Conformity Study For The Czech Republic Directive 2004/38/EC On The Right of Citizens of The Union and Their Family Members To Move and Reside Freely Within The Territory of The Member States

Conformity Study for the Czech Republic
Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their

family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the
Member States
This National Conformity Study has been prepared by Milieu Ltd. in consortium with the
Europa Institute, Edinburgh University under Contract No JLS/2007/C4/004-30-CE-
0159638/00-31. The actual conformity checking was carried out in the Czech Republic by
Alena Dodoková (Institute for Environmental Policy) and was concluded on 1 August. The
study does not take into account any subsequent changes in EU law and national legislation
and/or administrative practice.
The views expressed herein are those of the consultants alone and do not necessarily represent
the official views of the European Commission. The national report reflects that legal
situation as it stands on 1 August 2008. No subsequent changes have been taken into account.
Milieu Ltd. (Belgium), 29 rue des Pierres, B-1000 Brussels, tel: 32 2 506 1000; Fax 32 2 514
3603; e-mail: sophie.vancauwenbergh@milieu.be; web address: www.milieu.be
Milieu Ltd & Conformity Study Directive 2004/38/EC for the Czech Republic 2008 3/69
Europa Institute
ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION TRANSPOSING
DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC ON FREE MOVEMENT OF UNION CITIZENS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 5
ABBREVIATIONS USED ....................................................................................................................... 17
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 19
1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC............................................................20

1.2 FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPOSITION & IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC IN THE CZECH
REPUBLIC ...................................................................................................................................................................20
1.2.1 Distribution of competences according to the national Constitution ............... 20
1.2.2 General description of organisation of national authorities implementing
Directive 2004/38/EC in the Czech Republic .......................................................... 21
2 LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSPOSING MEASURES FOR DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC................. 22
2.1 Definitions, family members and beneficiaries ....................................................................... 23

2.2 Rights of exit and entry................................................................................................................ 26
2.3 Right of residence ........................................................................................................................ 28
2.4 Right of permanent residence................................................................................................... 40
2.5 Common provisions (Articles 22-26) .......................................................................................... 43
2.6 Restrictions on the right of entry and residence on grounds of public policy, public
security and public health.......................................................................................................... 46
2.7 Procedural safeguards against decisions restricting free movement (Article 15, and
Articles 30-31)................................................................................................................................ 52
2.8 Final provisions (Chapter VII)...................................................................................................... 57
ANNEX I: Table of concordance for Directive 2004/38/EC

ANNEX II: List of relevant national legislation and administrative acts
ANNEX III: Selected national case law
ANNEX IV: Certificate of temporary residence
ANNEX V: Certificate of application
ANNEX VI: Application form for residence permits/certificates
ANNEX VII: Sworn statement of accommodation
Europa Institute
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Introduction
The Czech Republic is a unitary State. The Parliament is divided into two chambers: the Chamber of
Deputies and the Senate; it adopts laws and constitutional laws and gives the consent necessary for
ratification of international treaties. International treaties which are ratified, are also formal sources of
law. In case of conflict with a national act, the provision of such international treaty shall be used. The
Czech Republic follows the continental system of codification, therefore only acts adopted by the
Parliament and legally binding administrative statutes (Decrees of the Ministries and Regulations of
the Government) are recognised as generally binding and formal sources of law. However, certain
decisions of the Constitutional Court may become sources of law i.e., if they decide on the repeal of a
law (acts and other legislation).
2. Introduction to the main particularities of the legal system of the Member State relating
to the transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC.
The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is responsible for transposing this Directive although it is
not the only competent body with regard to it.
In the Czech Republic, control of aliens is in practice the competence of Police – distribution of
competences in this field is not the matter of constitutional regulation but has been laid down in the
Alien Act (Act no. 326/1999 Coll., as amended). According to this Act, the administrative superior of
Police is the Ministry of the Interior, which supervises its activities when exercising state
administration.
Alien and Border Police grant residence permits and visas to enter and stay in the territory of the
Czech Republic with certain exceptions. Firstly, the Ministry of the Interior is competent to grant (and
cancel) long-term and permanent residence permits in exceptional cases (humanitarian reasons,
academic research etc.). The Ministry of International Affairs is the central state administration body
that has been vested with all powers related to diplomatic matters and embassies of CZ in foreign
countries. There are certain other bodies, such as municipal offices (informing the alien that he/she has
become an unreasonable burden on the social security system) and administrative courts (as an
independent reviewer of decisions of administrative authorities), which competences are clearly
delimited with regard to aliens and no interference is possible.
Given the unitary character of the Czech Republic and the approach taken in the regulations, there is
very little potential for conflict of responsibilities in the implementation of the Directive.
3. Conclusions of the legal analysis of the transposing measures for Directive 2004/38/EC.
a. Overview of how the requirements have been transposed
The main transposing instrument of the Directive is Act no 326/1999 Coll. on the residence of aliens
in the territory of the Czech Republic, as amended (hereinafter the “Aliens Act”) (Zákon 326/1999 SB.
ze dne 30. listopadu 1999 o pobytu cizinců na území České republiky a o změně některých zákonů, ve
znění pozdějších předpisů.) The act was in force prior to the adoption of the Directive, so it was
amended accordingly as well as the other acts (last transposing measure came into force on 21
December 2007).
Europa Institute
Constitutional Act no. 2/1993 Coll., “Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms” (includes certain
safeguards with regard to free movement of citizens of the Czech Republic and a general clause on
protection against discrimination).
Acts regulating employment and business establish equal conditions for Union citizens as well as for
the Czech citizens. Czech legislation includes provisions on how to determine “unreasonable burden
on the social assistance system. Social assistance system comprises three different areas (three
different acts regulating them); each one includes an identical provision. Special acts have been
adopted to regulate identity cards. A competence to ask for proof of identity has been vested with the
Police of CZ (regulated by the Police Act).
Administrative offences of natural persons (misdemeanours – přestupky), both substantive and

procedural issues, have been regulated primarily by Act no. 200/1990 Coll. on misdemeanours (Zákon
200/1990 Sb. o přestupcích) notwithstanding the special provisions in other acts. Criminal offences are
substantively regulated by Criminal Code (Trestní zákon). A new Act on criminal justice with regard
to minors was adopted in 2003.
Residence permits and certificates are granted in the administrative procedure, which is to respect
general principles of good governance and has detailed legal regulation embodied in Code of
Administrative Procedure (Zákon 500/2004 Sb. - správní řád). Judicial appeal for a review of
administrative decisions is in competence of administrative courts - the procedure regulated by Code
of Administrative Justice (Zákon 150/2002 Sb. - soudní řád správní). Criminal procedure is regulated
by the Code of Criminal Procedure (trestní řád).
b. Conformity problems and complete and accurate transposition
Requirements of Directive 2004/38 are not correctly transposed despite a series of transposition
measures adopted. This is especially the case for the most important requirements that are related to
the right of entry or residence of EU citizens and possibilities for its limitation. Union citizens are
required to present one document (proof of their accommodation in CZ for the time of their residence)
on top of the Directive’s requirements. The Czech law is even more ambiguous with regard to family
members where it talks about residence “permits” - a word evoking the permitting act of the
administrative authority prior to recognition of the right itself. This in fact leads to the situation where
the right is not recognised per se. However, it is clear that the most important requirements of the
Directive in this regard are respected.
A major inconformity issue was found with regard to the lifting of criminal expulsion.
The Table of Correspondence and the Conformity Study below both set out in detail and in full the
respects in which the Directive has not been properly transposed. For the purposes of this executive
summary, the more important issues are summarised (all inconformity issues are presented in
summary datasheet that follows this section).
1. Transposition issues related to administrative formalities for Union

citizens
Czech law correctly recognises the right of temporary residence of Union citizens in CZ in case they
meet the requirements. Thus, no further permit or card is needed, which is in line with the Directive.
However, if they wish to ask for a residence certificate, the administrative documents asked from
them are not in line with the Directive. The Union citizen is required to present a proof of
accommodation in CZ. No such formality is stated (or even presumed) by the Directive (Article 8(3)),
therefore such transposition is a direct breach of the right of free movement. The same situation
repeats with regard to permanent residence (Article 19(1)). Again, the Czech law requires Union
citizens to present a document proving accommodation in CZ upon submission of application.
Europa Institute
Moreover, it exhaustively stipulates which documents are to be considered as sufficiently verifying
this fact and which types of premises can serve the purpose.
In addition, the Czech law incorrectly transposed Article 25(1), which provides that possession of
residence document cannot be made a precondition for the exercise of a right if it can be otherwise
proved. Relevant sections of social assistance laws qualifying the Union citizens for social assistance
are based on their residence registration (i.a., certificate). This implies that although the registration
certificate may be optional, in practice, the Union citizen is “forced” to apply for it to benefit from
social assistance. This intensifies the non-conformity of the administrative formalities.
2. Transposition of Article 7(3): retention of the status of a worker or

self-employed person in certain cases
The situations mentioned by this Article include temporary incapacity to work, duly recorded
involuntary unemployment after employment that lasted for more than one year, duly recorded
involuntary unemployment after completing a fixed-term employment contract of less than a year or
after having become involuntarily unemployed during the first twelve months and vocational training
related to previous employment). These which safeguard the Union citizen’s worker status when he is
temporarily unable to work due to involuntary reasons, but have not been transposed in Czech law.
Only in case of temporary illness or accident is the worker’s status is preserved (so called protection
period according to Labour Code). For cases of involuntary unemployment or vocation training, there
is no transposition although registered job seekers fall under the protection of employment legislation.
However, they are not considered workers by the Czech law. Although the Czech system of social
security and unemployment protection is rather complex and elaborate, the retention of the residence
status is not what the Directive requires in these particular cases but the retention of the status of
worker. For this reason the transposition is considered incorrect.
3. Transposition issues related family members
Concerning family members, the cases of non-conformity found in Czech law are diverse and more
significant than those presented above. With regard to Article 3(1) of the Directive, the Czech
legislation applies to family member joining and accompanying the EU citizen. Family member of
Union citizen is defined in Sect 15a AA (see below). The definition in this Section also includes
family member of Czech citizen, who is thus covered by the right of free movement and residence as
well. No condition of lawful residence in another MS is found in AA. However, there is no clear
provision in AA indicating that family members are also considered persons who become family
members during their residence (even illegal) in CZ. The CZ, in its position to the Metock case,
claimed that such a situation is outside the scope of this Directive, which was dismissed by the court.
It ruled exactly the opposite. This ruling is binding upon CZ as well. However, since there is no clear
legal provision ensuring this right, it cannot be ensured that the administrative practice would be
uniform in this regard. For this reason the transposition is considered ambiguous.
Regarding Article 3(2), the Aliens Act extends the regime applied to family members to “other family
members” under Article 3(2) of the Directive. Therefore, these are treated as “hard core family
members” which would be a more favourable treatment. Although Czech law is more favourable, the
wording of Sect 15a(4)(a) AA is stricter for Article 3(2)(a) family members since it requires that
family members meet the conditions laid down by the Directive in the country where they had long-
term or permanent residence (if they were not nationals of this country). The Directive only talks
about the “country from which they have come.” (Article 3(2)(c)). Therefore, the CZ provision
narrows the scope of the Directive.
There is no explicit provision stating that third country family members only need an entry visa
(Article 5.2) although the procedural aspects (free of charge and accelerate procedure of granting
them) are transposed correctly. Moreover, they do not have an automatic right of residence for up to
three months. The definition of visa indicates that it is document allowing entry and staying in the
Europa Institute
territory of CZ. In accordance with the requirement of Article 6(2), it is only clear that if the person
holds the residence card of a family member of a Union citizen he/she can remain for up to three
months with no other conditions and requirements. However, when the family member does not hold a
residence card of a family member, Czech law implies that the person needs a short-stay visa (for up
to 90 days) or a transit visa to entry the country. As will be shown in Article 6(2), holding a visa is not
a requirement to stay for less than 3 months provided the family member stays in the CZ with the
Union citizen. Transposition of this Article has been considered correct despite the somehow complex
formulation. In practice, the CZ is trying to combine the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC and
the requirements under Schengen acquis. Normally a Schengen visa will be valid for 90 days (short-
term stay visa or Category C visa) although there are some exceptions.
When it comes to residence for more than three months, the Czech Alien Act distinguishes between
temporary residence certificates (issued only to Union citizens) and temporary residence permits
issued to other categories of aliens, including family members of a Union citizen who are not Union
citizens. This difference in terminology (together with what was stated about the necessity to obtain
short term visas) indicates that the right of residence for a Union citizen family member does not
happen as a consequence of meeting the conditions stated in the Directive/transposing legislation but
by a permitting act of the administrative authority. Requirements on administrative formalities are
not met either. Family members (Union citizens themselves and not Union citizens) who are
accompanying a Union citizen are required to present a proof of accommodation in CZ and also proof
of medical insurance for their residence permit to be issued. No such formalities are stated (or even
presumed) by the Directive, therefore such transposition is incorrect. The same repeats with regard to
permanent residence permit (terminology issue together with more documents to be presented).
Another problem of conformity analysed is the issue of retention of residence in case of divorce or
annulment of marriage when the family member has custody of a child. Sect 87f(2)(c) AA
recognises custody only when it is based on the decision by applicable authorities. Divorce or
annulment of marriage can only be proclaimed by a court in CZ. When the court decides so, it always
has to deal with the custody of minor children. No such agreement made prior to this decision (or
after) is legally binding unless confirmed by the court. However, in exceptional cases justified by
serious circumstances, other authorities (e.g., with competences for minors) can also decide firstly on
the custody of a child. Divorce or annulment of marriage can happen in other countries, which
recognises private custody agreements as binding. Therefore, the right (granted in Article 13(2)(b))
cannot be restricted by the requirements of national legislation, that the agreement should be
incorporated into a court order (or decision of administrative authority). For this reason, the
transposition is considered incomplete.
The last transposition issue related to family members of a Union citizen whose purpose of stay is
studies. The Czech transposition does not include the requirement to facilitate entry and residence for
the dependent direct ascendants and those of his/her spouse or partner of a Union citizen who is on
studies, therefore it is incomplete in this regard, although more generous with regard to other
beneficiaries.
4. Transposition issues related to expulsion
Expulsion is an extraordinary measure to be taken in any democratic country justified by very serious
circumstances. As to the beneficiaries of this Directive (to whom right of free movement and residence
apply), the conditions should be even more properly set out and studied before this happens.
Moreover, there should exist later an option for the person concerned to have the ban of entry lifted,
should the serious conditions have ceased. Incorrect transposition of Articles laying down rules for
expulsion can be thus perceived as a major inconformity issue.
First, Article 28(1) requires that the authorities are obliged to study individual circumstances before
expulsion and it goes on naming them. Although requirements laid down in Code of Administrative
Procedure are to ensure that consequences of administrative decisions are proportionate and the
Europa Institute
circumstances justify it in every individual case, there is no precise transposition of the list of
circumstances to be studied. In fact, Czech law seems to focus on family life but it does not look at
other factors such as integration in the country or economic impacts as required by Article 28(1) of the
Directive.
There are two issues that have not been transposed, however, which have not been reported as
problematic in practice. This issue is last sentence of Article 27(1). This provision requires that
grounds for restriction of free movement and residence should not serve economic ends. Despite
the fact that reasons for all limitations/restrictions of free movement and residence are strictly set out
in Czech law providing for no administrative discretion in this regard, explicit transposition of this
important particular requirement is needed as well.
The Czech law allows the expulsion of a Union citizen (or his family member) who has been residing
in CZ for more than 10 years in administrative procedure based on the ground that he/she
“threatens/endangers state security” (ohrožuje bezpečnost státu). In contrast, the Directive requires
that it be based on “imperative grounds of public security”(less strict wording is used with regard to
Union citizens and family members residing for a shorter period of time). Since the Czech law does
not attempt to make any stricter division when compared to other provisions on expulsion, persons
concerned may be expelled under less strict conditions.
The same problem appears with regard to minors - less strict conditions are laid down. According to
the Czech law, a minor is to be “only” a threat to state security for the expulsion to be justified
whereas the Directive requires imperative grounds unless it is in the interest of the child. Furthermore,
minors can be expelled from CZ as a consequence of criminal penalty, which applies the same
conditions to adults and minors (between 15-18 years old or in justified cases even older). This
extends the scope of circumstances even more.
The problematic transposition of the term “imperative grounds of public security” causes incorrect
transposition of provisions on interim relief. The Czech law guarantees automatic suspensory effect
of the judicial appeal against the administrative decision on the expulsion. However, since the term
has not been transposed correctly, the law enables to withdraw suspensory effect of judicial appeals
(i.e. administrative complaints) in less serious cases.
When it comes to the expulsion itself, in case of administrative expulsion, there is no explicit
provision stating how long the time limit for leaving the country should be. Therefore, this
constitutes incomplete transposition since Article 30(3) requires that it be minimum one month in any
cases unless in duly substantiated cases of urgency.
The Directive requires in both expulsion types (administrative and criminal) a possibility for
mitigation or lifting of the negative consequences of expulsion. Concerning administrative
expulsion, Article 32(1) of the Directive, it is generally correctly transposed but the requirement to
reach a decision in this matter within six months has not been transposed. As a result, the Czech law,
despite detailed provision on timelines of administrative procedure, does not state any “final” time
period to reach a decision, which would then entitle the applicant to procedural remedies. However,
the inconformity is much more serious concerning criminal expulsion. The Code of Criminal
Procedure states that in case the Union citizen who has been residing in CZ continuously in the past 10
years, or if his family member irrespective of the nationality, who has permanent residence in CZ, has
not been expelled in two years after the expulsion became enforceable, the court shall check whether
the circumstances that hinder imposing this penalty have not occurred. This transposition is incorrect
in all aspects: the scope of persons covered is limited and the circumstances (to hinder imposing the
penalty) are almost impossible to occur.
Europa Institute
c. Conclusions of the legal analysis of the transposing measures for Directive
2004/38/EC.
In summary, it is evident that the Czech law does not fully respect to the aim and spirit of the
Directive although in general the attempt towards accurate transposition cannot be disputed. Still, the
prevailing number of inconformity issues is due to incorrect transposition, which needs to be corrected
by the Parliament and may be a result of certain misunderstanding or omissions. All in all, some
incorrect provisions are made even stricter by an abusive administrative practice (proof of
accommodation) whereas the incorrect and discriminatory effect of others is mitigated in
administrative practice (the issue of “permits” for family members). For the remaining ones, the
consequences will become apparent in time (expulsion as s criminal penalty, retention of the status of
a worker). Other issues of incomplete transposition are not of such significant impacts although it
depends on how the administrative authorities exercise their competencies.
Europa Institute
SUMMARY DATASHEET
1. Transposing legislation
Transposition of this Directive was done in the Czech Republic in several stages primarily by the
amendments to Aliens Act (Act no. 326/1999 Coll., “AA”) and amendments to some other specific
acts (e.g., definition of unreasonable burden). General procedural acts (Code of Administrative
Procedure and Code of Administrative Justice) have not been amended respectively only marginally
(Code of Criminal Procedure). The last amendment to AA (done the Act no. 379/2007 Coll.) entered
into force on 21 December 2007 (the relevant provisions) resp. in full will have entered into force by
31. 12. 2008 (this does not concern transposition of this Directive). The Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs (responsible for transposition of the Directive) claims that as from 21 December 2007, the
Directive has been fully transposed into Czech law.
For the purpose of transposition of Directive 2004/38 the most important piece of legislation is Act no
326/1999 Coll. on the residence of aliens in the territory of the Czech Republic, as amended, “Aliens
Act”, latest amendment: Act no 379/2007 Coll., latest consolidated version published under no.
42/2008 Coll. (Zákon 326/1999 SB. ze dne 30. listopadu 1999 o pobytu cizinců na území České
republiky a o změně některých zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, úplné znění vyhlášené pod č.
326/1999 Sb.)
Specific provisions relevant for the transposition of the Directive are included in the following acts:
Constitutional safeguards:
• Constitutional Act no. 2/1993 Coll., as amended “Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms”
(Usnesení předsednictva České národní rady ze dne 16. prosince 1992 o vyhlášení LISTINY
ZÁKLADNÍCH PRÁV A SVOBOD jako součásti ústavního pořádku České republiky, ve znění
pozdějších předpisů)
Social assistance acts:

