopted the legal opinion , which is indicated in the statements of opinion. Constitutional Court chairman: JUDr. Own hand