According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:

The Ministry of the Interior terminated the proceedings for granting international protection to the applicant, because he did not comply with the Ministry's order to appear at the reception center for asylum seekers within 24 hours, as required by the Asylum Act.

The applicant filed an administrative action. He claimed circumstances beyond his control prevented him from fulfilling his obligation. His wife’s mental and physical health condition (risky pregnancy) required his constant presence and care. As the medical report produced by the applicant claimed, the possibility that the applicant’s wife would follow the applicant to stay in the reception center, albeit such an option had been offered by the authorities, would be hazardous to her condition, and thus practically impossible.

The first instance court upheld the decision of the Ministry. Therefore, the applicant lodged a cassation complaint. He argued that his failure to appear in the reception center could not be considered as an implicit withdrawal of his application, because he was at all time available to the administrative authority and willing to provide any information necessary.

Firstly, the Supreme Administrative Court observed that sec. 25 lit. d) of the Asylum was applied. This provision is based on Article 28(1) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (hereinafter referred to as “Procedural Directive”). The list of grounds set out in the Procedural Directive is only demonstrative; thus, it does not per se prohibit the extension of these grounds. However, any extension must preserve the spirit of that article. In the light of the foregoing, for the proceedings on an application for international protection to be terminated following Article 28(1) of the Procedural Directive, the authorities must rely on a specific act expressing the applicant's intention to withdraw the application. The will to withdraw the application might be expressed also through the applicant’s inaction. It follows that a precondition for the discontinuance of proceedings under sec. 25 lit. d) of the Asylum Act is that the applicant for international protection has acted in such a way as to show that he has implicitly withdrawn or abandoned his application. However, such conduct cannot be automatically inferred from the simple fact that the applicant for international protection did not appear at the reception center within the time limit laid down in sec. 3c of the Asylum Act, mainly if the applicant actively communicates with the administrative authority and this conduct shows that he does not intend to avoid examination of their application.

The applicant submitted to the Ministry medical reports concerning his wife’s condition. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the applicant presented reasons beyond his control for which he could not attend the reception center. At the same time, the precondition for the termination of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 28 of the Procedural Directive was not fulfilled. The termination of the proceedings was, therefore, against the law.

The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the contested judgement and the administrative decision and referred the case back to the Ministry for further proceedings.