• Act no. 100/1988 Coll. on social assistance, as amended (Zákon 100/1988 Sb. ze dne 16.
června1988 o sociálním zabezpečení, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
• Act no. 108/2006 Coll. on social services, as amended (Zákon 108/2006 Sb. ze dne 14. března
2006 o sociálních službách, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
• Act no. 111/2006 Coll. on assistance in material need, as amended (Zákon 111/2006 Sb. ze dne
14. března 2006 o pomoci v hmotné nouzi ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
Acts regulating employment and business

• Act no. 435/2004 Coll. on the employment, as amended (Zákon 435/2004 Sb. ze dne 13. května
2004 o zaměstnanosti ve znění, pozdějších předpisů)
• Act no. 455/1991 Coll. on business licences, as amended (Zákon 455/1991 Sb. ze dne 2. října
1991o živnostenském podnikání (živnostenský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
• Act no. 262/2006 Coll, Labour Code (Zákon č. 262/2006 Sb. ze dne 21. dubna 2006 zákoník
práce, ve znění pozdějších předpisů) http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/zakonik-
prace/
• Acts related to identity cards and passports and prove of identity
• Act no. 328/1999 Coll. on identity cards, as amended (Zákon 328/1999 Sb. ze dne 30. listopadu
1999 o občanských průkazech, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
• Act no. 283/1991 Coll. on the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended (Zákon 283/1991 Sb.
České národní rady ze dne 21. června 1991 o Policii České republiky, ve znění pozdějších
předpisů)
• Act no. 329/1999 Coll. on travel documents, as amended (Zákon 329/1999 Sb. ze dne 30.
listopadu 1999 o cestovních dokladech a o změně zákona č. 283/1991 Sb., o Policii České
Europa Institute
republiky, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, (zákon o cestovních dokladech) ve znění pozdějších
předpisů)
Procedural Acts
• Act no. 500/2004 Coll. as amended, Code of Administrative Procedure (Zákon 500/2004 Sb. ze
dne 24. června 2004 správní řád, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
• Act no. 150/2002 Coll. as amended, Code of Administrative Justice (Zákon 150/2002 Sb. ze dne
21. března 2002 soudní řád správní, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
• Act no. 141/1961 Sb. Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended (zákon č. 141/1961 Sb. ze dne 29.
listopadu 1961 o trestním řízení soudním (trestní řád), ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
Acts on offences (administrative and criminal)
• Act no. 140/1961 Coll. as amended, Criminal Code (Zákon 140/1961 Sb. ze dne 29. listopadu
1961 Trestní zákon, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
• Act no. 200/1990 Coll. on administrative offences, as amended (Zákon 200/1990 Sb. České
národní rady ze dne 17.května 1990 o přestupcích, ve znění pozdějších předpisů
• Act no. 218/2003 Coll. on criminal justice with regard to minors, as amended (Zákon 218/2003
Sb. ze dne 25. června 2003 o odpovědnosti mládeže za protiprávní činy a o soudnictví ve věcech
mládeže a o změně některých zákonů (zákon o soudnictví ve věcech mládeže), ve znění
pozdějších předpisů)
• Decree no. 274/2004 Coll laying down a list of diseases which could threaten public health and list
of diseases and disabilities which could seriously threaten public order (Vyhláška ze dne 28.
dubna 2004, kterou se stanoví seznam nemocí, které by mohly ohrozit veřejné zdraví, a seznam
nemocí a postižení, které by mohly závažným způsobem ohrozit veřejný pořádek)
• Act no. 634/2004 Sb. on administrative fees (Zákon ze dne 26. listopadu 2004 č. 634/2004 Sb.o
správních poplatcích)
• Act no. 111/1998 Coll on universities, as amended (zákon ze dne 22. dubna 1998 o vysokých
školách, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
http://www.msmt.cz/Files/vysokeskoly/Legislativa/Zakon111_uplne_zneni_552.htm
2. Assessment of the transposition
The following inconformity issues exist in the CZ. They are organised according to the type of
inconformity and than presented in the order of the Directive’s articles.
a) Incomplete transposition or non-transposition
i. Missing transposition (gap
Article Retention of the status of a worker or self-employed person in cases of

7(3)(b)(c)(d) involuntary unemployment or vocational training: there is no transposition of this
article. Registered job seekers fall under the protection of employment legislation.
The Employment act (Sect 3(2)) stipulates that Union citizen and his family
members have equal status to Czech citizens in employment relations. Article 7(3)
also refers to self-employed persons. These persons can also cancel their business
licence and register as job-seekers. However, they will not be considered self-
employed any more although they will retain their residence rights.
Article 13(2)(c) Extensive examination of personal circumstances of other family members and
partners: this provision requires that the right of residence shall be maintained
also when this is warranted by particularly difficult circumstances, such as having
been a victim of domestic violence while the marriage or registered partnership
was subsisting. This is not found in the Czech Aliens Act although it obliges the
authorities, before cancelling the residence, to study the consequences of any such
decision on the personal or family life of the family member and make sure that it
is adequate to the reasons for cancelling the temporary residence. Still,
Europa Institute
transposition of this provision is missing.
Article 14(4)(b) Protection against expulsion of job seekers: this provision has not been transposed
in the Czech law although reference to Regulation 1612/68 is made.
Article 27(1) last The grounds for restriction of free movement and residence not serving economic
sentence ends: despite the fact that reasons for all limitations/restrictions or free movement
and residence are strictly set out in Czech law providing for no administrative
discretion in this regard, explicit transposition of this particular requirement is
necessary.
Article 27(3) Checks in other MS: this Article has not been transposed. However, most of its
requirements are considered optional therefore cannot constitute a conformity
issue with the exception of the last sentence. It states that when a Member State is
contacted in order to give information on the person concerned it shall give its
reply within two months. Since there is no transposing measure in Czech law, the
Czech authorities do not have a legally binding period to respond.
Article 32(1) last Lifting of the exclusion order (timeframe to reach the decision): the requirement
sentence to reach a decision in this regard within six months has not been transposed.
Czech law does not state any “final” time period to reach a decision, which would
then entitle the applicant to procedural remedies.
ii. Incomplete transposition

Article 2(2)(c) Direct descendants as family members
This provision requires that the direct descendants of Union citizen or his
spouse/partner who are under the age of 21 be regarded as family members. AA
only refers to a child younger than 21 years. A child is a direct descendant in the
first line; therefore this provision does not cover direct descendants in the second
(or even third) line.
Article 5(4) Right of entry in case of missing travel documents and visas: this Article is
incompletely transposed, a the wording of the Directive is broader to give these
persons, should such a situation occur, maximum range of possibilities to prove
their right of entry whereas the Aliens Act seems more narrow in this sense.
Article 7(4) Family members of a Union citizen whose purpose of stay is studies: the Czech
transposition does not include the requirement to facilitate entry and residence for
the dependent direct ascendants and those of his/her spouse or partner of a Union
citizen who is on studies, therefore it is incomplete.
Article 10(1) Residence card of family member of a Union citizen: the obligation that a
certificate of application for the residence card shall be issued immediately has
not been transposed.
Article 13(2)(b) Retention of residence in case of divorce when the family member has custody
over a child: Sect 87f(2)(c) recognises custody only when it is based on the
decision by applicable authorities. Divorce or annulment of marriage can be only
proclaimed by the court in CZ. When the court decides so, it always has to deal
with the custody of minor children. No such agreement made prior to this decision
(or after) is legally binding unless confirmed by the court. In exceptional cases
justified by serious circumstance, also other authorities (competent for minors)
can decide preliminary on the custody of a child. However, the right can not be
restricted by the requirement of national legislation, that the agreement should be
incorporated into a court order (or decision of administrative authority). For these
reason, the transposition of Article 13(2)(b) is regarded as incomplete
Article 14(2) Verification of conditions for the right of residence: Aliens Act does not include
second complete provision on verification of conditions to be met by Union citizens and
subparagraph their family members apart from the provision that states that municipal
authorities shall check and report to the police if anyone becomes unreasonable
burden. Also, under its competence to check identity of aliens, police is allowed
Europa Institute
to verify the conditions of their stay in CZ (e.g. family link to the Union citizen).
Aliens Act does not include any provision on the conditions of these checks (the
necessity to check it when serious doubts arise, regularity of checks) or any
safeguards.
Article 14(4)(a) Protection against expulsion of workers and self-employed persons: incomplete
transposition is the result of missing transposition of Article 7(3)(b)(c)(d) despite
the fact that the Aliens Act prohibits expulsion of persons to whom Regulation
1612/68 applies.
Article 28(1) Obligation to study individual circumstances before expulsion: although
requirements laid down in Code of Administrative Procedure are to ensure that
consequences of administrative decisions are proportionate and the circumstances
justify it in every individual case, there is no precise transposition of the list of
circumstances to be studied in the relevant sections of Aliens Act.
Article 28(3)a Expulsion after 10 years of residence: the Czech law allows that such a person is
expelled in administrative procedure based on the ground that he
“threatens/endangers state security” (ohrožuje bezpečnost státu). In contrast, the
Directive requires that it be based on “imperative grounds of public security”.
Since the Czech law does not attempt to make any stricter division when
compared to other provisions on expulsion, it can be concluded that it is
incomplete.
Article 30(3) last Notice to the person expelled: departure order (an order to leave CZ within at
sentence least one month) is issued only in cases of termination of residence (not for
administrative expulsion). By comparison, in case of administrative expulsion,
there is no explicit provision stating how long the time limit for leaving the
country should be. Therefore, this constitutes incomplete transposition since
Article 30(3) requires that it be minimum one month in any cases unless in duly
substantiated cases of urgency.
Article 32(1) Application for lifting an exclusion order: the possibility that the person
concerned may request lifting the exclusion order after a reasonable period,
depending on the circumstances, has not been transposed. The CZ law only allows
a request for lifting the order after 3 years from the enforcement of the expulsion
decision.
b) Incorrect or imprecise/ambiguous transposition
iii. Incorrect transposition
Article 3(2)(a) Other family members to be facilitated entry and residence

Although Czech law is more favourable since it treats this persons as family
members, the wording of Sect 15a(4)(a) is stricter as it requires that family
members in the previous country of residence had long-term of permanent
residence (in case they were not nationals of this country). Directive only talks
about the “country from which they have come.” In this respect, Czech
transposition is incorrect.
Article 7(1) Right of residence: this Article is only implicitly transposed through the
documents that are required to be submitted together with the application for the
certificate.
Article 7(1)(d) Right of residence as family member: again this Article has only been implicitly
transposed through the documents that are required to be submitted. In this case,
in addition, the family member will have to present prove that accommodation is
secured and medical insurance.
Articles 7(2) and Right of residence for more than three months for third country family members
Europa Institute
9(1) and administrative formalities: the Czech Alien Act distinguishes between
temporary residence certificates (issued only to Union citizens) to certify their
right of temporary residence and temporary residence permits issued to other
categories of aliens including family members of a Union citizen who are not
Union citizens. This difference in terminology (together with what was stated
about the necessity to obtain short term visas) indicates that the right of residence
for a Union citizen family member does not happen as a consequence of meeting
the conditions stated in the Directive/transposing legislation but by a permitting
act of the administrative authority.
Article 8(3) Administrative formalities for Union citizens: the Union citizen is required to
present a proof of accommodation in CZ. No such formality is stated (or even
presumed) by the Directive, therefore such transposition is incorrect
Article 8(5) Administrative formalities for family members who are Union citizens: a family
member (also a Union citizen) who is accompanying a Union citizen is required to
present a proof of accommodation in CZ and also proof of medical insurance. No
such formalities are stated (or even presumed) by the Directive, therefore such
Article 10(2) Issue of residence cards: family member (not a Union citizen) who is
accompanying a Union citizen is required to present a proof of accommodation in
CZ and also proof of medical insurance for his residence card to be issued. No
such formalities are stated (or even presumed) by the Directive, therefore such
Article 11(2) Validity of residence card: the Czech law does not preserve the right of residence
for the Union citizen (or his family member) after acquiring Czech citizenship
Article 19(1) Documents certifying permanent residence for Union citizens: again, the Czech
law requires the Union citizen to present a document proving accommodation in
CZ upon submission of application. Moreover, it exhaustively stipulates which
documents are to be considered as sufficiently verifying this fact. Since the
Directive does not provide for this, such transposition is incorrect.
Article 25(1) Possession of residence document not a precondition for the exercise of a right:
relevant sections of social assistance laws qualifying the Union citizens and their
family members for social assistance are based on their residence registration (i.a.
certificate/card). This invokes that it be required upon them when executing their
rights although this article requires that residence documents under no
circumstances be made a precondition for the exercise of a right as entitlement to
it may be attested by any other means of proof.
Article 26 Checks: failure to prove his identity makes the Czech citizen guilty of
misdemeanour (and subject to a penalty up to 1000 CZK, app 40 EUR) whereas
failure to prove identity of Union citizens and their family members can be
charged with a penalty up to 3000 CZK (app 120 EUR). The maximum amount to
be charged is thus three times higher than for the Czech citizens. This provision
could have been transposed more correctly since the non-discriminatory nature of
sanctions for failure to prove identity is not maintained.
Article 28(3)(b) Expulsion in case of minors: The provision on reasons for expulsion of minors has
been transposed both incompletely and incorrectly. Incomplete transposition is a
result of the case that was explained in Article 28(3) first subparagraph - less strict
conditions are laid down – minor is to be “only” a threat to state security for the
expulsion to be justified. Furthermore, minors can be expelled from CZ as a
consequence of criminal penalty, which applies the same conditions to adults and
minors. As no distinction is made, the transposition is incorrect.
Article 31(2) Interim relief: although the Czech law guarantees automatic suspensory effect of
the judicial appeal against the administrative decision on the expulsion, the term
“imperative grounds of public security” has not been transposed correctly.
Therefore, the law enables to withdraw suspensory effect of judicial appeals (i.e.
Europa Institute
administrative complaints) in less serious cases. As a result, transposition is
incorrect.
Article 33(2) Possibility for mitigation/excuse of penalty expulsion: the Code of Criminal
Procedure states that in case of the Union citizen who has permanent residence or
has been residing in CZ continuously in the past 10 years, or if his family member
(irrespective of the nationality), who has permanent residence in CZ, have not
been expelled in two years after the expulsion became enforceable, the court shall
check whether the circumstances that hinder imposing this penalty have not
occurred. This transposition is incorrect in all aspects (persons entitled to review,
expulsion not enforced yet, and circumstances almost impossible to occur).
Article 40 Delay for transposition: transposition was completed on 21 December 2007 when
the latest amendment to the Aliens Act came into force.
iv. Imprecise/ambiguous transposition

Article 6(2) Right of residence for up to three months for third country family members: CZ
requires family members who are not Union citizens to them apply for short term
visa, if required, or their stay to be legalised by the fact they held visa that expired
during their stay in CZ and they are staying with the Union citizen for the period
shorter than 3 months. This is correct in practice, but the provision lacks clarity.
Article 15(3) Undesirable person: according to Aliens Act, a person can become an
“undesirable person” (and thus be banned entry to CZ in the future) also when he
has not been expelled but was subject to “voluntary” departure (upon departure
order) and he did not reimbursed for the costs of such transportation born by the
Czech Republic. The actual impact (scope of cases) of this provision in practice is
ambiguous (it has been introduced by the last amendment to AA).
Europa Institute
ABBREVIATIONS USED
AA – Aliens Act (Act no 326/1999 Coll. on the residence of aliens in the territory of the Czech
Republic, as amended)
CAJ – Code of Administrative Justice (act no 150/2002 Coll., as amended)
CAP – Code of Administrative Procedure (Act no 500/2004 Coll., as amended)
CC – Criminal Code (Act no 140/1961 Coll., as amended)
CCP – Code of Criminal Procedures
CZ – Czech Republic
CFRF –Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Act no 2/1993 Coll. as amended)
Coll – Collection of Acts of the Czech Republic
CZK – Czech crowns (official currency of the Czech Republic)
Sect – Section of an Act
Europa Institute
1 INTRODUCTION
This conformity study analyses in detail the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC on the free movement
of EU citizens in its consolidated version, and compares it with the legislation in place in the CZ.
Directive 2004/38/EC repealed the earlier directives on free movement of persons (Directives
64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC,
90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC) as from 30 April 2006.
EU citizenship gives every Union citizen the right to move and to reside freely within the territory of
the Member States. The facilitation and promotion of this right, which is at the same time one of the
fundamental freedoms of the internal market, is the objective of Directive 2004/38/EC. A second
objective of Directive 2004/38/EC was to codify and review the various pieces of legislation and case-
law dealing with this issue.
Free movement as a fundamental freedom of the internal market
Free movement is one of the fundamental freedoms of the internal market and can therefore only be
restricted in a limited number of pre-determined circumstances. Thus, national legislation cannot adopt
more restrictive legislation than provided for in the Directive.
Directive 2004/38/EC introduces, on the one hand, a uniform approach regarding the formalities that
Member States can impose upon EU citizens residing in their territory. These formalities are expressly
established in the Directive and restricted in function of the duration of the stay in the Member States.
• For a stay of less than three months, the only formality a Member State can impose is the
presentation of a valid passport or national identity card.
• For residence of more than three months, a Member State can only require the EU citizen to register
in the population register of the place of residence. This registration needs to be validated
immediately if a certain number of conditions are complied with. The Member State can only
require the EU citizen to present proof that he/she is a worker, self-employed person, and student or
has sufficient resources not to become a burden upon the social security system of the Member
State. Member States cannot lay down a fixed amount of what they consider to be “sufficient
resources”, but must always take into account the personal situation of the person concerned.
Family members of the EU citizen will have to present an identity document and proof of the family
link to an EU citizen.
• After five years of continuous residence in a Member State, an EU citizen obtains a right to
permanent residence. The host Member State shall issue a document certifying permanent
residence. A permanent resident has the right to be treated equally to a national of the Member
State.
On the other hand, the Directive also determines and clarifies the only acceptable reasons for
restriction of the free movement of citizens by Member State authorities, namely for reasons of public
order, public security and public health (for the interpretation and conditions of such exceptions, it is
important to rely upon the case-law of the Court of Justice).
These measures guarantee a strong protection against expulsion for EU citizens who have been long-
term residents in another Member State. Such measures need to be proportionate and shall always look
at the personal conduct of the individual concerned which must represent a “genuine, present and
sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”. In addition, the
Directive establishes some procedural safeguards in case an expulsion decision is considered.
Europa Institute
1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
The CZ is a unitary State (Art 1 of the Constitution). The Constitution of CZ has been adopted by the
Parliament as a constitutional act no 1/1993 Coll. in 1993 when the CZ was proclaimed an
independent state. According to it, people are sovereign despite the fact that direct democracy is
reserved to very few cases. In fact CZ has not yet adopted law on whole-state referendum: there is
only an act on municipal referendum. Constitutional acts can be amended by the 2/3 majority of all
members of all deputies. The Parliament is divided into two chambers: the Chamber of Deputies and
the Senate; it adopts laws and constitutional laws and gives the consent necessary for the ratification of
international treaties.
The CZ follows the continental system of codification, therefore only acts adopted by the Parliament
and legally binding administrative statutes (Decrees of the Ministries and Regulations of the
Government) are recognised as generally binding and formal sources of law. These are published in
the Collection of Laws of the Czech Republic. However, certain decisions of the Constitutional Court
may become sources of law i.e., if they decide on the repeal of a law (acts and other legislation). In
order to establish their binding effect, they have to be published in the Collection of Laws of the
Czech Republic (Coll.).
Legal acts adopted by the Parliament are the fundamental source of law. The Constitution recognises
acts and constitutional acts, which require more stringent adoption procedure. They are issued only to
regulate constitutional matters. Other bodies that can adopt legally binding statutes of general
relevance are the Government, each of the Ministries and other so-called “central authorities of state
administration”, and local authorities, either within the exercise of their exclusive competencies or as
delegated representatives of state administration.
All public bodies may issue legally binding statutes when it is expressly stipulated in the legislation,
with the exception of the Government and local authorities, which may issue statutes within the
exercise of their exclusive competencies. Such legal statute regardless of its name (i.e., “decree” or
“regulation”) has to be in accordance with the “parent” act and within its scope. Therefore, it must not
regulate new matters or extend the scope of those regulated therein. These statutes aim to provide for
clarification of the Act, especially as concerns the technical matters that demand specific knowledge.
The practical reason is that such procedure (e.g., the decree is drafted and issued by the Ministry and
after its official publication in the Collection of Acts of the Czech Republic becomes legally binding)
facilitates the process of its adoption.
International treaties, which were ratified, are also formal sources of law. In case of conflict with a
national act, the provision of such international treaty shall prevail.1 Therefore, if a legal statute
becomes part of the acquis communautaire, it shall prevail over national acts.
1.2 FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPOSITION & IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC

IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
1.2.1 Distribution of competences according to the national Constitution
In the Czech Republic, control of aliens is in practice the competence of the Police – distribution of
competences in this field is not the matter of constitutional regulation but has been laid down in the
Alien Act (Act no. 326/1999 Coll, as amended – hereinafter “AA”). This Act (and all of its
amendments and other relevant acts) has been adopted by the Parliament, which is the only competent
body to enact acts and constitutional acts. By-laws (decrees and regulations) can be issued by the
Government or by respective ministries (as described above) and other central state institutions.
1
Article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
Europa Institute
Concerning the implementation of this Directive, the only relevant by-law is a Decree of the Ministry
of Healthcare.
All administrative decisions (e.g., granting residence permits or expulsion) can be subject to review of
administrative courts as independent and unbiased bodies to control legality of administrative
decisions. These principles (independence, impartiality) have been vested to them in the Constitution
(Articles 81, 82).
As was already stated, practical distribution of competences is not set up in the Constitution, therefore
its description follows in the next section. Given the unitary character of the Czech Republic and the
approach taken in the regulations, there is very little potential for conflict of constitutional
responsibilities in the implementation of the Directive
1.2.2 General description of organisation of national authorities implementing

Directive 2004/38/EC in the Czech Republic
According to AA, the administrative superior of the Police is the Ministry of the Interior, which
supervises its activities when exercising state administration. The Police, as the most important
authority in practice of granting residence permits (certificates and cards), is divided into the following
administrative bodies, each of them empowered with specific competences (Sect 162 AA):
a) the Directorate of Alien and Border Police Service;

b) Regional Directorates of Alien and Border Police Service and their remote worksites, which consist
of:
1. Alien Police Offices;
2. Alien and Border Police Departments; and
3. Investigation and Residence Control Units.
Alien and Border Police grants residence permits and visas to enter and stay in the territory of the CR
with certain exceptions. Firstly, the Ministry of the Interior is competent to grant (and cancel) long-
term and permanent residence permits in exceptional cases (humanitarian reasons, academic research
etc.) as stipulated in Section 165 AA or in other provisions of the AA. The Ministry of International
Affairs is a central state administration body that has been vested with all powers related to diplomatic
matters and embassies of CZ in foreign countries. Therefore, pursuant to AA (Sect 166), the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs performs state administrative tasks in matters related to permitting the residence in
CZ of aliens who enjoy the privileges and immunities provided by international law. Also, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs performs state administrative tasks in matters related to granting visas
through the Czech embassies.
The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is responsible for transposition of this Directive, although
in its practical implementation it enjoys very little competence. It exercises protection of workers
(employees) and supervises granting of social assistance. Municipal offices are those which administer
social assistance so they also inform the alien that he/she has become an unreasonable burden on the
social security system. However, this procedure is not stipulated in primary legislation (acts), therefore
it is not clear on what basis they carry out this assessment.
Administrative courts, as was already noted, act as an independent reviewer of the decisions of
administrative authorities.
All competences of responsible authorities are clearly delimited with regard to aliens and no
interference is possible.
As already indicated, the Police (and more specifically, the Alien and Border Police) are given the
broadest scope of competences in practical implementation of AA with regard to EU citizens and their
Europa Institute
family members. These persons can also be granted permanent residence for humanitarian reasons, in
which cases Ministry of the Interior would be competent. When a family member of an EU citizen is
required to have an entry visa, he can either apply for them at any embassy of CZ or at the borders
(where Border Police would be competent). Residence permits/certificates are issued by the Regional
Directorates of Alien Police and reviewed by the Directorate of Alien Police (its hierarchal superior).
When the EU citizen or its family member(s) enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities, the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs would be competent in granting their residence permits/certificates. Review of
administrative decisions (in cases where the law provides for it) is an exclusive competence of
administrative courts. Since the social assistance system is governed by three acts, they also stipulate
competent authorities. These are primarily municipal offices. Employment issues are a matter for
employment offices (and their state administrative superior is the Ministry of Labour and Social
Affairs); business licences are also granted by (and registered at) the municipal offices.
2 LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSPOSING MEASURES FOR DIRECTIVE

2004/38/EC
The main transposing instrument of the Directive is Act no 326/1999 Coll. on the residence of aliens
in the territory of the Czech Republic, as amended (hereinafter the “Aliens Act”) (Zákon 326/1999 SB.
ze dne 30. listopadu 1999 o pobytu cizinců na území České republiky a o změně některých zákonů, ve
znění pozdějších předpisů.) The act was in force prior to the adoption of the Directive. Therefore it
was amended accordingly as well as the other acts. The last amendment of the Aliens Act aiming also
to transpose the Directive, came into force on 21 December 2007 (Act no 379/2007 Coll. amending
the Aliens Act). The latest consolidated version (“úplné znění”) of the Aliens Act was published in the
Collection of Acts under no. 42/2008 Coll.
The Aliens Act is a substantive law regulating the entry and residence of aliens in the territory of the
CR. However, since the Directive has a much broader scope, some provisions can be found in other
legislations – acts are the primary source.
Constitutional Act no. 2/1993 Coll., “Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms” (Usnesení
předsednictva České národní rady ze dne 16. prosince 1992 o vyhlášení LISTINY ZÁKLADNÍCH
PRÁV A SVOBOD jako součásti ústavního pořádku České republiky) includes certain safeguards with
regard to the free movement of citizens of the CR and general clause on protection against
discrimination.
Czech legislation includes provisions on how to determine “unreasonable burden on the social
assistance system”. The social assistance system comprises three different areas (three different acts
regulating them), and each one has an identical provision (see the list at the end). Apart from that,
citizens (after a specified period of employment or self-employment) are generally entitled to a
retirement pension. In cases of temporary disease, they are entitled to illness support payment;
permanent incapacity to work entitles them to disability pension (either full or partial); in voluntary
unemployment they are entitled to unemployment support. These payments are subject to previous
participation in the respective social scheme (which is mandatory for workers and entrepreneurs) with
the exception of disability pension where no participation in such a scheme exists.
Acts regulating employment and business establish equal conditions for Union citizens as well as for
the Czech citizens. These are: Act no. 435/2004 Coll. on the employment, as amended (Zákon
435/2004 Sb. ze dne 13. května 2004 o zaměstnanosti ve znění, pozdějších předpisů) and Act no.
455/1991 Coll. on business licences, as amended (Zákon 455/1991 Sb. ze dne 2. října 1991o
živnostenském podnikání (živnostenský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
Special acts have been adopted to regulate identity cards Act no. 328/1999 Coll. on identity cards
(Zákon č.328/1999 Sb. ze dne 30. listopadu 1999 o občanských průkazech), passports and other travel
documents, Act no. 329/1999 Coll. on travel documents, (Zákon č. 329/1999 Sb. o cestovních
Europa Institute
dokladech). A competence to ask for proof of identity has been vested with the Police of CZ - act no.
283/1991 Coll. on the Police of the CZ, (Zákon č. 283/1991 Sb. o Policii České republiky,)
Administrative offences of natural persons (misdemeanours – přestupky), both substantive and

procedural issues, have been regulated primarily by Act no. 200/1990 Coll. on misdemeanours (Zákon
200/1990 Sb. o přestupcích) notwithstanding the special provisions in other acts. Criminal offences are
substantively regulated by Criminal Code (Trestní zákon).Recently, a new Act on criminal justice with
regard to minors was adopted, (Zákon č. 218/2003 Sb o soudnictví ve věcech mládeže) which is a
special act reserved for minors (up to 18 years of age and in certain cases even older).
Residence permits and certificates are granted in the administrative procedure, which respects general
principles of good governance and has detailed legal regulation embodied in Code of Administrative
Procedure (Zákon 500/2004 Sb. - správní řád). Judicial appeal for a review of administrative decisions
is in competence of administrative courts - the procedure regulated by the Code of Administrative
Justice (Zákon 150/2002 Sb. - soudní řád správní).
2.1 Definitions, family members and beneficiaries
Definitions: the concept of “family members” (Article 2)
Article 2 includes general definitions of terms used throughout the Directive (i.a., Union citizen,
family member etc.). All have been transposed efficiently in such a way that their application can in
no case breach Community, law despite the fact that none have been transposed literally.
The definitions of family members have been transposed correctly (Sect 15a AA). The CZ broadens
the term “Union citizen” as all European Economic Area citizens fall within its scope (Sect 1(2) and
(3) AA). This is not considered a problem of transposition since EU citizens are treated equally and
non-discriminatory by comparison.
• “Registered partnerships” (Article 2(2)(b)
The term “partnership” in relation to homosexual relationships equivalent to marriage has been
transposed by a very recent amendment to the Aliens Act (act no. 379/2007 Coll.) that came into force
on 21 December 2007 (new Sect 180f AA). Before, no such partnership was legally treated like
marriage in CZ and it would only be interpreted along with the term “durable relationship”.
Heterosexual couples are left out of this concept (act on registered partnership only applies to partners
of same sex), which means that they cannot become registered. However, they can live in a common
household and have a durable relationship together. In this case, they have certain rights (especially
with regard to heritage) but it can be in no way perceived as equivalent to marriage. On the other hand,
since registered partnership is seen as equivalence to marriage, partners of opposite sex are invited to
contract marriage.
The Czech law also includes a definition of “dependency” (Sect 15a (3) AA). A dependent family
member is considered to be an alien who:
a) is systematically preparing for a future occupation;
b) cannot systematically prepare for a future occupation or cannot perform gainful activity due to
illness or injury; or
c) is unable to perform systematic gainful activity due to a long-term unfavourable state of health.
Although there is no court explanation of this definition yet, it is based on the concept of material
dependency. ECJ in its judgment C-1/05 Yunying Jia explains the term “dependent” as material
dependency: “…‘dependent on them’ means that members of the family of a Community national
established in another Member State within the meaning of Article 43 EC need the material support of
that Community national or his or her spouse in order to meet their essential needs…” In this regard,
Europa Institute
and taking account of other situations presumed by Article 2 and their correct transposition in Czech
law, we can say that this definition does not narrow the Community concept.
• Direct descendants as family members (Article 2(2)(c))
This provision requires that the direct descendants of the Union citizen or his spouse/partner who are
under the age of 21 be regarded as family members. Sect 15a(1) (c) AA only refers to a child younger
than 21 years. A child is a direct descendant in the first line, therefore this provision does not cover
direct descendants in the second (or even third) line. As a consequence, transposition of this Article is
incomplete.
• Article 2(3) – Host Member State
The CZ does not explicitly define the term of “Host Member State”. The Aliens Act (Sect 1(1)) reads
that this act establishes, pursuant to directly applicable legislation of European Communities,
conditions for an alien’s entry to the territory of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the
“Territory”), his/her stay in the Territory, and his/her departure from the Territory […]. Since there is
no limitation to the territorial scope, the legislation applies to whole territory of the Czech Republic.
As far as “Host Member State” is meant by the Directive to be CZ for Czech legislation, this could
constitute an effective transposition.
Beneficiaries and facilitation of entry and residence (Article 3)
Article 3 deals with the beneficiaries of the Directive and also imposes an obligation on the Member
States to facilitate entry for a secondary class of beneficiaries (essentially, members of the extended
family). The Czech law adequately transpose these provisions, taking a particularly generous approach
to the secondary class of beneficiaries (equalling their status with the status of family members).
• Article 3(1)
Article 3(1) requires that the Directive (and the resulting transposing legislation) apply to all Union
citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to
their family members (as defined in point 2 of Article 2) who accompany or join them.
This Article has only been transposed by a general provision stipulating the scope of application of
AA. Sect 1(1) AA reads that this Act establishes the conditions for an alien’s entry to the territory of
the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the “Territory”), his/her stay in the Territory, and
his/her departure from the Territory […].Sect 1(2) stipulates that an alien is understood to be any
natural person who is not a citizen of the Czech Republic, including a European Union citizen. This
definition indeed covers family members of a Union citizen if there are aliens (see also Sect 15a for
definition of family members).
Sect 15a(5) states that the provisions of this Act pertaining to the family member of a European Union
citizen also apply to an alien who is a family member of a citizen of the Czech Republic. A contrario,
provisions of AA will never be applicable to Czech citizens regardless whether they have exercised or
not the right of free movement. The Czech expert does not consider this is a problem of conformity
with the Directive, since Czech citizens are under the protection of all other acts no matter whether
they reside in CZ or not as long as they maintain Czech citizenship. However, the provisions will
apply to family members of a Czech national in line with Surinder Singh jurisprudence. For this
reason the Czech law is considered in compliance with the Directive on this point.
There is no requirement of previous lawful residence in another Member State in the Czech
legislation. On this point the Czech law seems in line with Metock.2 However, there is no clear
2
C-127/08 (European Court of Justice)
Europa Institute
provision in AA indicating that the regime foreseen by the Directive will also apply to persons who,
while they were residing in CZ (even illegally) became family members of a Union citizen. The CZ
supported the Irish position of Ireland in Metock. The expert assumes that it is applied incorrectly in
CZ (and such persons would not have equal status and enjoy all rights as family members). The Czech
authorities were informed that after the ruling the administrative authorities must apply the legislation
according to the ECJ’s interpretation. However, it is the expert’s view that as long as it is not
stipulated in AA, no-one can assured that the practice will be uniform.
• Article 3(2) – other family members to be facilitated entry and residence
Article 3(2) also requires that persons with other family links with a Union citizen be facilitated entry
and residence. These are any other family members, irrespective of their nationality, not falling under
the definition in point 2 of Article 2. Such persons who, in the country from which they have come,
are dependants or members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of
residence, or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by
the Union citizen and the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly
attested.
The Aliens Act (Sect 15a(4)) considers as family members of a Union citizen the persons who can
duly attest that they:
a) are family members of a Union citizen falling outside the scope of paragraph 1 and
1. lived in a common household with a European Union citizen in a state of which they
are nationals or had a permanent or long-term residence permitted therein;
3. are supported by the citizen of the European Union;
2. cannot care for themselves due to health reasons without personal care provided by the
citizen of the European Union or
b) have a durable relationship with the citizen of the European Union similar to family
and share a common household with him/her.
When comparing the two provisions, it is evident that the wording of AA is stricter since it requires
that family members have to meet the conditions included in the Directive (have a common
household) in the previous country where they had a long-term or permanent residence (in case they
were not nationals of this country). The Directive only talks about the “country from which they have
come.” The Czech law is therefore narrowing down the scope of the Directive and in this respect,
Czech transposition is considered incorrect.
Overall, however, Czech law treats all these persons as family members, which is more favourable
than the Directive, which only requires facilitating entry and residence. Consequently, the requirement
of the last sentence of Article 3(2) to undertake an extensive examination of the personal
circumstances and to justify any denial of entry or residence to such persons, is not applicable, since
the administrative authorities have no discretionary power in this case. Once the conditions are met,
these persons have a right of entry and residence and they shall be considered family members.
“Household” comprises of persons, who permanently live together and pay for their expenses together.
It is a term established by the Civil Code (Sect 115) and frequently used in other laws especially with
regard to common household (e.g., inheritance rights). The Supreme Court ruled that “common
household is represented only by a real and permanent cohabitation of persons, who contribute to
payment and procurement of common material needs and manage their income together and without
distinction. A cohabiting person has to live in a common household as a member of a family; either
caring for the common household or granting financial resources to pay for the expenses or be
dependent on (subsisted by) another member.”3
3
Decision of teh Supreme Court No. 21 Cdo 436/2001
Europa Institute
“To be supported” is regarded as “to be subsisted”. The term “dully attest” is not defined by the
Czech law but it only refers to the persons listed under a). These are three different situations,
fulfilling one is sufficient to fall in the same regime as applied to family members covered by Article
2.
2.2 Rights of exit and entry
Right of exit (Article 4)
Article 4 provides a general right for Union citizens and family members, provided they have the
required identity card or passport to leave the territory of a Member State. This Article has been
transposed correctly giving the Union citizens and their family members an option to leave CZ to
travel to other Member States even without identity cards or passports.
• Article 4(1) – right of exit
A General right of movement and residence for all (including aliens) is provided for in the
Constitution - the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. In its Article 14 it states that liberty
of movement and the freedom of the choice of residence is guaranteed. Everyone who is legitimately
staying within the territory of the Czech Republic has the right freely to leave it. Moreover, the Czech
Aliens Act (Sect 91) is more favourable as it allows a Union citizen and its family members who are
travelling to another member state to leave CZ even without a travel document under the condition
that they are able to prove their identity, citizenship and status (this concerns the family member only)
by other documents; residence cards be an alternative option demonstratively listed in the relevant
provision of Aliens Act.
• Article 4(2) – prohibition of exit visa
Section 51(1) AA states that a visa is understood to be a permit which, during the period of time it is
valid, allows an alien to enter and remain in CZ and to depart from CZ unless provided for otherwise
in this Act. Section 51(4) AA provides a general ban on granting visas to Union citizens. Although
there is no provision on exit visas found in Aliens Act, the provision to restrict granting exit visas to
third country family members is not found either. As this does not cause problems in practice (since
exit visas are not a type of visa presumed by the Czech law. Together with the application of Section
91 AA), it can be concluded that the transposition is correct.
• Article 4(3) and 4(4) – requirements for travel documents
The CZ adopted special laws on travel documents and identity cards that include detailed
characteristics of these documents including those set up by the Directive. The last sentence of Article
4(4) (where the law of a Member State does not provide for identity cards to be issued, the period of
validity of any passport on being issued or renewed shall be not less than five years) does not need
transposition since CZ issues identity cards. CZ applies the common features of passports (validity for
all countries of the world) as stipulated in act on travel documents, and they are valid for 5 years
(minors) or 10 years.
Right of entry (Article 5)
Article 5 provides a general right of entry for Union citizens and family members. The Czech law
endeavours to transpose this provision correctly. However, Article 5(3) was not transposed. Other
aspects of the transposition carried out by Czech Republic are worth commenting on.
Europa Institute
• Article 5(2) – entry visas for third country family members
The provisions on entry for Union citizens have been correctly transposed by Sect 5(5) in combination
with Sect 108(1) on entry with passport or ID and 51(4) AA. The Czech law includes provisions that
allow family members to apply for entry visas at the border- in this case they shall be granted
immediately (Sect 22(6) AA or 26(6) AA). Or if the application is filled at the Czech embassy in
another country, the maximum period for their issuance is two weeks in comparison to 30 days
applied in general (Sect 170 (2) (3) AA). The Act on administrative fees exempts these types of visas
from fees. All in all, it can be concluded that the requirement for visas to be granted in accelerated
procedure and free of charge is transposed correctly.
The definition of visa (Sect 51(1) AA) indicates that it is document allowing entry and staying in the
territory of CZ. Czech alien law recognises three types of short term visa: transit visa, airport visa and
short term stay visa (for up to 90 days). As will be shown in Article 6(2), it is only clear that if the
person holds the residence card of family member of a Union citizen he/she can remain for up to three
months with no other conditions and requirements. However, when the family member does not hold a
residence card of a family member the provision implies that the person needs a short-stay visa (for up
to 90 days) or a transit visa to entry the country. Holding a visa is not a requirement to stay for less
than 3 months, provided the family member stay in the Territory of the EU with the Union citizen. In
practice, CZ is trying to combine the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC and the requirements
under Schengen acquis (which became applicable on 21 December 2007). Normally a Schengen visa
will be valid for 90 days (short-term stay visa or Category C visa) although there are some exceptions.
Therefore, the practice is considered correct, although AA could have been better drafted.
• Article 5(3) – no entry or exit stamp to a holder of a residence card
This provision states that the border control authority shall not place an entry or exit stamp in the
passport of third country family members provided that they present the residence card according to
Article 10 of this Directive. This obligation is also included in Article 10(2) of Schengen regulation
(Regulation no. 562/2006). Czech Aliens Act includes a provision which states that the Police place an
entrance stamp in the travel document in accordance with the directly applicable act of the European
Communities. CZ became a Schengen country in December 2007. Since Schengen acquis now fully
applies to CZ, Regulation no. 562/2006 is indeed a directly applicable Community legal instrument (in
legal theory as well as in practice). Therefore its Article 10(2) is directly applicable by Czech
authorities and thus the transposition can be considered effective.
• Article 5(4) – right of entry in case of missing travel documents and visas
This provision provides guarantees to Union citizens and their third country family members in case
they fail to present necessary travel documents and visas. Border control is to give them other options
to prove that they are covered by the right of entry and residence before turning them back. They are
to be given every reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or have them brought to
them within a reasonable period of time or to corroborate or prove their right by other means.
The Aliens Act states that [Sect 5(5) AA] if, at the time of border control, a Union citizen does not
have a travel document or cannot obtain one, the Police will allow him/her to prove his/her identity
and the fact that he/she is a citizen of a Union member state by means of another type of document. If,
this happens to his/her family member, the Police will allow him/her to prove his/her identity and the
fact that he/she is a family member of a Union citizen by means of another type of document.
However, the wording of the Directive is broader as to give these persons, should such a situation
occur, maximum range of possibilities to prove their right. Although no such cases are reported (that
the Union citizens would be deprived of their right of entry only due to formal reasons) in practice in
CZ, it would be better to broaden the scope of the provision in the Aliens Act to ensure that it happens
only after all options were exhausted. For now, this provision is transposed incompletely.
Europa Institute
• Article 5(5) – reporting of presence
Under Czech Law [Sect 93 AA], a Union citizen is obliged (required) to report the place of his/her
residence in CZ to the Police within 30 days from his arrival, if the anticipated length of his/her stay is
longer than 30 days. The same is applied to his family member accompanying him. However, this can
be done through an accommodation provider (Sect 103 (b) of AA) – typically, the Union citizen fills a
form at the hotel and the hotel owner sends it to the Police. For other aliens, the period to report
presence is shorter. When the Union citizen and his family members hold a residence
cards/certificates, they are obliged to report a change to the address of residence within 30 days if it is
to be longer than 180 days (Sect 98(1) AA).
If the person concerned fails to do so, he commits a misdemeanour and sanctions can be applied (Sect
157 (1)(r)). These are applied to other aliens under the same conditions and in the same maximum
amount (3000 CZK approximately 120 EUR). This is considered a proportionate measure since this
sum is common to other administrative offences that Czech citizens can be convicted.
Therefore, Article 5(5) was considered as correctly transposed in Czech law.
2.3 Right of residence
2.3.1 Right of residence for up to three months (Article 6)
Article 6(1) grants an initial right of residence for up to three months to Union citizens in possession
of a valid identity card and Article 6(2) extends this right to their family members who are not Union
citizens but hold a passport or passport substitute and they accompany or join the Union citizen. While
Article 6(1) has been correctly transposed, the Transposition of Article 6(2) has been considered
ambiguous due to the cumbersome drafting of the provision.
According to the Aliens Act [Sect 18(d)(6)], only the family member who holds a residence card or a
permanent residence status in another Member State is allowed to stay in the territory without visa. On
the other hand, should his visa expire in the meantime, he is not automatically excluded from the
territory, but he is granted a right of residence if he meets three conditions (Sect 18 (e) AA):
1) he/she is staying in CZ with a Union citizen;

