The case concerned the detention of an applicant for asylum and the Regional court in Ostrava clarified that when an applicant for international protection, detained in a facility for foreign national, requests the re-examination of the reasons for detention on basis of Article 46 (10) of the Act no 325/1999 on asylum, then his application for re-examination of the reasons for detention must be decided no later than 5 days from the date its submission by the administrative body, based on Article 46(4) of the same act, and the applicant must be notified within the same deadline.

In fact, the applicant was caught in the village of Jirkov without any document or residence permit on 24 October 2022 and the Ploice ordered his detention for a period of 120 days. On 31 October 2022 he filled an application for international protection and his personal interview took place on 6 January 2023. On 9 January 2023, he requested the re-examination of the reasons for his detention and stated that he emphasised during the asylum interview the reasons for having left his country, the fact that eh developed a skin disease while in detention and that he fears further detention will have a negative impact on his health. The Ministry of the Interior decided to maintain the detention order until 1 March 2023 and the applicant contested the decision in court.

The Regional Court in Ostrova allowed the appeal and referred to the interpretation of the CJEU in the case  Mehmet Arslan v Police Force of the Czech Republic, Regional Police Directorate of the Usti nad Labem Region, Foreigners Police Station (Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie), C-534/11, 30 May 2013, of Article 8 paragraph 3 letter d) of the Directive 2013/33/EU where it stated that: the applicant can be detained, if the measure is adopted for the purpose of preparing return or carrying out expulsion and if, on the basis of objective criteria, including the fact that the applicant has already had access to the asylum procedure, Member States can properly demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons to believe that the applicant is making an application for international protection only in order to delay or frustrate the execution of the return decision.

The court mentioned that in contrast with a situation where the applicant is detained more, and the Asylum Act does not provide for a deadline for deciding on a request for re-examination of the reasons for detention, however the administrative body has the obligation to conduct the re-assessment similar to the provided by Article 46a (4) of the Asylum Act. At the time of the request, the applicant was already detained and a period of one month has passed since the decision on the detention came into force. If a request is submitted by a foreigner for an assessment of the duration of the reasons for detention, it is obvious that such an assessment needs to be carried out immediately, precisely in view of the fact that the foreigner's personal freedom is limited. At the same time, according to Article 46a (10) of the Asylum Act, the administrative body itself has the obligation to continuously examine whether the reason for detention persists. The court considered that there were no reasons for a delayed review of the duration and  the reasons for detention following a request by the applicant.

If, within the same provision of Section 46a of the Asylum Act, no other deadline is set for a decision on a foreigner's application pursuant to Section 46a, paragraph 10 of the Asylum Act, then the court concluded that it is necessary to apply the 5-day period specified in Section 46, paragraph 4 of the Asylum Act. Therefore, the administrative authority must decide on the foreigner's request for a reassessment of the duration and the reasons for his detention within 5 days from the request submitted by the detainee.

The court ruled that since the applicant submitted a request for re-assessment on 9 January 2023 and the application was not decided on until 2 February 2023, and moreover, the decision was not physically delivered to him until 17 February 2023, the contested decision is illegal. In addition, the court stated that the administrative file did not reveal any facts from which it would be possible to infer the reasonableness of the assessment period of the applicant's request for a period of less than a month. The same also applies to the delivery time of the contested decision. The court stated that by the Ministry of the Interior action, the applicant was deprived of his right to a regular judicial review of the duration of the reasons for detention as provided by Article 5, paragraph 4 of the ECHR.