A Vietnamese woman, residing in the Czech Republic with her minor daughter, applied for international protection. Her primary motivation for the application was to remain in the Czech Republic, where her daughter — born in the country — attended school, had friends, and held a valid residence permit until December 2025. On 24 September 2024, the Ministry of the Interior rejected the application.  

The applicant challenged the decision before the Regional Court in Ostrava. On 24 April 2025, the court annulled the Ministry of the Interior’s decision, holding that it was unreviewable due to insufficient reasoning concerning humanitarian asylum and failure to assess the best interests of the child. The Ministry of the Interior lodged a cassation complaint before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). 

The SAC held that the cassation complaint was admissible under Section 104a of the Code of Administrative Justice, noting that the case raised potential issues of substantive and procedural law. SAC disagreed with the lower court’s assessment that the Ministry of the Interior’s decision was unreviewable. It emphasised that for a decision to be unreviewable, it must lack any comprehensible reasoning or omit addressing essential objections entirely. In this case, the Ministry of the Interior had provided reasoning regarding both the applicant’s family situation and the possibility of humanitarian asylum. 

Regarding the best interests of the child, the SAC acknowledged that the Ministry of the Interior had not included a separate section devoted to this issue. However, it held that it could not be asserted, as the lower court did, that the Ministry of the Interior had failed to identify and consider the best interests of the applicant’s minor daughter. In particular, the SAC noted that the Ministry of the Interior had duly taken into account the residence status of the applicant's minor daughter and the consequences for her if the applicant were denied international protection. It referenced Constitutional Court case law, specifically its judgment of 14 April 2020, file no. IV. ÚS 950/19, stating that asylum authorities were not required to evaluate the best interests of the child in proceedings that did not directly or indirectly affect the child’s legal status. Accordingly, the SAC concluded that the Ministry of the Interior was not obliged to conduct a distinct best-interests analysis in this case. 

In conclusion, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment and returned the case to the Regional Court in Ostrava for further proceedings, finding that the Ministry of the Interior’s reasoning on humanitarian asylum and its consideration of the applicant’s family situation were sufficient, and that no procedural error had occurred.