2) before he held a visa that expired during his stay in CZ;
3) the period of his/her stay (without a visa) in CZ does not exceed 3 months.
The Czech legislation is not clear on whether the person needs a visa or not when the family member
does not hold a residence card. The Czech legislation refers to a transit visa or a short-stay visa. But it
would seem that in fact those visas referred to are the entry visas. Therefore, no visa is needed for
residence up to 3 months, provided the family member stay in the CZ with a Union citizen and that the
stay is not for more than 3 months. The requirement to stay with the Union citizen would be in line
with the Directive which applies to family members joining or accompanying the Union citizen. A
clear statement would have been better since the reference to the expiration of the visa may create
confusion as to whether the person needs a short-term visa to enter the country and stay for up to 3
months. But as mentioned in the comments to Article 5(2), when the provision is carefully read, it
seems to be in line with the Directive. The transposition has been considered ambiguous due to the
lack of clarity of the construction of the provision
Europa Institute
2.3.2 Right of residence for more than 3 months (Article 7-13)
(a) Conditions under Article 7
Article 7 provides for the right of residence of a Union citizen and his family member to continue after
three months where certain conditions are satisfied. This Article has not been explicitly transposed to
Czech law, only implicitly through the list of documents that these persons are to submit when
applying for residence certificates/cards (transposition of Article 8). This mere fact would not
constitute inconformity, should the documents be the same as in Article 8, which includes an
exhaustive list. However, this Article (and consequently Article 8) has not been correctly transposed,
since more documents are required (and thus more stringent measures are applied to Union citizens
and their family members).
The Czech Alien Act distinguishes between temporary residence certificates (issued only to Union
citizens) to certify their right of (temporary) residence and (temporary) residence permits issued to
other categories of aliens including family members of a Union citizen who are not Union citizens.
This difference in terminology (together with what was stated about the necessity to obtain short term
visas) indicates that the right of residence for a Union citizen family member does not happen as a
consequence of meeting the conditions stated in the Directive/transposing legislation but by a
permitting act of the administrative authority.
• Article 7(1) and 7(2) – right of residence for Union citizens and their family members, and
limitations under Article 7(4)
The Union citizen and his family members are, under Czech law, obliged to submit a document
confirming that they have accommodation in the CZ when they apply for residence certificate/card.
This proof of accommodation is to be submitted by both the Union citizen and his family member,
although there is no such document presumed by the Directive. Moreover, the Czech law laid down an
exhaustive list of specific documents (rental contract, certificate from the real estate register on the
possession of a real estate, sworn statement (included in Annex VII); real estate has to serve
accommodation purposes) that can be presented as such a proof. The administrative authorities explain
the provision in such a way that they ask for two documents at a time (e.g., rental contract AND
certificate from the real estate register on the possession of a real estate); Only a sworn statement
usually does not suffice neither is the person offered a chance to prove his or her accommodation by
other possible means.
However, the expert is not aware of administrative practice in every individual case, therefore cannot
exclude that this may happen. The expert was informed about the practice by lawyers specialising on
aliens law and the expert herself applied for a temporary residence certificate as it is applicable to the
expert (the expert is a Slovak citizen residing in CZ).
On the other hand, Sect 100 (d) AA states that an accommodation provider is obliged to issue a
certificate that accommodation is provided upon alien’s request. There are also sanctions to be
imposed in case he refuses to do so. Although this is to make the obtaining of proof of accommodation
that all aliens are required to submit easier for them, it does not correct the inconformity in
transposition of this Directive.
On the other hand, the Czech law does not require the Union citizen to present possession of sufficient
resources. Only when the Union citizen (or his family member) becomes an unreasonable burden to
state social system will their residence be cancelled. More about this will be explained in Article 8.
Moreover, the Aliens Act includes (in Sect 64.1.) an elaborate definition of what is meant by studies,
which covers all possible fields of study in CZ. This is considered effective transposition of Article
7(1)(c).
Europa Institute
When it comes to a family member of a Union citizen who is not a Union citizen himself, the
transposition is even more incorrect since these persons are obliged to obtain a residence permit. By a
literal explanation we can deduce that this “permit” is granted when an authority permits something
whereas a certificate (this term is used in relation to Union citizen) only certifies existence of
something - the authority is not competent to refuse. On the other hand, when granting right of
residence for more than three months the Directive does not distinguish between Union citizens and
their family members. Both have a right of residence when they meet certain conditions.
In practice, both the permits and certificates are granted in administrative procedure (the same
application form applies to both), which includes enough procedural safeguards against unlawful or
incompetent decisions. Still, the fact that the right of the third country family member is not
automatically recognised (as a consequence he either has to poses visa or to meet the criteria of Sect
18 (e) where the maximum length of stay is 3 months) makes the transposition incorrect.
Article 7(4) of the Directive limits the range of persons who are considered family members when a
Union citizen is studying (and thus temporarily residing in another Member State). Only the spouse,
the registered partner provided for in Article 2(2)(b) and dependent children shall have the right of
residence as family members of this Union citizen. This is correctly transposed in Aliens Act (Sect 15a
(2)).
However, the Czech transposition does not include the requirement to facilitate entry and residence for
the dependent direct ascendants and those of his/her spouse or partner. Sect 15a. (4) of AA stipulates
that the provisions of this Act pertaining to the family member of a Union citizen also apply to an
alien who can duly attest :
a) he/she is a family member of a Union citizen falling outside the scope of paragraph 1 and,
1. lived in a common household with a European Union citizen in a state of which he
is a national or had a permanent or long-term residence permitted therein,
3. is supported by the citizen of the European Union
2. cannot care for him/herself due to health reasons without personal care provided by
the citizen of the European Union, or
b) a durable relationship with the citizen of the European Union similar to family and a
common household with him/her.
The dependent direct ascendants and those of his/her spouse or partner are not mentioned in this
provision. Although the scope of family members is indeed broadened by the Czech law, and therefore
the option to facilitate the entry and stay of other family members is not transposed as such, in this
case it leads to incomplete transposition.
• Article 7(3) – retention of a status of a worker
The situations mentioned by this Article (temporary incapacity to work; duly recorded involuntary
unemployment after employment that lasted for more than one year; duly recorded involuntary
unemployment after completing a fixed-term employment contract of less than a year or after having
become involuntarily unemployed during the first twelve months and vocational training related to
previous employment) which safeguard the Union citizen a worker status when he is temporarily
unable to work due to involuntary reasons, have not been transposed in Czech law.
Only in the case of temporary illness or accidence (Article 7(3)(a) is the worker’s status preserved (so
called protection period according to the Labour Code).
The temporary residence is not cancelled if any of the situations mentioned in Article 7(3) occur. The
Labour Code (Sect 53(1) (a)) gives protection to employees who fall ill. The employer cannot hand
notice during the “protection period” which is the period when an employee is temporarily unable to
work, provided this incapacity has not been intentionally caused or it is not the immediate result of
abuse of alcohol or other drugs. Self-employed persons, when they fall ill are also regarded as self-
Europa Institute
employed. Their self-employment only ends, when their (business) licence is cancelled. Therefore,
Article 7(3)(a) has been transposed correctly.
For other provisions, there is no transposition although registered job-seekers fall under the protection
of employment legislation. The Employment Act (Sect 3(2)) stipulates that the Union citizen and his
family member have equal status to Czech citizens in employment relations. Article 7(3) also refers to
self-employed persons. These persons can also cancel their business licence and register as job-
seekers. Again, they will not be considered as workers or self-employed anymore, although they will
retain their residence rights. Although the Czech system of social security and unemployment
protection is rather complicated and elaborate, the retention of the status of a worker for these
particular cases has to be included in a clear provision. For this reason the transposition is considered
incomplete.
(b) Administrative formalities for Union citizens (Article 8)
Article 8(1) allows Member States to require Union citizens and their family members who are Union
citizens to register with the relevant authorities. The Alien Act stipulates that this registration is
voluntary (Sect 87a(1)) as it speaks about the “certificate of temporary residence”. This certificate is to
be issued “upon request”. Since the system is voluntary, there is no deadline and thus Article 8(2) does
not need to be transposed with the exception of the requirement to certify submission for such
application. Such document (certificate) is issued by Czech authorities (see Annex V). Therefore, no
inconformity cases exist with regard to the first two subparagraphs of Article 8.
Articles 8(3) and 8(5) provide for administrative formalities that can be required from Union citizens
and their family members who are Union citizens. This Article has been incorrectly transposed by
Czech law.
Sect 87a(2) AA reads: Together with the application for the certificate he/she (a Union citizen)
will present the following as supporting documents to the application:
a) a travel document;
b) a document confirming the purpose of his/her stay, i.e., employment, doing business or
performing other economic activities, or studies;
c) photographs; and
d) a document confirming that he/she has medical insurance; this provision does not apply if the
purpose of the residence is employment, doing business, other economic activities, or studies;
e) a document confirming that accommodation in the Territory has been secured.
As to the non-conformity cases themselves, the comments relating Article 7 could be repeated since
both Articles have been transposed in the same provisions of AA. Union citizen and his family
member (and a Union citizen) are allowed (not required!) to ask for a temporary residence certificate.
This terminology indicates that their right is recognised; the authority only issues a document to
certify it.
On the other hand, Union citizens can legally reside in the territory of CZ without possessing such a
certificate as long as they meet the conditions of Article 5(5) (report their presence in CZ within 30
days). When it comes to administrative formalities (Sect 87a(2) AA), Union citizen and his family
member (who are themselves Union citizens) are required to present a proof of accommodation in CZ.
No such formality is stated (or even presumed) by the Directive. For a detailed explanation, see Article
7.
Both Union citizens and their family members are required to present a photograph (to be placed on
the certificate) and a proof of medical insurance in CZ. The Directive does not list medical insurance
as a formality to be asked from a family member (this may only be requested for Union citizens who
fall under Article 7(1)(b) and (c).
Europa Institute
The application form for a Union citizen and his family members has been included in Annex VI. It is
bilingual (in Czech and in English) and can be downloaded on the internet from the webpage of
Ministry of the Interior (http://www.mvcr.cz/clanek/formulare.aspx?q=Y2hudW09NQ%3d%3d).
• Article 8(4) – sufficient resources
Czech law does not require that a Union citizen and his/her family member show they have sufficient
resources. It only states that becoming an unreasonable burden on the social system is a reason for the
temporary residence application to be dismissed or the temporary residence to be cancelled. Whether
this situation occurs is to be studied by a competent social assistance authority (municipal authorities
with extended competence or designated municipal authorities) ex officio. The Czech social system
recognises three types of assistance (systém sociální péče=social assistance system, systém příspěvku
na péči= system providing social benefits or systém pomoci v hmotné nouzi= system providing
assistance in material need) and each one is based on separate Act. Therefore the same definition of
unreasonable burden on the respective social assistance system is included in each one of the three
Acts - Section 103a of the Act on social assistance (Act 100/1988), Sect 31 of the Act on social
services (Act 108/2006) and Sect 16 of the Act on assistance in material need (Act 111/2006).
Assessment of an unreasonable burden on (the social care) system

(1) If a Union citizen who is registered in the Czech Republic pursuant to a special rule for residence for a
period longer than 3 months or his family member who is registered in the Czech Republic pursuant to a
special rule for residence for a period longer than 3 months requests social care benefit, the competent body
shall concurrently assess whether that person has not become an unreasonable burden on the social care
system; this shall not apply if that person is registered for permanent residence in the Czech Republic.
(2) The person referred to in (1) is not considered an unreasonable burden on the system, if
a) he is a participant in health insurance, where he is not a student, or, as a self-employed person, he is a
participant in pension insurance, or he is a person for whom entitlement to social benefit arises from a directly
applicable regulation of the European Communities, or
b) prior to the start of social care benefit proceedings he was gainfully employed in the Czech Republic and
in the period of 10 years prior to the date of commencing social care benefit proceedings he was a participant
in health insurance for a period of at least 5 years, of which at least 1 year immediately precedes the start of
social care benefit proceedings, where he is not a student, or, as a self-employed person, he is a participant in
pension insurance and to the date of the start of social care benefit proceedings he is not in arrears with
premiums, social security penalties and contributions to state employment insurance.
(3) Assessment of unreasonable burden on the system for a person who does meet the conditions referred to
in (2) is made using a point system based on the following:
a) length of residence under a special rule in the Czech Republic,
b) period of employment or self-employment in the Czech Republic,
c) period of systematic preparation for a future occupation in the Czech Republic,
d) possibility of employment in the Czech Republic according to qualifications, necessity of
increased assistance when arranging employment and level of unemployment.
(4) Using the point system the competent body awards points as follows
a) in the case of a person who is registered in the Czech Republic for residence under a special rule for a
period of
1. from 1 to 3 years, 2 points,
4. 8 or more years, 8 points;
b) in the case of a person who has been a contributor of premiums for social security and contributions to
state employment insurance, or who is systematically preparing for a future occupation in the Czech Republic
for a period of
1. 12 to 24 months, 4 points,
4. 49 to 60 months, 16 points;
c) in the case of a person who
1. has no qualifications, 0 points,
2. has secondary education, 2 points,
3. has higher professional education, 4 points,
4. has university education, 6 points;
Europa Institute
d) a person who would not be provided with increased assistance when arranging employment pursuant to a
special rule, 4 points;
e) a person who is registered for residence pursuant to a special rule in a district where the level of
unemployment in the calendar month preceding the date of submitting an application, based on data
published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in a manner allowing remote access,
1. exceeded the average unemployment level in the Czech Republic by more than 10 %, 0 points,
2. exceeded the average unemployment level in the Czech Republic by less than 10 %, 2 points,
3. was greater than 50 % of the average unemployment level in the Czech Republic and did not
exceed the average unemployment level in the Czech Republic, 4 points,
4. was lower than 50 % of the average unemployment level in the Czech Republic, 6 points.
(5) A person with a point assessment of 10 or less points is considered an unreasonable burden on the system.
A person with a point assessment of 20 or more points is not considered an unreasonable burden on the
system.
(6) In the event that the point assessment of a person is higher than 10 points and does not exceed 20 points,
the competent body shall consider the personal circumstances of the assessed person to decide whether the
person is an unreasonable burden on the system. The assessment of whether a person is an unreasonable
burden on the system also takes account of his ties to close persons residing in the Czech Republic, the fact of
whether the matter involves a temporary problem and the potential burden on the social care system from
granting welfare to the person affected.
(7) The competent body is authorised to assess whether the person is an unreasonable burden on the system
again, following a change in that person's social situation.
(8) Administrative bodies, social security bodies, the Czech Police, municipalities and employers of the
persons referred to in (1) are required at the request of the competent body to communicate information
necessary for assessing whether the person is an unreasonable burden on the system. If the competent body
informs the Czech Republic that the person is an unreasonable burden on the system, the Czech Police are
required to inform the competent body of the termination of temporary residence of that person pursuant to a
special rule. On request the Czech Police shall inform the competent body without delay whether the
residence in the Czech Republic of the person who is requesting the award of social benefit or to whom this
benefit is provided has been terminated pursuant to a special rule.
The provision respects the conditions of the Directive. No one can become unreasonable burden if he
has medical insurance, he is a student or as a self-employed person participates in pension insurance or
his entitlement to social benefit arises from a directly applicable European legislation (this concerns
migrant workers). Moreover, his previous employment of self-employment, length of studies in CZ,
education/decree obtained, unemployment rate in the district of his residence are all considered to
calculate the unreasonable burden (points for each are added up). Someone with a total of less than 10
points is considered an unreasonable burden and his stay can be cancelled. For points between 10 and
20, this is in discretion of the municipal authority. Union citizens will usually be either employed, self-
employed, studying or have medical insurance (or previously). Even if not, the conditions are really
strict to be applied in exceptional cases only. For example, an alien residing in Prague for 2 years with
university decree without previous working or studying experience (not even having medical
insurance) in CZ will have total 14 points. This is considered an efficient transposition.
(c) Family members who are not nationals of a Member State (Article 9-11)
• Administrative formalities (Article 9)
Article 9 providing for the issuing of residence cards to the family members of Union citizens who are
nationals of third countries outside the EU has not been correctly transposed in CZ. Only to sum up,
the most significant inconformity case is the distinction between residence permits for third country
family members and residence certificates for Union citizens. Other requirements of this Article have
been transposed correctly, though.
o Article 9(1): issuance upon request
The Union citizen can request a residence certificate (Sect 87a(1)) whereas his third country family
member is obliged to apply for a residence permit (Sect 87b(1)). This difference in terminology
Europa Institute
causes confusion in interpretation of those provisions and especially with regard to whether the right
of residence of third country family members is always recognised by the authorities.
o Article 9(2) and 9(3) – deadline and sanctions for failure to apply for a residence card
These provisions have been transposed correctly in the Alien Act The deadline for application for a
residence permit is three months (Sect 87(b)(1) last sentence) and the sanctions imposed in case of
failure (Sect 157(1)(y) and (2)) are proportionate (max 3000 CZK= app. 120 EUR) and non-
discriminatory (applied to all).
• Issue of residence cards (Article 10)
Article 10 is a detailed article addressing the issue of residence cards to family members of a Union
citizen who are not themselves Union citizens. As to the concrete documents to be submitted
according to the Czech Alien Act, family members also have to prove they have accommodation in
CZ (see Art. 7). This is considered an incorrect transposition of Article 10 since it does not list any
such document.
o Article 10(1) – period for the authority to issue a residence card
The Directive requires that the right of residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not
nationals of a Member State be evidenced by the issuing of a document called ‘Residence card of a
family member of a Union citizen’ no later than six months from the date on which they submit the
application; this application to be certified immediately by the authority. In practice and also by law,
these requirements are respected in the Czech Republic.
First a temporary residence is granted in an administrative procedure as an administrative decision

