The applicant, a woman of Muslim faith from Guinea, claimed to have a fear of being persecuted for reasons of membership of a particular social group, a sexual orientation minority criminalised in Guinea. The applicant explained that she had been raped for the first time at the age of seven and subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) as a child. At the age of fourteen, she had been forcibly married to an older man, with whom she had children, and whom she later divorced. She had then begun exploring her sexuality and having relationships with women. Due to financial difficulties, the applicant engaged in sex work with women.

The applicant's family rejected her when they found out about her sexual orientation. A student of her father, who is an imam, warned the applicant that her family planned to poison her. The next day, she was offered a plate of rice by her stepmother. The applicant deliberately first offered it to someone else, which the stepmother prevented. She found the rice thrown away the next day, although they would never throw away uneaten rice in the household. The applicant left home. In Egypt, she engaged in sex work in exchange for promised flight tickets and false travel documents. The applicant stated that she had been forced to engage in forms of sex work she had initially not agreed to, with both women and men.

The applicant applied for international protection in Czechia on 21 April 2023, in the transit area of Prague Airport upon her arrival in the country. Five days later, on 26 April 2023, the Ministry of the Interior (the Ministry) conducted a substantive interview with the applicant and refused her entry into Czechia. The applicant's legal representative was not able to attend the submission of information regarding her application and the substantive interview, and the interview was not conducted by a female interviewer although this had been requested by the applicant.

By judgment of 12 May 2023, the Municipal Court in Prague annulled the refusal of entry into Czechia, holding that the Ministry had failed to properly take into account the applicant's health and vulnerability, and that the absence of her legal representative during the process and the failure to provide the requested female interviewer had violated the applicant's procedural rights.

On 12 May 2024, the Ministry conducted a supplementary interview with the applicant, compared the applicant's account during this second interview with her account during the first interview on 26 April 2023, and refused to grant international protection by decision of 25 February 2025. The Ministry decided that the applicant was not at risk in Guinea due to her sexual orientation, considering her account not credible due to certain discrepancies between the two interviews. In particular, during the first interview, the applicant stated that her father had told her that she “is dead”, her father's student had warned her about the poisoning over the phone, and her family had tried to poison her once. In contrast, during the second interview, the applicant stated that the father had left the room silently, her father's student had warned her about the poisoning in person, and her family had tried to poison her twice. Additionally, the Ministry also considered the applicant's claim that she had engaged in sex work in Guinea not credible in light of the country of origin information (COI).

By judgment of 6 May 2026, the Municipal Court in Prague upheld the Ministry's decision. The court held that the procedural violations (absence of legal representative and failure to provide the requested female interviewer) during the first interview did not negatively affect the parts of the applicant's account that were used by the Ministry to establish the lack of credibility, because these statements (father's reaction, mode of warning against poisoning, and number of poisoning attempts) were not related to the applicant's intimate life.

The applicant lodged a cassation complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. By judgment of 29 October 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the applicant's cassation complaint and annulled the judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague and the Ministry's decision.

The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Municipal Court and the Ministry had erred when they based their credibility assessments on the discrepancies in the applicant's account between the first and the second interview, given that the first interview had already been found unlawful due to the procedural violations. The Municipal Court therefore failed to follow its earlier judgment, or at least explain why it did not follow it, in spite of its obligation to do so under the requirements of predictability, legal certainty, and prohibition of arbitrariness. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the procedural violations rendered the first interview unlawful, and therefore invalidated the evidence obtained through that interview.

In conclusion, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague and the Ministry's decision, and remitted the case for re-examination.