The Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic issued a crucial judgment (case no. 10 Azs 151/2024-28) concerning temporary protection for foreigners in the Czech Republic and its relation to applications submitted in other EU Member States. The decision provides a fundamental interpretation of Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of Act No. 65/2022 Coll. (Lex Ukraine) and its compliance with EU law.
The Case of a Ukrainian Citizen and His Application for Temporary Protection
The plaintiff, a Ukrainian national, traveled to the Czech Republic in March 2023. On his way, he passed through Romania, where he was granted temporary protection on March 5, 2023. However, he claimed he was unaware that he had applied for protection there. His goal was to settle in the Czech Republic, where his brother resides. Therefore, in June 2023, he renounced the rights arising from his Romanian temporary protection and subsequently applied for temporary protection in the Czech Republic on December 6, 2023.
The Ministry of the Interior (the defendant) deemed his application inadmissible under Section 5(1)(d) of Lex Ukraine, arguing that the plaintiff had already been granted temporary protection in Romania. The plaintiff challenged this decision before the Regional Court in Plzeň, which found the ministry’s decision to be an unlawful interference and ordered the restoration of the original state.
Subsequently, the ministry formally accepted the application but suspended the proceedings, citing an ongoing preliminary ruling procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (case C-753/23), which concerned the compatibility of Czech law with the EU Temporary Protection Directive (2001/55/EC).
Cassation Appeal and Key Findings of the Supreme Administrative Court
The Ministry of the Interior filed a cassation appeal, arguing that it was not inactive since it had suspended the proceedings due to the pending CJEU case. However, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed this argument and rejected the appeal.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment:
An application cannot be rejected solely because a foreigner previously applied for protection in another state.
The purpose of Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of Lex Ukraine is not to permanently prevent foreigners from applying for temporary protection in the Czech Republic if their protection in another country has already expired.
The objective of these provisions is to prevent simultaneous protection in multiple states, not to permanently block the possibility of applying elsewhere.
Suspending the proceedings was unjustified.
The ministry failed to consider the individual circumstances of the plaintiff, who was no longer under temporary protection in another country.
The proceedings should have been completed without waiting for the CJEU decision, as the preliminary question was not directly relevant to the plaintiff’s case.
Restrictions on foreigners’ rights must comply with EU law.
The EU Temporary Protection Directive provides an exhaustive list of reasons for excluding individuals from protection.
The Czech law cannot introduce additional restrictions that are inconsistent with European legislation.
The ministry’s inaction worsened the plaintiff’s situation.
Delaying the decision had a negative impact on the plaintiff’s rights, particularly concerning his access to employment, health insurance, and social benefits.
Implications of the Decision and Future Developments
The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court confirms that foreigners who have renounced temporary protection in another state have the right to apply for protection in the Czech Republic. The Ministry of the Interior will now have to adapt to this interpretation and assess each application individually.
Furthermore, the upcoming CJEU ruling in case C-753/23 is expected to provide further clarification regarding the choice of the Member State for temporary protection.
What Does This Mean for Applicants for Temporary Protection?
If you have previously been granted temporary protection in another EU country but no longer hold it, you have the right to apply for protection in the Czech Republic.
The Ministry of the Interior cannot automatically reject applications solely based on prior applications or granted protection in another state.
If you experience administrative inaction, you can challenge it through a lawsuit against administrative inactivity.
Conclusion
This ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court sets an important precedent for applicants for temporary protection and clarifies the interpretation of Lex Ukraine. It confirms that Czech authorities cannot arbitrarily restrict foreigners’ rights beyond what EU law allows and that each application must be assessed on an individual basis. Future developments in this area will also depend on the upcoming CJEU decision, which could further refine the rules for granting temporary protection within the EU.