(Alien Act states that it is to be concluded in period no longer than 60 days) upon submission of
application form (see Annex VI), which is certified (see Annex V). Then, based on this decision, a
temporary residence permit is issued as evidence of the right of residence. In practice, it is carried out
in one step. The decision is provided in 60 days. The card is issued immediately. There used to be a
provision in the Alien Act stating that the card is to be issued immediately after the decision is issued
but the last amendment to AA derogated that provision because the decision is issued in a form of a
card. In practice it takes 30 days for the decision (i.e. card) to be issued.
However, as a result of the fact that the Czech law requires the third country family member to apply
for a residence permit, the transposition of this Article is not in conformity with the Directive.
o Article 10(2) – documents to be presented
This Article lists documents that the national authority can request from the family member who is not
a Union citizen prior to issuing him with a residence card. There are some documents that are not
requested by the Directive, i.e., proof of accommodation in the territory. Czech Alien Act (Art 87b (1)
with the cross-reference to Art. 87a (2)) requires that a family member submits the same documents as
the Union citizen he is accompanying with the exception that instead of the document certifying the
purpose of stay, he is to submit a document certifying his family link to the Union citizen. This would
be in accordance with the Directive should the Czech law not require Union citizens to submit proof of
accommodation in CZ on top of the requirements listed in the Directive. Since the same is applied to
their family members (and there is no provision removing this obligation from family members if a
Union citizen proves it), this leads to the conclusion of incorrect transposition.
Europa Institute
• Validity of residence cards (Article 11)
Article 11 provides for the period of validity of residence cards and provides that certain temporary
absences will not render the card invalid. This article has been correctly transposed in the Czech
Aliens Act in a way that adopts the same conditions as listed in this Article.
Moreover, the Aliens Act includes a list of circumstances, which make the residence card invalid i.a.,
a) ´the document is reported loss or stolen;
c) a court decision declaring the document holder to be either partially or fully
incompetent for performing legal acts (lose of legal capacity) becomes legally
enforceable;
d) the holder acquires citizenship of the CZS;
e) the holder dies or a court ruling declaring the holder as deceased becomes legally
enforceable;
Police can also proclaim the residence card invalid, if
a. the card is damaged to make its entries illegible or the card is not complete;
b. the card contains incorrect information or unauthorised changes;
c. the photograph on the card does not correspond with the holder’s actual appearance.
All of these situations come as a matter of fact and they cannot be considered as more stringent
measures in comparison to the Directive. However, Czech law does not seem to preserve the right of
residence for the Union citizen (or his family member) after acquiring Czech citizenship. Although
when becoming Czech citizen, all Czech acts shall be applicable in full to such a person, EU citizens
may still have better rights in the CZ compared to Czech nationals. In principle, dual nationals should
have the choice of the best of two worlds (citizenship and citizenship of the Union) – in every single
area covered by the Directive, they should be able to pick which status they want to benefit from.
(d) Retention of the right of residence in the event of death, departure, divorce, annulment or
termination
• Retention of the right of residence by family members in the event of death or

departure of the Union citizen (Article 12)
Article 12 provides that family members retain the right to reside where the Union citizen dies or
leaves the Member State. The Article deals with a number of different groups of people. Czech law is
in conformity with the Directive.
o Article 12(1)- Family members who are EU citizens
This Article requires that the Union citizen's death or departure from the host Member State shall not
affect the right of residence of his/her family members who are EU citizens. It has been transposed
correctly though implicitly. The Aliens Act includes an exhaustive list of situations, which give rise to
cancellation of residence in the territory of CZ of a Union citizen (Sect 87d (2) AA). Death and
departure are not listed therein. Therefore, the Union citizen can reside even without a residence
certificate as long as he does not fall within this provision, unreasonable burden being listed as a one
situation. Before acquiring temporary residence, all Union citizens have to meet the same conditions
(Sect 87g(1) AA) and they correspond to those of the Directive. However, to be able to prove 5 years
of residence in the territory, it is better to ask for the residence certificate (easier to prove the period
afterwards). In order to be granted the certificate, a person (who is no longer a family member) has to
submit documents according to Article 8, which does reflect the requirements of Article 7 (which is
only implicitly transposed in the Czech legislation).
Europa Institute
o Article 12(2)- Family members who are not EU citizens
This Article applies only to family members who are not EU citizens. Their residence may be
cancelled after the death or departure of their family member with EU citizenship. However, in some
situations (a child is at school, they have already made CZ their home etc.) this can cause them serious
problems. As a consequence, in such situations the residence shall not be cancelled. Czech law
adopted [Sect 87f(2)(b) AA] the same wording as is in the Directive with only a small omission: the
provision that such family members shall retain their right of residence exclusively on a personal basis
has not been transposed. This is considered to be more favourable.
In addition, Sect 87f(2)(b) AA is more favourable to the family members since, it allows to maintain
their right of residence in all cases when the residence of the Union citizen has been cancelled (e.g.,
unreasonable burden, public health, public policy or state security reasons). Moreover, it obliges the
authorities, before cancelling the residence, to study the consequences of any such decision on the
personal or family life of the family member and make sure that it is adequate to the reasons for
cancelling the temporary residence. As a result, even in cases when the family member will not have
met the conditions (1 year of residence, child at school), his right of residence (residence permit)
might be preserved. Voluntary departure is not listed among the cancellation reasons of Article 87d(2)
AA. Therefore, departure does not have effect on the validity of residence.
• Retention of the right of residence by family members in the event of divorce,

annulment of marriage or termination of registered partnership (Article 13)
Article 13 is similar to Article 12 in that it provides that family members can retain their right of
residence whether there is a divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of a civil partnership.
Czech law again almost strives for conformity with the Directive with one issue of non conformity.
o Article 13(1)- Family members who are EU citizens
This Article requires that divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of registered partnership with
a Union citizen shall not affect the right of residence of his/her family members who are EU citizens.
It has been transposed correctly though implicitly. The Aliens Act includes an exhaustive list of
situations, which give rise to cancellation of residence in the territory of CZ of a Union citizen (Sect
87d (2) AA). Divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of registered partnership are not listed
therein. Therefore, the Union citizen can reside even without a residence certificate as long as he does
not fall within this provision. Before acquiring temporary residence, all Union citizens have to meet
the same conditions (Sect 87g (1) AA) and they are corresponding to those of the Directive. However,
to be able to prove 5 years of residence in the territory, it is better to ask for the residence certificate
(easier to prove the period afterwards). In order to be granted the certificate, a person (who is no
longer a family member) has to submit documents according to Article 8, which do reflect the
requirements of Article 7 (which is only implicitly transposed in the Czech legislation).
o Article 13(2) - Family members who are not EU citizens
This Article applies only to family members who are not EU citizens. Their residence may be
cancelled after the divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of registered partnership with the
Union citizen.
Czech Aliens Act (Sect 87f (2)(c) AA) again adopted the same situations as are in the Directive with
two inconformity cases – both are instances of incomplete transposition.
The Aliens Act specifies that the residence of the third country family member be maintained when
the marriage was terminated on the basis of a legally enforceable court decision on divorcing the
marriage or declaring the marriage as invalid, unless a child of a Union citizen has been placed in the
Europa Institute
custody of the third country family member (ex-spouse) on the basis of a decision made by the
applicable authorities. The Aliens Act does not mention the agreement between spouses.
Divorce or annulment of marriage can only be proclaimed by a court in CZ. When the court decides
so, it always has to deal with the custody of minor children. No such agreement made prior to this
decision (or after) is legally binding unless confirmed by the court. However, in exceptional cases
justified by serious circumstance, also other authorities (competent for minors) can decide preliminary
on the custody of a child. Therefore only such option is included in Sect 87f(2)(c). However, the
divorce can happen in another MS, where such an agreement can constitute legal basis for custody.
Therefore, this option should indeed be included in the transposing provision. The right cannot be
restricted by the requirement of national legislation, that the agreement should be incorporated into a
court order (or decision of administrative authority). For these reason, the transposition of Article
13(2)(b) is regarded as incomplete.
Article 13(2)(c) requires that the right of residence shall be maintained also when this is warranted by
particularly difficult circumstances, such as having been a victim of domestic violence while the
marriage or registered partnership was subsisting. This provision cannot be found in Czech Aliens Act.
However, the Aliens Act obliges the authorities, before cancelling the residence, to study the
consequences of any such decision on the personal or family life of the family member and make sure
that it is adequate to the reasons for cancelling the temporary residence. As a result, even in cases
when the family member will not have met the conditions (3 years of marriage, child custody etc.),
which might be the case of domestic violence, the right of residence (residence permit) might be
preserved. Still, this provision is too general and leaves too much discretion on the competent
authority. Therefore it cannot be taken as efficient transposition. As a result, transposition of Article
13(2)(c) is missing in the Czech law.
Finally, as in the case of Article 12(2), the provision that such family members shall retain their right
of residence exclusively on a personal basis, has not been transposed in the Czech law. This is
considered as more favourable.
2.3.3 Retention of the right of residence (Article 14)
Article 14 provides for the circumstances in which persons retain the rights of residence granted by
Article 6 and Articles 7, 12 and 13 respectively. This Article has been transposed mainly implicitly to
the Czech law, which in one case leads to a minor issue of incomplete transposition.
(a) Article 14(1)- Residence for less than 3 months
This Article states that all Union citizens and their family members have a right to stay for up to three
months as long as they do not become an unreasonable burden to the social assistance system of the
host Member State. There is no provision in the Czech law stating this explicitly. CZ has made use of
the exception to equal treatment under Article 24(2) of the Directive, so no social assistance can be
obtained during the first three months of residence. Therefore, these persons will not be checked by
the competent authorities. The first check might come on submission of an application for a temporary
residence certificate/card (to stay for more than three months) but it does not apply to this case. Since
there is a lack of provision regarding when this short-term stay is terminated, as a logical
interpretation, Union citizens and their family members have an automatic right of residence (for the
non-conformities identified in Article 6, see the relevant section).
(b) Article 14(2)- Residence for more than 3 months
This Article states that all Union citizens and their family members have the right of residence
provided for in Articles 7, 12 and 13 as long as they meet the conditions set out therein. According to
Aliens Act (Sect 87d(2)), a Union citizen only loses the right of residence if he/she becomes an
Europa Institute
unreasonable burden (for the exception for workers and self-employed persons see below Article
14(4)); for public policy, public security and public health see Article 27).
The same applies for family members who will lose the right of residence if the Union citizen loses
his/her right of residence with the exception of cases transposing Articles 12 and 13.
A Departure order is only issued if the temporary residence is cancelled (which also happens as a
consequence of becoming unreasonable burden). If the application for the residence certificate/card is
refused, the card terminates, and no departure order is issued. Administrative expulsion can only be
imposed for the reasons specified in Sect 119 – public order, state security and public health.
Therefore, as long as they (Union citizen and/or his family member) do not encounter such situations,
their right of residence is granted.
However, the requirements of the second subparagraph of this provision have not been transposed
completely. It states that in specific cases where there is a reasonable doubt as to whether a Union
citizen or his/her family members satisfies the conditions set out in Articles 7, 12 and 13, Member
States may verify if these conditions are fulfilled; this verification may not be carried out
systematically. Police can check the identity of aliens (see Article 26). For this purpose it is allowed to
verify the conditions of their stay in CZ (e.g., family link to the Union citizen).
As mentioned above, the only circumstances that may lead to a Union citizen losing his/her right of
residence is if the citizen becomes an unreasonable burden. As a consequence, the only obligation is
for the municipalities to report when the person becomes an unreasonable burden (sect 106(3) AA).
According to the information provided by national authorities, municipalities only check this situation
when a person applies for social aid, not proactively (a contrario someone who does not receive social
aid cannot become unreasonable burden). Although there is no clear provision in practice, after the
municipal authority has decided that someone is an unreasonable burden, it has to report it to the Alien
Police, who might terminate residence of such a person. It is their discretion not an obligation to
terminate the residence. So far, it has never happened.
The last sentence of this Article which imposes that checks should only be carried out when there are
serious doubts and never systematically, has not been transposed. Aliens are obliged to report changes
in residence address if they are longer than 180 days (Sect 98 (1) AA), which indicates that the
authorities do not check it regularly on their own initiative. Moreover, incorrect data in the residence
card may lead to termination of its validity. It is up to the alien to report correct data and apply for
changes to be included in the residence card. Despite this regime based on obligation of the person
concerned to report, the Aliens Act does not include any provision on the conditions of these checks
(the necessity to check it when serious doubts arise, regularity of checks) and any safeguards. As a
result, this may lead to the breach of the Directive, if they are carried out systematically and not only
in serious doubts. However, this has not yet been reported in practice.
(c) Protection against expulsion (Article 14(3)-(4)
• Article 14(3) - General protection
Article 14(3) provides that an expulsion measure shall not be the automatic consequence of a Union
citizen’s or her family member’s recourse to the social assistance system of the host Member State.
Again, this has not been implicitly transposed but the Czech law is in conformity with this Article. The
reasons for cancelling or refusing the residence certificate/permit are exhaustively stated and recourse
to social assistance is not listed among them. An alien can be expelled when he becomes an
unreasonable burden to the social assistance system. As was explained in Article 8(4), there are
detailed rules on the evaluation of unreasonable burden - recourse to social assistance does not
automatically make a person an unreasonable burden; only after the conditions are studied and the
decision is taken by a municipal authority (and reported to the Police). Thus, the direct ground of
expulsion is the decision declaring the loss of the right of residence, which is necessarily taken after an
Europa Institute
evaluation of the specific factual circumstances. Legally, the expulsion is not an automatic
consequence of the recourse to the social assistance system.
• Article 14(4) - Workers and self-employed persons, and job-seekers
Article 14(4) provides that an expulsion order may not be adopted against Union citizens or their
family members if the Union citizens are workers or self-employed persons or if the Union citizens
entered the territory of the host Member State in order to seek employment. In this case, the Union
citizens and their family members may not be expelled for as long as the Union citizens can provide
evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and that they have a genuine chance of being
engaged. Although the Czech legislation does not allow the expulsion of workers and self-employed
person, overall the provision has been considered incompletely transposed as a result of the failure to
transpose Article 7(3) of the Directive.
Since the Czech law does not impose the obligation to retain the status of a worker (or self-employed
person) in certain situations, it lowers the level of protection granted by the Directive and may lead to
their expulsion from the territory under this provision. The exception will be for individuals to whom
Regulation 1612/68 applies. This implies that workers and job seekers cannot become an unreasonable
burden and thus they cannot lose the right of residence (and consequently be expelled or invited to
leave the country). In any case, the problem remains regarding the retention of the status of worker. So
although the transposition is correct from a literal point of view, substantially, it will not cover
workers under Article 7(3). In addition, Regulation 1612/68 does not apply to self-employed persons.
Therefore these persons can become an unreasonable burden on the social system even in if they are in
one of the situations described by Article 7(3) of the Directive.
(d) Article 15 – Protection against expulsion and ban on entry
• Article 15(2) – expiry of document not a ground for expulsion
Article 15(2) provides that the expiry of the identity card or passport on the basis of which the person
concerned entered the host Member State and was issued with a registration certificate or residence
card shall not constitute a ground for expulsion. This has been correctly, although implicitly
transposed. The reasons for expulsion are stated in Sect 119(2) AA – the wording of this provision is
strict ([…] a decision on the administrative expulsion of a Union citizen or a his family member,
staying in the territory on a temporary basis, can only be made if[…]) in narrowing the possible
reasons to those listed therein; expiry of the identity card or passport on the basis of which the person
concerned entered the host Member State and was issued with a registration certificate or residence
card is not listed among them.
• Article 15(3) – prohibition of ban on entry
Under Article 15(3), providing that the host Member State may not impose a ban on entry in the
context of an expulsion decision to which paragraph 1 applies, transposition is a result of interpretation
of Sect 154 AA. This provision sets detailed rules for when a person becomes an undesirable person
(persona non gratae). This typically happens as a result of loss of the right of residence based on
administrative or criminal expulsion. A contrario, loss of the right of residence based on the mere fact
that the conditions of the right of residence are no longer fulfilled can not justify a ban on entry, but
only the obligation to quit the federal territory (departure order maybe issued in this case).
The only ambiguity arises with respect to cases when a person has not been expelled but was subject
to deportation and the transport costs were born by the CZ. This can also lead to proclaiming such a
person (in case he does not reimburse the costs) an undesirable person (Sect 154(4) AA). The actual
impact of this provision in practice is ambiguous (it has been introduced to the Aliens Act only by its
last amendment).
Europa Institute
2.4 Right of permanent residence
2.4.1 General rule for Union citizens and their family members (Article 16: Eligibility)
Article 16 providing that Union citizens who have resided legally for a continuous period of five years
in the host Member State and family members who are not nationals of a Member State and have
legally resided with the Union citizen in the host Member State for a continuous period of five years
shall have the right of permanent residence (temporary absence cannot be the reason for cancelling it)
are correctly transposed in the Czech Alien Act. Reasons that shall not affect the continuity of
residence are efficiently transposed in Section 87g(7). Permanent residence in CZ can be cancelled
when the absence lasts 2 years and is continuous - this reason together with reasons listed in Article 27
is transposed in Section 87l(1) AA. Permanent residence can be also cancelled upon request of the
holder, which is in line with the Directive.
2.4.2 Acquisition of the right of permanent residence for workers/self-employed

persons and their family members (Article 17)
This Article has been correctly transposed in the Czech Aliens Act by Sect 87g and 87h.
Article 17(1)(a) provides that the right of permanent residence in the host Member State shall be
enjoyed before completion of a continuous period of five years of residence by workers or self-
employed persons who, at the time they stop working, have reached the age laid down by the law of
that Member State for entitlement to an old age pension or workers who cease paid employment to
take early retirement, provided that they have been working in that Member State for at least the
preceding twelve months and have resided there continuously for more than three years.
Transposition of this Article results from Section 87g(1)(b) AA, which provides that the Police will
issue a Union citizen a permanent residence permit at the citizen’s request if at the time that the
citizen’s employment, performance of business or other economic activities ends, he/she has reached
the legal age of eligibility for receiving a retirement pension or has acquired the right to receive a
retirement pension prior to reaching retirement age and requested this acknowledged pension prior to
reaching retirement age, under the condition that the citizen’s activities were performed in CZ for the
12 months immediately preceding the date on which the application for a permanent residence permit
is submitted and that the citizen has continuously resided in CZ for a period of at least 3 years. This is
in fact repetition of the Directive’s provision since the Czech Republic also grants early retirement
under certain conditions. Moreover, it does grant the right to a retirement pension to all categories of
self-employed persons, therefore the second subparagraph has not been transposed.
Article 17(1)(b) provides that the right of permanent residence in the host Member State shall be
enjoyed before completion of a continuous period of five years of residence by workers or self-
employed persons who have resided continuously in the host Member State for more than two years
and stopped working there as a result of permanent incapacity to work., If such incapacity is the result
of an accident at work or an occupational disease entitling the person concerned to a benefit payable in
full or in part by an institution in the host Member State, no condition shall be imposed as to length of
residence.
Transposition of this Article results from Section 87g(1)(c) AA, which provides that the Police will
issue a Union citizen a permanent residence permit at the citizen’s request if the citizen ends his/her
employment, performance of business or other economic activities due to acquiring the right to receive
full disability pay and has continuously resided in CZ for a period of at least 2 years; the provision for
continuous residence does not apply if the right to receive a full disability pensions is the result of a
work-related accident or occupational illness. Permanent incapacity to work is in Czech law equivalent
to full disability.
Europa Institute
Article 17(1)(c) provides that the right of permanent residence in the host Member State be enjoyed
before completion of a continuous period of five years of residence by workers or self-employed
persons who, after three years of continuous employment and residence in the host Member State,
work in an employed or self-employed capacity in another Member State, while retaining their place
of residence in the host Member State, to which they return, as a rule, each day or at least once a week.
In the consequent subparagraphs, it is stated which periods are regarded as employment.
This whole Article has been transposed almost literally by Section 87g(1)(d) AA resp. Sections 87g(4)
and (6) AA, which set out the specific circumstances. The Czech law does not explicitly state that
periods of absence from work due to illness or accident shall be regarded as employment. When a
worker is absent from work due to illness is regarded as working with the exception that the person is
receiving illness support payment, not a salary. This is called “a protection period” during which there
is a ban on notice from the side of the employer (Sect 53(1) Labour Code). Employer cannot hand
notice in protection period which is a) the period when an employee is temporarily unable to work, if
this incapacity has not been intentionally caused or as an immediate result of abuse of alcohol or
other drugs […]
Employment can end by agreement, notice, immediate termination (only in extraordinary

circumstances) or by cancellation during the probation period (Sect 48(1) Labour Code). Fixed-term
employment ends also by the end of the term. If the person has a will to work, he registers at the
employment office as involuntary unemployed in other cases he registers as voluntary unemployed (in
this case he pays medical insurance on his own and this period is not counted as working for
retirement pension), which is outside the scope of this Article.
Articles 17(2), (3) and (4) have been transposed almost literally to Czech law by Sections 87g(5),
87h(1)(b) and 87h(1)(d) points (1),(2) and (3) and no inconsistency is identified in this regard.
2.4.3 Acquisition of the right of permanent residence by family members who are
not nationals of a MS and retained their right of residence (Article 18)
Article 18 providing that the family members of a Union citizen to whom Articles 12(2) and 13(2)
apply, who satisfy the conditions laid down therein, shall acquire the right of permanent residence
after residing legally for a period of five consecutive years in the host Member State is transposed by
Sect 87h(1)(a) AA, which provides the same conditions (5 years of residence) for family members as
for the Union citizen to acquire permanent residence. Regarding terminology, see comments in
previous Articles. In this case, the right of permanent residence does not derive from the Union
citizen’s right to permanent residence. Therefore, it seems to specifically refer to those family
members who retained the right of residence under Article 12 and 13 of the Directive. It has been,
thus, transposed correctly.
2.4.4 Documents certifying permanent residence for Union citizens (Article 19)
Article 19 about the obligation for the Member States to issue a document certifying permanent
residence of Union citizens upon application after having verified duration of residence and as soon as
possible, is incorrectly transposed in the Czech law due to the fact that, again, a document proving
accommodation has to be submitted. Moreover, the law exhaustively stipulates which documents are
to be considered as sufficiently verifying this and which types of premises can serve the purpose (Sect
87i (1)(2) AA). The administrative practise is, however, even stricter and more contrary to the
Directive as the lease contract is often required to have a notarised signature on it and be accompanied
by a certificate of the lessor´s ownership of the premises. This results, again, in incorrect transposition
and the introduction of a more stringent measure that is contrary to the Directive.
The Directive requires that the certificate of permanent residence be issued as soon as possible after
the conditions are met. In CZ, this certificate is issued in a form of a permanent residence permit in an
administrative procedure. Although it is a right, it is acquired only after conditions laid down in the
Europa Institute
Directive (and transposed in the Aliens Act) are met. The administrative authority is to study the
conditions and issue a certificate confirming that the conditions were met and the right was acquired.
This is held in administrative procedure that ends with a binding decision. The terminology might
seem confusing but the practice is in conformity with the Directive. Section 169(2)(e). AA states that
it must be issued no later then within 60 days, if it cannot be issued immediately. This is a correct
transposition of this provision.
2.4.5 Permanent residence card for family members who are not nationals of a MS
(Article 20)
This Article has been transposed correctly in the Czech Aliens Act. Since the transposition is not
literal, a more detailed explanation referring to each paragraph follows.
Article 20(1) about the obligation to issue family members who are not nationals of a Member State
entitled to permanent residence with a permanent residence card within six months of the submission
of the application has been correctly transposed in Sect 87t (3) AA. This includes a cross-reference to
the same provision applied to Union citizens. The requirement that the card be renewable after 10
years has been transposed in Sect 87s AA. It states that a Union citizen is obliged to request the Police
for an extension to the validity of the card no later than 15 days after the validity has expired. In the
event that the application cannot be submitted within this timeframe due to reasons beyond the
applicant’s control, the applicant is obliged to submit the application within 3 working days of the date
on which these reasons cease to exist. Together with the application for extending the validity of the
card, the applicant is obliged to submit his/her travel document. If the applicant’s appearance has
changed, he/she is also obliged to submit photographs that correspond to his/her actual appearance.
The Police will not extend the validity of a card of permanent residence document if it determines the
existence of reasons for cancelling the permanent residence pursuant to Section 87l.
The aim of the Directive’s provision is to prevent the person entitled to renewal from undergoing the
full process again. The provisions of the Aliens Act only limit the checks to the minimum formalities;
photographs are not listed in the Directive but the card (in order to serve as a valid registration
certificate) has to contain the appearance of its holder, therefore the photographs are required in CZ.
This Article has been transposed correctly.
Article 20(2) about the obligation for family members to submit the application for permanent
residence before the (temporary) residence card expires and the possibility to envisage sanctions for
the failure are not transposed in the Czech law, which means that Czech legislation is more favourable
on this point.
Article 20(3) providing that interruption in residence does not exceed two consecutive years it shall
not affect the validity of the permanent residence card, is transposed implicitly in the Sections 87l(1)
and Sect 87z(1)-(2) AA. The former exhaustively lists reasons for the Police to cancel the permanent
residence, the latter exhaustively naming cases leading to its expiration. Interruption of residence for
two consecutive years gives grounds for cancellation of the permanent residence card: a shorter period
of absence is not mentioned. A contrario, it can never become a reason for cancellation or expiry of
the permanent residence card.
2.4.6 Continuity of residence (Article 21)
Article 21 providing that for the purposes of this Directive, continuity of residence may be attested by
any means of proof in use in the host Member State and that continuity of residence is broken by any
expulsion decision duly enforced against the person concerned is not explicitly transposed in CZ but it
can be stated that the transposition is efficient.
Europa Institute
The Aliens Act does not contain any provision providing for specific types of evidence to prove the
length of stay or meeting other conditions (apart from accommodation). Since the card/permit is
granted in administrative procedures, general rules for providing evidence as laid down in Code of
Administrative Procedure shall be used. Sections 51 and 52 of CAP read that every means of proof,
which are convenient to ascertain the position of a matter and which are not obtained or produced
contrary to law may be used in evidence procedure. CAP demonstratively names i.a., documents,
examinations, witness testimonies and expert reports. Furthermore it states that all participants must be
notified in time of the production of evidence outside the scope of the oral hearing unless there is a
danger of delay. Participants shall be obliged to propose evidence supporting their allegation. An
administrative body shall not be bound by proposals of the participants, however, it shall always
produce evidence what appears to be necessary for determination of the issue. These rules do not
exempt any means of proof from being used, therefore they are considered as sufficiently transposing
Article 21 (first sentence).
Article 21 goes on providing that continuity of residence be broken by any expulsion decision duly
enforced against the person concerned. This requirement has not been transposed in the Czech law.
This has been considered as more favourable.
2.5 Common provisions (Articles 22-26)
2.5.1 Territorial scope (Article 22)
Article 22 about the territorial scope covering the whole territory of the host Member State and the
prohibition of specific restrictions to freedom of movement of Union citizens and their family
members is correctly transposed. For Article 22.1, transposition is the result of Sect 1(1) AA, which
states that this Act establishes, pursuant to directly applicable legislation of European Communities,
conditions for an alien’s entry to the territory of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the
“Territory”), his/her stay in the Territory, and his/her departure from the Territory. The territorial
scope is a consequence of the absence of any precision or limitation, what means that the legislation
applies to whole territory of the Czech Republic. Any territorial restriction for Union citizens and their
family members would be illegal.
For Article 22(2), there is apparently no specific territorial restriction imposed on the right of
residence of Union citizens and their family members. The liberty of movement and the freedom of
the choice of residence are guaranteed by the Constitutions (Art. 14 CFRF) and it can be restricted
only by law in justifiable circumstances. This limitation has to comply with the equal treatment clause.
Furthermore, the Criminal Code (Sect 57a CC) recognises a criminal penalty called “ban on
residence”. It can be imposed in the period of one to five years for an intentional crime if required in
view of the existing lifestyle of the offender and locus delicti for protection of public order; the family;
health; morality or property; and the criminal punishment of ban on residence cannot apply to the
place or district where the offender has permanent residence. The criminal penalty of a ban on
residence may be imposed as a separate penalty for a crime for which the law specifies the custodial
penalty, the upper limit of which does not exceed three years, if, in view of the nature of the criminal
act committed and the possibilities of reform of the offender, imposition of another penalty to achieve
the purpose of criminal punishment is not necessary [however, CC in its specific sections does not
state for which particular crimes it can be imposed but since the upper limit is not high, it covers less
serious crimes]. This penalty is applied without discrimination to all persons when the court decides
so. This is different to criminal penalty called “expulsion”, which is allowed for in Article 33. A ban
on residence is a legal restriction of free movement in the territory and it is applied to Czech citizens.
This is not in contradiction to the Directive.
2.5.2 Right to take up employment by family members (Article 23)
Article 23 about the right to take up employment or self-employment in the host Member State is
correctly transposed, mainly in the Act on the Employment and Act on Business Licences. Act on
Europa Institute
Employment stipulates that the Union Citizen and his/her family member have equal status to Czech
citizens in employment relationships unless otherwise stipulated. The distinctions are minor, and
access to employment of these persons is in most instances the same as for the Czech citizens. The Act
on Business Licences is even more favourable to aliens, as it provides that all aliens (both natural and
legal persons) can run businesses in CZ under the same conditions as Czech citizens, unless otherwise
stipulated. Again, no restrictions on self-employment of Union citizens and their family members are
found. Thus, this article is efficiently transposed.
2.5.3 Equal treatment (Article 24)
Article 24(1) about equal treatment for Union citizens residing on the basis of the Directive in the
territory of the host Member State with the nationals of that Member State is generally transposed
through the constitutional “equal treatment clause” that requires everyone be guaranteed the
enjoyment of his fundamental rights and basic freedoms without regard to gender, race, colour of skin,
language, faith and religion, political or other conviction, national or social origin, membership in a
national or ethnic minority, property, birth, or other status. Any statutory limitation upon the
fundamental rights and basic freedoms must apply in the same way to all cases which meet the
specified conditions. In the concrete cases, one would have to study specific acts executing such
fundamental right. The Constitutional Court is competent to derogate provision of an act that breaches
the Constitution; therefore if such “unequal” limitation is encountered, the court is not to decide the
matter, but refer for a ruling to the Constitutional Court. In general, no inconformity issue was
identified.
Another case is the transposition of Article 24(2) about the possible restrictions a Member State can
provide for the entitlement to social assistance during the first three months of residence or, where
appropriate, the longer period provided for in Article 14(4)(b), or the restriction prior to acquisition of
the right of permanent residence, on the possibility to grant maintenance aid for studies, including
vocational training, consisting in student grants or student loans to persons other than workers, self-
employed persons, persons who retain such status and members of their families.
This Article has been transposed correctly, although there is an incorrect concept that the Czech law
adopted with regarded to the right of residence. It is not automatically recognised as a right for third
country family members, but only the conditions for granting residence permit are made easier for
them. Furthermore, recourse to social assistance stems from the possession of a residence
certificate/card and not after acquiring of the right. This is not in conformity with Article 25(1), where
it is analysed further.
However, conditions of this Article are transposed correctly (Union citizens and family members do
not have a recourse in the first three months of stay except for workers where the Regulation (EEC)
No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No
1251/70 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been
employed in that State apply). The only exception is scholarships where the Czech Republic does not
require a person to hold right of residence. The Act on universities only state which types of
scholarships can be granted and it is up to universities (this competence is part of there self-
administration) how they regulate it. The only legal condition is that when a scholarship is granted as a
maintenance aid for university studies together with a child subsidy, the total income has to be within
a certain limit (Sect 91(3) Act on universities), which is 1,5 times the subsistence minimum. However,
this is outside of the scope of this Article. It can be concluded that the Czech Republic made use of the
option not to grant social aid for the first three months of residence apart from scholarships that can be
granted to any university student either by the university itself or by the Ministry of Education (Sect
91 (5) (6) act on universities).
Europa Institute
2.5.4 General provisions concerning residence documents (Article 25)
• Article 25(1) - possession of residence document not a precondition for the exercise of a right
Article 25(1) provides that possession of residence documents may under no circumstances be made
a precondition for the exercise of a right or the completion of an administrative formality, as
entitlement to rights may be attested by any other means of proof. There is no direct transposition
measure.
With regard to other provisions, this constitutes an incorrect transposition. However, the relevant
sections qualifying the Union citizens and their family members for social assistance are based on
their residence registration (i.a., certificate/card). This implies that the authorities may require the
registration certificate when executing their rights. These official documents (so called “veřejná
listina”) do not need any verification, whereas other means of proof of the right may require
verification. However, this Directive imposes this burden on the administrative authorities and they
cannot (even with justification) withdraw it.
There should be a clear legal indication in Czech law for all authorities that possession of a
registration certificate; of a document certifying permanent residence; of a certificate attesting
submission of an application for a family member residence card; of a residence card or of a
permanent residence card, may under no circumstances be made a precondition for the exercise of a
right or the completion of an administrative formality, as entitlement to rights may be attested by any
other means of proof.
• Article 25(2) – proportionate (or no) charges for issuing the documents
This Article has been transposed efficiently in the Act on administrative fees. Issue of the residence
certificate (card for the family member) is free of charge (issue of the identity card is free of charge as
well) whereas issue of a certificate to replace the lost (damaged etc.) one is subject to 100 CZK fee
(app. 4 EUR). The same fee is charged to CZ citizens if they lose their identity cards.
2.5.5 Checks (Article 26)
Article 26 provides that Member States may have checks to ensure that beneficiaries of the Directive
carry their residence cards in the same way as nationals carry their identity card. This provision could
have been transposed more correctly; the non-discriminatory nature of sanctions is not maintained.
Czech law does not require Czech citizens to carry identity cards but to possess them. Every Czech
citizen after reaching 15 years of age has a legal duty to submit application for identity card. On the
other hand, certain public officials are competent to request proof of identity (most typically it is
Police of CZ and municipal police when a person is suspected of committing a misdemeanour or
criminal offence). Proof of identity means proving of name and surname, date of birth and permanent
or temporary residence of the Czech citizen, who is allowed to use any document(s) in order to do so:
ID is not a mandatory and an exclusive document. Failure to prove identity makes the person guilty of
misdemeanour (and subject to a penalty up to 1000 CZK, app 40 EUR).
The Aliens Act entitles the Police to check the identity of Union citizens and their family members for
the purpose of checking whether they meet the conditions of residing in CZ (Sect 103 (d) AA). These
persons are also allowed to use other documents of proof should they not carry the residence
cards/certificates on them. However, for a failure to comply with this requirement they can be charged
with a penalty up to 3000 CZK (app 120 EUR). The maximum amount to be charged is thus three
times higher than for the Czech citizens. This is not in line with the Directive that requires that
Member States impose the same sanctions on Union citizens and family members as are those
Europa Institute
imposed on their own nationals in this regard. Therefore, the requirement of Article 26 of the Directive
could have been transposed more effectively.
2.6 Restrictions on the right of entry and residence on grounds of public policy,
public security and public health
2.6.1 General principles (Article 27)
This Article laying down general principles to be respected by Members States when imposing
restrictions on the right of entry and residence of Union citizens and their family members on grounds
of public policy, public security and public health is a rather complicated transposition issue in CZ,
which leads to several cases of inconformity.
• Article 27(1) – general clause
This provision generally allows Member States to restrict the freedom of movement and residence of
Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of nationality, on grounds of public policy,
public security or public health. In CZ, these grounds are studied since the entry of these persons to
CZ. Even at this stage, the Police are entitled to turn back a Union citizen or his family member if
there is a reasonable doubt that he carries serious disease, is reasonable danger that he could threaten
state security and or in a serious manner endanger public order. Later, upon submission of application
for temporary residence certificate, the police can decide if these grounds for Union citizen exist and
reject his application thereon.
Temporary residence can be also cancelled for these reasons and the same applies to family member of
a Union citizen. A permanent residence permit can be terminated if the holder of such a permit
threatens the security of the state or breaches public order in a serious manner, unless deportation
proceedings have been commenced. Union citizens and their family members can be also expelled
from CZ on these grounds, either as a criminal penalty or as a consequence of administrative
proceedings. Specific reasons apply to minors. More detailed explanation will follow in the respective
Articles.
The second sentence of this Article has not been explicitly transposed in the Czech law. It requires that
the grounds for restriction of free movement and residence shall not be invoked to serve economic
ends. The reasons for all limitations/restrictions are strictly set out providing for no administrative
discretion in this regard. Although there is no practical case indicating that they served economic ends,
explicit transposition of this requirement is necessary.
The expert did not find any case law that includes sufficient and general definition of danger for state
security or public order. It is always decided on a case-by-case basis. No case law applicable to
European Union citizens or their family members was found apart from one that related to marriage of
convenience, which was indisputable.
• Article 27((2) – proportionality
Article 27(2) first subparagraph provides that measures taken on grounds of public policy or public
security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the
personal conduct of the individual concerned and that previous criminal convictions shall not in
themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures. In CZ, there is no explicit transposition of
this Article. Despite this fact, its requirements are respected through other provisions. The principle of
proportionality is a general principle of Czech law, and has to be respected quite particularly for the
correct use of discretionary power. When administrative expulsion is being decided upon, all
circumstances of the case are studied. Principles and guarantees laid down in CAP do not allow for the
Europa Institute
expulsion to be based on previous criminal convictions (or other convictions irrelevant for this
particular case) of the person concerned. Also note it is not mentioned among the reasons for
administrative expulsion. However, explicit transposition of this provision would be better.
Article 27(2) second subparagraph provides that the personal conduct of the individual concerned
must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental
interests of society. Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on
considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted. Neither of these provisions is transposed in
the Czech law. Again, it can be repeated that general principles of administrative and criminal
proceedings do comply with it and also the fact that CZ respects “rule of law”. Administrative and
criminal practice seems to be in compliance and no case of abusing the provisions on expulsion has
been reported. Even if there is apparently no direct infringement of this disposition in Czech
legislation, it is necessary to transpose this point in order to avoid future abusive administrative
practice and ensure that EU citizens know their rights in case of appeal since this can be used as a
ground to contest a decision.
• Article 27(3) – checks in other MS
Under Article 27(3) about the possibility to request the Member State of origin and, if need be, other
Member States to provide information concerning any previous police record the person concerned
may have, there is apparently no transposition measure for this Article in Czech legislation. On the
other hand, most of its requirements are considered optional therefore cannot constitute a conformity
issue with the exception of the last sentence. It states that when a Member State is contacted in order
to give information on the person concerned, it shall give its reply within two months. This can also
concern the Czech Republic. Since there is no transposing measure, the Czech authorities do not have
a legally binding period to respond, which might constitute breach of the Directive.
• Article 27(4) – re-entrance of the home MS in no case be banned
Under Article 27(4) providing the obligation to allow any person to which the CZ issued the passport
or identity card that is expelled on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health from
another Member State to re-enter its territory without any formality even if the document is no longer
valid or the nationality of the holder is in dispute, transposition is the result of Article 14 (4) CFRF,
providing that every citizen has the right of free entry into the territory of the Czech Republic.
A conformity issue could only appear if the nationality of the holder is in dispute, as the CZ has not
taken any measure to deal directly with this problem. Section Sect 9 (1) (e) AA provides for entry of
persons who posess travel documents issued by CZ (this is called “alien passport”). According to this
provision, the police are allowed to deny an alien entry to CZ if the validity of his travel document has
expired, but this does not apply in the case of an alien passport (Section 113 AA), if the reasons for
which the travel document was issued continue. It can be concluded that this article has been
transposed efficiently.
2.6.2 Protection against expulsion (Article 28)
Article 28 laying down safeguards to protect Union citizens and family members from expulsion that
is not duly justified creates several issues of inconformity in Czech legislation that will be discussed in
the following paragraphs.
• Article 28(1) – obligation to study individual circumstances before expulsion
Article 28(1) provides that before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public
security, the host Member State shall take account of considerations such as how long the individual
concerned has resided on its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation,
Europa Institute
social and cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of his/her links with the
country of origin. This Article has not been implicitly transposed in the Czech law.
The Aliens Act in the relevant provision [Sect 119a(2)] related to expulsions states that a decision on
administrative expulsion cannot be issued if it would result in disproportional consequences on the
alien’s personal or family life. This is a broad provision that requires the administrative authorities to
study each case in detail, however, it does not prescribe which details are to be studied or what is
regarded “as a disproportional consequence on the alien’s personal or family life”.
Furthermore, CAP in its very first sections (laying down general principles of administration – Sect
2(3), (4) and sect 3) provides that an administrative body shall examine right acquired in good faith as
well as the lawful interests of persons who are affected by the activities of an administrative body in
any particular case (hereinafter referred to as “persons concerned”). An administrative body may
interfere with these rights only under conditions determined by legislation and within the necessary
scope. An administrative body shall ensure that an adopted measure is in accordance with public
policy and corresponds to the circumstances of a particular case and shall ensure that no unreasonable
differences occur in dealing with cases which were identical or similar with respect to the facts. Unless
the law stipulates otherwise, an administrative body shall act in such a way as to ascertain the case
status beyond unreasonable doubt and within the scope necessary for the compliance of its acts with
the requirements stipulated in Sect 2.
Although all of these provisions are designed to ensure that consequences of administrative decisions
are proportionate and that the circumstances justify it, explicit transposition of the list of
circumstances to be studied in the relevant sections of Aliens Act would be better since currently it
mostly focus on family life and does not take into account other factors.
• Article 28(2) – expulsion in case of permanent residence
Article 28(2) provides that an expulsion decision against Union citizens or their family members,
irrespective of nationality, who have the right of permanent residence on its territory, is only possible
on serious grounds of public policy or public security.
This Article has been transposed correctly in Section 120(2) and (3) AA. It states that a decision on the
administrative expulsion of a Union citizen or his family member who was granted a permanent
residence can only be issued if the alien endangers state security or significantly disturbs public policy
and, with regard to the seriousness of his/her behaviour, withdrawal of the residence permit is not
sufficient. Moreover, this decision cannot be issued if it results in disproportional consequences on the
alien’s personal or family life. Although the first part of the provision does not adopt the term “serious
grounds”, the remaining part makes sure that it is only taken when serious grounds exist. The term
“serious grounds” is less strict then the term “imperative grounds” used in the next paragraph.
Therefore, in this case, the transposition is correct. There are no cases in practice of where the
administrative authorities would misuse this provision. No relevant case law on expulsion of people
with permanent residence found.
• Article 28(3) - expulsion in case of 10 year residence and minors
Article 28(3) provides that an expulsion decision may not be taken against Union citizens, except if
the decision is based on imperative grounds of public security, as defined by Member States, if they
have resided in the host Member State for the previous 10 years, or are a minor, except if the
expulsion is necessary for the best interests of the child, as provided for in the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989. Inconformity cases arise with regard to
both requirements. First, the provision on reasons for expulsion of long-term residing Union citizens
has been transposed incompletely. The Czech law allows that such a person is expelled in
administrative procedure based on the ground that he “threatens/endangers state security” (ohrožuje
Europa Institute
bezpečnost státu). In contrast, the Directive requires that it be based on imperative grounds of
state/public security.
Since the Czech law does not attempt to make any stricter division when compared to other provisions
on expulsion, it can be concluded that it is incomplete. “Imperative grounds” are without doubt more
rare, imminent and more significant as to the danger posed as “serious grounds”. Therefore, the Czech
law needs to adopt stricter wording to ensure this division/intensification is respected. The stricter
wording is, however, adopted in case of criminal expulsion (Sect 57(3)(f) CC) were the legislation
uses the term “serious reasons for a threat to state security” (neshledá-li vážné důvody ohrožení
bezpečnosti státu).
The provision on reasons for expulsion of minors has been transposed both incompletely and
incorrectly. Incomplete transposition is a result of the case that was explained above - less strict
conditions are laid down – minor is to be “only” a threat to state security for the expulsion to be
justified. Furthermore, minors can be expelled from CZ as a consequence of criminal penalty. This is
laid down in Section 26 (3) of the Act on criminal justice with regard to minors. It provides that a
court may impose expulsion of a minor only under the conditions specified in the criminal code for a
period of one year to five years. At the same time it is to take into account the family and personal
circumstances of the youth and ensure that he does not run the risk of abandonment by this
punishment. Although the second sentence definitely strives to mitigate the negative consequences of
this decision, it is not sufficient as the Criminal Code does not distinguish between minors and adults.
Thus, the wording is less strict than in the Directive.
2.6.3 Public health (Article 29)
This Article provides for the diseases that justify restriction of free movement based on the public
health grounds. Czech legislation has transposed the Directive on the point of limitation of right or
residence on grounds of public health correctly. In practice, such restrictions are very rare. The Aliens
Act authorises the Ministry of Health to specify a list of illnesses which could endanger public health
and a list of illnesses and disabilities which could threaten public order in a serious manner. Ministry
of Health issued a decree, which specifies that such diseases (which could threaten public health) be:
a) diseases subject to notice of International Health Order and other new and highly dangerous
diseases (e.g., SARS)
b) tuberculosis in active stage microscopic or cultivation positive or potentially developing,
c) syphilis or
d) other infectious diseases, for which a competent administrative body adopted protective
measures.
Article 29(1) requires that restrictions of free movement be proportionate to measures imposed on
Czech nationals. The Act on protection of public health in Section 64 states which measures a person
who has/may have infectious diseases has to obey. They are even broader than what is required on
aliens.
Article 29(2) requires that diseases occurring after a three-month period from the date of arrival shall
not constitute grounds for expulsion from the territory. Czech Aliens Act transposes the provision
implicitly in the reasons for cancellation of residence permit or expulsion grounds. It is stated that
such infectious disease be considered a threat to public health if he fell ill within 3 months of entering
CZ. A contrario, occurrence of such a disease later shall not constitute grounds for cancelling the
residence permit or administrative expulsion.
The CZ has not used the possibility of Article 29(3) to require a medical examination. On this point
Czech legislation seems more favourable than the Directive. In case such medical examinations be
Europa Institute
required, it will be necessary to transpose especially the obligation to undertake those examinations
free of charge and not as a matter of routine.
2.6.4 Expulsion as a penalty or legal consequence (Article 33)
Article 33 providing that expulsion orders may not be issued as a penalty or legal consequence of a
custodial penalty, unless they conform to the requirements of Articles 27, 28 and 29 and if imposed,
will be reviewed again after two years to check any material change in the circumstances since the
expulsion order was issued, has not been transposed completely. This constitutes a significant case of
inconformity as this may lead in cases of criminal expulsion to life-long expulsion from CZ.
• Article 33(1) – conditions for criminal expulsion
Article 33(1) was transposed correctly in Sect 57 of Criminal Code. A court may impose the penalty of
expulsion from the territory of the Czech republic on an offender who is neither a Czech citizen nor a
person granted refugee status, either as a separate penalty or in addition to another punishment, if
required for the safety of persons or property or other common interest.
This Section is rather long and lays down conditions for imposing criminal expulsion; this is justified
by extraordinary circumstances and it takes into account of a number of conditions (the degree of
social danger of the criminal offence, possibilities of reform and the conditions of the offender and the
level of threat it posed to the safety of persons, property or other common interests). It can be imposed
together with a custodial penalty (custodial penalty be the first enforceable and expulsion shall
follow).
The Criminal Code does not stipulate types of crimes for which an expulsion decision can be imposed
even in general terms (compare to ban on residence). Therefore, it can be imposed for any of the
crimes listed in Criminal Code provided the strict circumstances are met. According to Sect 57a(3) (e),
the penalty shall not be imposed on a Union citizen or his family member (irrespective of nationality)
if they have permanent residence in CZ, unless justified by serious grounds for a threat to state
security or public policy (vážné důvody ohrožení bezpečnosti státu nebo veřejného pořádku).
According to the consistent case-law of Supreme Court, this may be i.a., committing of crime of
murder (sect 219(1) CC) together with illegal carrying of weapon (Sect 185(1) CC).4
Subsection (3) says that: A court shall not impose the punishment of expulsion, if
e) the offender is a Union citizen or his family member irrespective of nationality and has
permanent residence permission in the Czech Republic or foreign national with the legal
status of a long-term resident in the Czech Republic pursuant to a special rule, unless there
are serious reasons for a threat to state security or public order, or
f) the offender is a Union citizen and has resided in the Czech Republic continuously for the
last 10 years, unless there are serious reasons for a threat to state security
The circumstances providing for it to be imposed do meet the requirements of Articles 27, 28 and 29;
the terminology is correctly transposed (intensification of reasons) as opposed to administrative
expulsion where the reasons are broadened by incorrect (inconsistent) transposition.
The conditions in the Criminal Code for adopting an expulsion measure may be considered even
stricter than those listed in the Directive. The principle of proportionality is an essential principle of
the criminal procedure and human rights legislation has to be respected. Criminal procedure respects
the following principles: equality of the parties, delivery of written judgement, right to an attorney,
4
E.g., a very recent ruling of the Supreme Court no 7 Tdo 57/2008 “trestné činy nedovoleného ozbrojování
podle § 185 odst. 1 tr. zák. a vraždy podle § 219 odst. 1 tr. zák., resp. pokusu tohoto trestného činu, jsou
trestnými činy, které nejen v konkrétní trestní věci, ale i obecně vždy vážně ohrožují veřejný pořádek.”
Europa Institute
presumption of innocence, when in doubt in favour of the convicted (“in dubio pro reo”), the guilt by
proved beyond doubt, etc. burden of proof lies on the prosecutor’s side etc. In any case, the judge will
most certainly carry out a hermeneutic and theological interpretation and will take into account the
principles listed in Article 27 and 28. Therefore, it can be concluded that the requirements of this
Article are satisfied.
• Article 33(2) – possibility for mitigation/excuse of penalty expulsion
On the other hand, transposition of Article 33(2) constitutes a significant conformity issue. It requires
that if an expulsion order is enforced more than two years after it was issued, the Member State shall
check that the individual concerned is currently and genuinely a threat to public policy or public
security and shall assess whether there has been any material change in the circumstances since the
expulsion order was issued.
The Criminal Code (Sect 57), which laid down conditions for imposing the penalty of expulsion, does
not include any provision providing for the review of the criminal judgment after it was enforced.
However, it stipulates that the penalty can be enforced for one to ten years or even for indefinite time
period. According to the ruling of the Constitutional Court, the possibility of the reform of the
offender is always studied when imposing expulsion for indefinite time period and it can be imposed
only in case no such reform is possible5.
The Code of Criminal Procedure regulating the procedural issues in its Sect 350g (2) states that in case
the Union citizen who has permanent residence or has been residing in CZ continuously in the past 10
years, or his family member (irrespective of the nationality) who has permanent residence in CZ, have
not been expelled in two years after the expulsion became enforceable, the head of the senate shall
check whether the circumstances that hinder imposing this penalty have not occurred. These
circumstances are again found in Sect 57 and are almost unlikely to occur (the offender obtains Czech
citizenship, the conditions in his home state change to a such extent that there is a risk he be subject to
race/gender/etc persecution or inhuman treatment). Also, Sect 350g (2) requires that the expulsion has
not yet been enforced, which further limits the possible cases whereas Article 33(2) requires review of
the circumstances of expulsion that is being enforced. CCP does not refer to review of expulsion
penalty that is being enforced.
The only possibility of review is a prerogative of the President of CZ to grant amnesty (one form is
excuse or mitigation of criminal penalties) laid down in the Constitution (Art 63(1)(j)). He exercises
this competence together with a Minister of Justice (the Constitution states that a signature of the
Prime Minister or any appointed Minister shall be needed for the validity of such decision. This is,
however, only an exceptional measure to be used in a small number of cases. All in all, Sect 350g (2)
CCP together with the constitutional competence of the President cannot be in any case perceived as
transposing this article. The inconformity case is in practice even more serious due to the fact that until
31.12. 1997, criminal expulsion could have been imposed in a broad range of cases and only for an
indefinite time, which equals life-long period. Also, this penalty was misused during the communist
era and its consequences still endure. The incomplete transposition may have serious consequences in
practice for a number of aliens.
5
Deciosn II. ÚS 178/98
Europa Institute
2.7 Procedural safeguards against decisions restricting free movement (Article 15,
and Articles 30-31)
Articles 30-31 of the Directive includes a range of procedural guarantees that need to be respected in
the application of expulsion measures as well as in the adoption of decisions to restrict free movement
not based on public order, public security and public health.
In CZ, all decisions (on expulsion as well as on other restrictions on the free movement - Articles 27-
29) are made in administrative procedure, which respects a whole set of procedural safeguards
provided for in Code of Administrative Procedure (Sect 68, 72 (1), 81(1) CAP ) and Code of
Administrative Justice for judicial appeal (Sect 65(1) CAJ). With regard to expulsion decisions the
transposition is considered correct.
As will be shown below, although certain problems have been identified in relation to the transposition
of Articles 30 and 31, those problems do not have an impact of expulsion decisions covered by Article
15 of the Directive. The first problem concerns the suspensory effect of the appeal. In this case, the CZ
legislation has used a less-strict wording regarding the grounds of public policy. This problem will not
apply to expulsion decisions under Article 15 of the Directive because they are not based on public
order or public security grounds. The second problem is the time limit given to the alien for leaving
the country. Under CZ legislation, the departure order (which is the expulsion decisions adopted when
the right of residence is terminated for reasons other than public security and public order) is issued
with a time limit of at least 30 days. Therefore, this is in line with the Directive.
Sect 68(4) CAP stipulates that the reasoning of a decision should not be required if an administrative
body of the first instance fully satisfies the claims of all participants. This will never apply to
expulsion (e.g., the expulsed person is not “satisfied”), but is applied only in rare circumstances and
was listed as transposing legislation because it is a general procedural code. AA does not include any
differing provisions.
2.7.1 Notifications of the decisions (Article 30)
Concerning Article 30, which grants administrative safeguards to persons affected by expulsion
decisions, the transposition is implicit and in one case incomplete. The CZ has not taken any specific
transposition measures concerning this article therefore general Czech rules of administrative
procedure (as set out in CAP) shall apply.
• Article 30(1) – comprehensive decision delivered
CAP stipulates that participants be notified of the decision by delivery of a written document into their
own hands or by oral declaration. Unless the law provides otherwise, an oral declaration shall have the
legal effect of notification only if the participant, at the same time, waives his right to obtain the
decision in writing (Sect 51 CAP). As to the comprehension of the decision, there is not explicit
provision stating that it should be clear to the participants. But the Czech language (and Slovak as an
equivalent) is the language of the proceedings for both written filings and oral hearings. Every person
who declares that he does not speak the language of the proceedings has the right to an interpreter
entered in the official list of certified interpreters and he shall use the interpreter’s services at his own
expense. In the proceeding to deal with an application, an applicant who is not a citizen of the Czech
republic shall arrange for himself the services of an interpreter at his own expense unless the law
provides otherwise (Sect 16 (1)(2)(3) CAP). This is regarded as a correct transposition of Article 30.1.
Europa Institute
• Article 30(2) – reasoning of the decision
Other rules laid down in CAP specify what the decision shall contain (ruling, reasoning and notice to
participants). The reasoning shall contain reasons for a statement or statements in the decision;
grounds for the issuance thereof; considerations directing the administrative body in its evaluation and
its interpretation of legal regulations; information on how the administrative body handled the
proposals and objections of participants and their response to the grounds for decision (Sect 68(3)
CAP). This is considered an efficient transposition of Article 30(2), that requires the persons
concerned to be informed, precisely and in full, of the public policy, public security or public health
grounds on which the decision taken in their case is based, unless this is contrary to the interests of
state security.
• Article 30(3) – notice to the person expelled
Article 30(3) providing that the notification shall specify the court or administrative authority with
which the person concerned may lodge an appeal, the time limit for the appeal and, where applicable,
the time allowed for the person to leave the territory of the Member State, and that, save in duly
substantiated cases of urgency, the time allowed to leave the territory shall be not less than one month
from the date of notification, has not been transposed completely.
Generally, CAP states that the notice of the decision shall contain whether or not appeal is permissible
against the decision, within what time-limit and from what day the time shall begin, which
administrative body shall decide on the appeal, and which administrative body the appeal should be
lodged with (Sect 68(5) CAP). The Aliens Act, as lex specialis, laid down more details for what is to
be included in the decision on administrative expulsion (setting a time limit for leaving the country, a
time period during which the foreign national cannot be granted entry into the country, in justified
cases also a specification of boarder-crossing to be used).
In the case of termination of residence, Union citizens and their family members shall be informed and
the decision be accompanied by a so called “departure order” (výjezdní příkaz), which stipulates the
period for departure from CZ. It must be at least 1 month. The condition of establishing a minimum
period for the stay does not apply if there is a substantiated risk that if the alien remains in the CZ
he/she might endanger state security, significantly disrupt public policy, or if it is determined that the
alien suffers from a serious disease. In comparison, in case of administrative expulsion, there is no
explicit provision stating how long the time limit for leaving the country should be.
Departure order is issued only in cases of termination of residence (not for administrative expulsion).
Therefore, this constitutes incomplete transposition since Article 30(3) requires that it be minimum
one month in any cases unless in duly substantiated cases of urgency.
2.7.2 Procedural safeguards under Article 31
Whereas Article 30 provides for safeguards concerning the actual decision, Article 31 requires access
to justice for persons concerned by the expulsion decision. It has been almost correctly transposed in
the Czech law (Code of Administrative Justice being general procedural act and Aliens Act providing
for specific time limits etc.) with the exception of incorrect transposition of “imperative grounds of
public security” (Article 31(2)), where the Czech law is less consistent and therefore less strict.
• Article 31(1) - review of the decision
Under Article 31.1, providing the right of access to judicial (and where appropriate, administrative
redress procedures), transposition is correct. There are two possible (and consecutive) means of appeal
in CZ. Firstly,, it is possible to appeal to a hierarchal superior (odvolání)within the administrative
procedure itself. Afterwards, if the participant has not been satisfied, it is possible to file an
administrative complaint (správní žaloba) to the administrative court to review the legality of
Europa Institute
administrative decision. Precondition of this complaint is, however, exhaustion of all (standard)
remedies given by the administrative procedure (this be odvolání). Administrative procedure is
regulated by Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP) if special acts do not provide for different
regulation. Administrative justice is regulated by Code of Administrative Justice (CAJ) if special acts
do not provide for different regulation.
An appeal against a decision on administrative expulsion can be submitted within a timeframe of 5

days as of the date of notification; in the case of a decision on the administrative expulsion of an alien
younger than 18 years of age, the timeframe for filing an appeal is 15 days as of the date of
notification (Sect 169(6) AA). CAJ states that administrative complaint against an unlawful
administrative decision must be submitted within 30 days of the delivery of the decision of the
administrative body in the last degree or from the date of communication of another decision of the
administrative body, unless stipulated otherwise. Failure to meet a deadline cannot be excused. Section
172 (2) AA provides for a specific timeframe which is 10 days from the delivery of the decision of the
administrative body in the last degree. Since the Directive does not require any specific time limit, this
is in line with the Directive.
• Article 31(2) – interim relief
Article 31(2) provides for the possibility to apply for an interim order to suspend enforcement of the
decision restricting the right of free movement unless exceptional cases. In Czech law, both odvolání
(administrative appeal) and správní žaloba in this case (administrative complaint) shall have
suspensory effect. Suspensory effect of odvolání is automatic whereas suspensory effect of správní
žaloba against the decision on expulsion is only set out in Sect 172(3) AA, as správní žaloba against
unlawful administrative decision does not have suspensory effect in general unless the court rules so
upon application of the plaintiff.
Section 172(3) AA as lex specialis grants suspensory effect to this specific type of administrative
complaint except for the cases when the alien was expelled due to the fact that he/she presented a
threat to state security. On the other hand, the Directive requires that suspensory effect/interim order
be not applied when the expulsion was based on imperative grounds of public security under Article
28(3). Although the Czech law guarantees automatic suspensory effect of the judicial appeal, the term
“imperative grounds of public security” has not been transposed correctly, therefore the law enables to
withdraw suspensory effect of judicial appeals (i.e. administrative complaints) in less serious cases. As
a result, transposition of Article 31(2) is incorrect.
• Article 31(3) – examination of legality in the redress procedure
Under Article 31(3) about the obligation to guarantee that the redress procedures shall allow for an
examination of the legality of the decision, as well as of the facts and circumstances on which the
proposed measure is based and that they shall ensure that the decision is not disproportionate,
particularly in view of the requirements laid down in Article 28, general principles of administrative
proceedings and administrative justice shall be applied.
The appellate administrative body shall review the compliance of the challenged decision and related
proceedings with legislations. The correctness of the challenged decision shall be reviewed only
within the scope of objections contained in the appeal or otherwise if so required by public interest
(Sect 89 (2) CAP). Most typically, the appellate body upon ruling the unlawfulness annuls the decision
and returns the case back to the first instance body that issued it. This is for the reason that participants
are not deprived of the right to appeal; first instance authority has to study the case (facts etc.) in full
again. This is within a redress procedure.
It is perfectly in conformity as the Directive does not require the facts and circumstance have to be
studied in full by the hierarchal superior (appellate body). They are to be studied, in order to know
Europa Institute
whether the decision is correct, which the hierarchal superior of course, does. They are studied in full
by the first instance body, which adopts a new decision.
Czech administrative justice is based on the cassation (not appellate) principle. Therefore, if the court
finds that the decision was unlawful it repeals it and returns the case back to administrative body of the
first instance to take a new decision. Again, the process is the same as when the administrative
hierarchal superior finds the decision unlawful – the facts and circumstances are studied again in full
in order to adopt a lawful decision. This procedure provides for a correct transposition of the
requirements of this Article.
• Article 31(4) – defence to be exercised in person
Under Article 31(4) about the right for any expulsed person to submit his/her defence in person,
except when his/ her appearance may cause serious troubles to public policy or public security or
when the appeal or judicial review concerns a denial of entry to the territory, there are no specific
transposition measures in Czech legislation. The most general safeguards (right to a fair trail) can be
found in the Constitution: every person has the right for his matter to be heard publicly, without undue
delay and in his presence and so that he may respond to all evidence given. The public may be
excluded only in cases specified by law (Art. 38 (2) CFRF). The Aliens Act stipulates that when an
expelled person is summoned, a police shall issue a visa for maximum 30 days to enter and stay in CZ
for this purpose (Sect 122 AA). The alien who is to be expulsed, should be present at the proceedings
in order to present evidence and testify. This is in accordance with the general principle of equal status
in proceedings. Although explicit transposition of this article is missing, it does not constitute an
inconformity case.
The Constitutional court6 ruled that one of essential features of rule of law is principle of
proportionality, which presumes that measures limiting fundamental right and freedoms cannot as to
their negative consequences exceed the benefits (positive sides) represented by public interest
justifying these measures Assessment of proportionality between public interest on the ban on
residence of an alien7 and public interest on the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms
therefore has to respect the aforementioned principle.
2.7.3 Exclusion orders (Article 32)
Article 32 about the duration of exclusion orders has not been transposed correctly, which constitutes a
significant case of inconformity as this may lead in cases of criminal expulsion to life-long expulsion
from CZ (more an issue of incorrect transposition of Art 33(2)).
• Article 32(1) – lifting of the exclusion order (timeframes)
Article 32(1) providing that an application for lifting of the exclusion order may be submitted after a
reasonable period, or in any case after three years from its enforcement, and that the decision on this
application shall be reached within six months of its submission has been transposed incompletely in
Czech law.
CAP (Sect 100) includes a general extraordinary remedy called “re-opening of proceedings”, which
can be initiated upon the application of the participant to the previous proceedings that ended with
enforceable decision within the maximum period of three years (or three months from when he learned
of the new grounds, evidence) if:
6
Decision no. III. ÚS 153/97
7
This used to be legal consequnece of certain criminal penalities provded for in Sect 14 (1)(f) of an Act
123/1992 Coll. on the residence of aliens (Consitutional Court derogated it as of 13.5.1999) .
Europa Institute
a) new facts or evidence previously unknown have been disclosed which existed in the time of
the original proceedings and which the participant to whose benefit they may serve was unable
to assert and produce, or the originally produced evidence turned out to be false, or
b) the decision which was the basis of the decision issued in the proceedings to be re-opened,
was abolished or altered and if these facts, evidence or decisions may substantiate a different
solution of the issue subject to decision-making.
Administrative authority shall reopen the proceedings ex officio if the decision has been made
by committing a crime (Sect 100(3) CAP).
Moreover, the Aliens Act as lex specialis to CAP introduces in Sect 122(6) AA a special provision
stipulating a right to review again the circumstance of the expulsion decision is found. This section
provides that at the request made by Union citizen or his family member, the Police can issue a new
decision, whereby the validity of a decision on administrative expulsion is revoked if:
a) the reasons why the decision was issued have ceased to exist and a time period equal to one-
half, or at least 3 years, of the duration of the ban on entry of CZ imposed the persons
concerned has passed; or
b) the alien in question was placed in foster care, has reached the age of 18, and, based on the
opinion of the authorities responsible for the social and legal protection of children, the alien
has expressed an effort to integrate in CZ.
However, the Directive requires that the proceedings shall be opened when there is a material change
in circumstances /and after reasonable time. A three-year-period is set as a maximum and obligatory
period but the Directive binds the state to apply discretionary powers and consider any such
application even in periods shorter than three years (the time limit can be laid down in national
legislation or not). Since the Directive, within the period of three years after the enforceable decision
only allows change of the decision in extraordinary circumstances not depending on the will (or
behaviour) of the applicant (new evidence, facts that existed at the time of the proceedings), this does
not cover material change that happened after the decision was enforced.
Furthermore, Union citizens and their family members may also be expelled as a result of criminal
penalty. In this case, no such provision exists. However, this is an issue of Article 33(2), where the
inconformity was explained.
The requirement of the last sentence (six months to reach a decision in this regard) has not been
transposed. CAP includes a detailed rules (timeframes) for issue of decisions (Sect 71 (1) and (3)
CAP); the absence of special provisions in AA makes them applicable in this case. Despite the fact
that the time limits for the delivery of the administrative decision are precise (and conditions for their
extensions strict), Czech law does not state any “final” time period, which would then entitle the
applicant to procedural remedies. This case of missing transposition is in practice minor.
• Article 32(2) – no right of entry as a consequence of such application
Under Article 32(2), providing that the persons applying for the lifting of their exclusion order shall
have no right of entry to the territory of the Member State concerned while their application is being
considered, transposition is missing but it is correct. Only undesirable persons (Sect 154 AA) cannot
enter CZ according to AA. Other excluded persons can be granted entry visas when they are
summoned by a Police or in particular cases justified by personal and family circumstances of an alien
Sect 122(1)(2)(3) AA. Since there is no provision stating that such application grants them an
automatic right of entry, notwithstanding the fact they might be granted visa when they are summoned
by the Police, transposition is in line with the Directive, thus not constituting an incompatibility case.
Europa Institute
2.8 Final provisions (Chapter VII)
2.8.1 Publicity (Article 34)
Concerning the obligation for the Member State to disseminate information and inform the persons of
their rights publicly, the information was received from the relevant authorities. Information leaflets in
Czech and English on the rights granted by the Directive were published and distributed to Alien
police and employment offices; and the expert confirms they can be found at the inspectorate of Alien
police in Prague. Information on the rights granted by the Directive can be accessed through the
following websites e.g., www.euroskop.cz,
or http://www.mvcr.cz/clanek/formulare.aspx?q=Y2hudW09NQ%3d%3d.
The later address includes all relevant forms that can be downloaded from the internet as well.
No mass media campaign was identified or reported.
2.8.2 Abuse of rights (Article 35)
Article 35 gives a Member State a possibility to adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or
withdraw any right conferred by this Directive in the case of abuse of rights or fraud, such as
marriages of convenience under the condition that such measure is proportionate and subject to the
procedural safeguards provided for in Articles 30 and 31. This Article has been transposed correctly
through Sections 87e(1)(c), 87f(1), 87k(1) and 87l(1) AA that refer to refuse/cancellation of temporary
or permanent residence (permit).
In all cases, the permit can be refused or cancelled when the person concerned (relevant provisions
refer to Union citizens as well as to their family members) conducted fraud of the Alien Act with the
aim of obtaining the permit; in particular by concluding a marriage or affiliation of convenience. The
relevant provisions have been recently amended to extend the scope. Previously, they only referred to
marriages of convenience. All of these measures are taken in administrative procedure, which respects
the safeguards of Code of Administrative Procedure (see Art 30 and 31)
2.8.3 Sanctions (Article 36)
Article 36 about the possibility for Member States to lay down provisions on the sanctions applicable
to breaches of national rules adopted for the implementation of the Directive has been transposed
through the transposition of other articles.
Sanctions and fines for breaching Aliens Act are laid down in Sect 157 AA; relevant for the
transposition of this Directive are the following:
• Failure to report presence in the territory (Sect 157(1) (r) AA), 3000 CZK fine (Sect 157 (2))
• Failure to apply for a residence permit (Sect 157(1) (y) AA), 3000 CZK fine (Sect 157 (2))
• Failure to prove identity (Sect 157 (1)(u) AA), 3000 CZK fine (Sect 157 (2))
• Failure to report changes of data included in travel documents and documents issued
according to AA (Sect 157 (1)(t) AA), 3000 CZK fine (Sect 157(2))
• Failure to apply for extension of validity of residence card in the given period (Sect 157(1)(o)
AA), 3000 CZK fine (Sect 157(2))
Maximum fine of 3000 CZK (app 120 EUR) is considered a proportionate amount.
Europa Institute
2.8.4 More favourable provisions (Article 37)
Article 37 allows the Member State to adopt any laws, regulations or administrative provisions, which
would be more favourable to the persons covered by this Directive. There is no other specific piece of
legislation other than the Aliens Act to lay down specific and more favourable rules for Union citizens
and their family members. Certain provision of the Aliens Act are, indeed, more favourable, although
it is a rare occasion and might be the consequence of inconsistent transposition. However, they were
identified in previous articles and are in line with the Directive.
2.8.5 Transposition (Article 40)
The Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs admits that the Directive had been transposed in full
only by the end of 2007. Apparently, there is an infringement case started by the Commission for late
(incomplete) transposition of the Directive by CZ. No details could be found regarding that case. The
Alien Act and acts governing social assistance contain a reference to this Directive in footnotes (this a
common practice). Procedural acts do not contain references to European legislation at all, which
cannot be perceived as inconformity issue do to the fact that they apply to a number of cases
(transposing a vast number of secondary legislation as a result).
Europa Institute
ANNEX I: Table of concordance for Directive 2004/38/EC
See attached document
Europa Institute
Europa Institute
ANNEX II: List of relevant national legislation and administrative acts
Main act transposing the Directive:

Act no 326/1999 Coll. on the residence of aliens in the territory of the Czech Republic, as amended,
“Alien Act”, latest amendment: Act no 379/2007 Coll., latest consolidated version published under no.
42/2008 Coll. (Zákon 326/1999 SB. ze dne 30. listopadu 1999 o pobytu cizinců na území České
republiky a o změně některých zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, úplné znění vyhlášené pod č.
326/1999 Sb.) http://www.avcr.cz/data/zho/ostatni/zakon_326_99.pdf
The Directive was transposed through amendments to this act.
Other transposing legislation:

Constitutional safeguards:
• Constitutional Act no. 2/1993 Coll., as amended “Charter of Fundamental Rights and
Freedoms” (Usnesení předsednictva České národní rady ze dne 16. prosince 1992 o vyhlášení
LISTINY ZÁKLADNÍCH PRÁV A SVOBOD jako součásti ústavního pořádku České
republiky, ve znění pozdějších předpisů) http://www.psp.cz/docs/laws/constitution.html
Social assistance acts:
• Act no. 100/1988 Coll. on social assistance, as amended (Zákon 100/1988 Sb. ze dne 16.
června1988 o sociálním zabezpečení, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/socialzab/
• Act no. 108/2006 Coll. on social services, as amended (Zákon 108/2006 Sb. ze dne 14. března
2006 o sociálních službách, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
http://www.sagit.cz/pages/sbirkatxt.asp?cd=76&typ=r&zdroj=sb06108
• Act no. 111/2006 Coll. on assistance in material need, as amended (Zákon 111/2006 Sb. ze
dne 14. března 2006 o pomoci v hmotné nouzi ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
http://www.vyplata.cz/zakony/z111-2006sb.php
Acts regulating employment and business
• Act no. 435/2004 Coll. on the employment, as amended (Zákon 435/2004 Sb. ze dne 13.
května 2004 o zaměstnanosti ve znění, pozdějších předpisů)
http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/zamestnanost/
• Act no. 455/1991 Coll. on business licences, as amended (Zákon 455/1991 Sb. ze dne 2. října
1991o živnostenském podnikání (živnostenský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/zivnost/
• Act no. 262/2006 Coll, Labour Code (Zákon č. 262/2006 Sb. ze dne 21. dubna 2006 zákoník
práce, ve znění pozdějších předpisů) http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/zakonik-
prace/
Acts related to identity cards and passports and prove of identity
• Act no. 328/1999 Coll. on identity cards, as amended (Zákon 328/1999 Sb. ze dne 30.
listopadu 1999 o občanských průkazech, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
http://www.sagit.cz/pages/sbirkatxt.asp?cd=76&typ=r&zdroj=sb99328
• Act no. 283/1991 Coll. on the Police of the Czech Republic, as amended (Zákon 283/1991 Sb.
České národní rady ze dne 21. června 1991 o Policii České republiky, ve znění pozdějších
předpisů) http://zakony-online.cz/?s32&q32=
• Act no. 329/1999 Coll. on travel documents, as amended (Zákon 329/1999 Sb. ze dne 30.
listopadu 1999 o cestovních dokladech a o změně zákona č. 283/1991 Sb., o Policii České
republiky, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, (zákon o cestovních dokladech) ve znění pozdějších
předpisů) http://www.sagit.cz/pages/sbirkatxt.asp?zdroj=sb08252&cd=76&typ=r
Procedural Acts
• Act no. 500/2004 Coll. as amended, Code of Administrative Procedure (Zákon 500/2004 Sb.
ze dne 24. června 2004 správní řád, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/spravni_rad/
Europa Institute
• Act no. 150/2002 Coll. as amended, Code of Administrative Justice (Zákon 150/2002 Sb. ze
dne 21. března 2002 soudní řád správní, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/soudni_rad_spravni/
Acts on offences (administrative and criminal)
• Act no. 140/1961 Coll. as amended, Criminal Code (Zákon 140/1961 Sb. ze dne 29. listopadu
1961 Trestní zákon, ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/trestni_zakon/
• Act no. 200/1990 Coll. on administrative offences, as amended (Zákon 200/1990 Sb. České
národní rady ze dne 17.května 1990 o přestupcích, ve znění pozdějších předpisů
http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/prestupky/
• Act no. 218/2003 Coll. on criminal justice with regard to minors, as amended (Zákon
218/2003 Sb. ze dne 25. června 2003 o odpovědnosti mládeže za protiprávní činy a o
soudnictví ve věcech mládeže a o změně některých zákonů (zákon o soudnictví ve věcech
mládeže), ve znění pozdějších předpisů) http://zakony-online.cz/?s88&q88=all
Decree no. 274/2004 Coll laying down a list of diseases which could threaten public health and list of
diseases and disabilities which could seriously threaten public order (Vyhláška ze dne 28. dubna 2004,
kterou se stanoví seznam nemocí, které by mohly ohrozit veřejné zdraví, a seznam nemocí a postižení,
které by mohly závažným způsobem ohrozit veřejný pořádek)
http://web.mvcr.cz/archiv2008/sbirka/2004/sb088-04.pdf
Act no. 634/2004 Sb. on administrative fees (Zákon ze dne 26. listopadu 2004 č. 634/2004 Sb.o
správních poplatcích) http://business.center.cz/business/pravo/zakony/spravni-poplatky/
Act no. 111/1998 Coll on universities, as amended (zákon ze dne 22. dubna 1998 o vysokých školách,
ve znění pozdějších předpisů)
http://www.msmt.cz/Files/vysokeskoly/Legislativa/Zakon111_uplne_zneni_552.htm
Europa Institute
ANNEX III: Selected national case law
Decision (nález) of the Constitutional Court from 22 October 1998 no. III. ÚS 153/97 –
proportionality of expulsion measures
http://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/Results.aspx (search according to number and other properties)
Decision (nález) of the Constitutional Court from 21 April 1999 no. II. ÚS 178/98 – expulsion as a
criminal penalty
http://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/Results.aspx (search according to number and other properties)
Decision of the Supreme Court from 16 January 2002 no. 21 Cdo 436/2001 – definition of common
household
http://www.nsoud.cz/rozhod.php (search according to number)
Decision of the Supreme court no. 7 Tdo 57/2008– expulsion as a criminal penalty, serious grounds
for a threat to public policy
http://www.nsoud.cz/rozhod.php (search according to number)
Europa Institute
ANNEX IV: Certificate of temporary residence (scanned original)
Cover page and last page
Europa Institute
Inside pages
Europa Institute
ANNEX V: Confirmation issued upon submission of application for temporary
residence (scanned original)
Europa Institute
ANNEX VI: Application form for residence permit/certificate
Europa Institute
ANNEX VII: Sworn statement that accommodation is provided
DOKLAD (POTVRZENÍ) O ZAJIŠTĚNÍ UBYTOVÁNÍ
podle zákona č. 326/1999 Sb., o pobytu cizinců na území České republiky

a o změně některých zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů
Já, ubytovatel (jméno a příjmení):

datum narození:
číslo dokladu totožnosti (např. občanského průkazu):
adresa hlášeného trvalého pobytu:
potvrzuji, že poskytnu ubytování na území České republiky

na dobu od *) do nebo
na dobu bez omezení *)
na adrese:
vztah k nemovitosti, např. vlastník, nájemce, podnájemce: *)
cizinci:
jméno a příjmení:
datum narození: státní příslušnost:
cestovní doklad:
POUČENÍ:
Bude-li v tomto dokladu o zajištění ubytování uveden nepravdivě požadovaný údaj, může to
mít za následek nevyhovění žádosti, o které se vede řízení podle zákona č. 326/1999 Sb.,
o pobytu cizinců na území České republiky a o změně některých zákonů, ve znění pozdějších
předpisů
V dne
Vlastnoruční podpis poskytovatele ubytování:

(v případě trvalého pobytu nutno ověřit matrikou nebo
státním notářem)
*) Nehodící se škrtněte.
Europa Institute

Conformity Study For The Czech Republic Directive 2004/38/EC On The Right of Citizens of The Union and Their Family Members To Move and Reside Freely Within The Territory of The Member States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conformity Study For The Czech Republic Directive 2004/38/EC On The Right of Citizens of The Union and Their Family Members To Move and Reside Freely Within The Territory of The Member States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conformity Study For The Czech Republic Directive 2004/38/EC On The Right of Citizens of The Union and Their Family Members To Move and Reside Freely Within The Territory of The Member States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conformity Study for the Czech Republic

Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 5

ABBREVIATIONS USED ....................................................................................................................... 17

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC............................................................20

2 LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSPOSING MEASURES FOR DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC................. 22

2.1 Definitions, family members and beneficiaries ....................................................................... 23

ANNEX I: Table of concordance for Directive 2004/38/EC

a. Overview of how the requirements have been transposed

Administrative offences of natural persons (misdemeanours – přestupky), both substantive and

b. Conformity problems and complete and accurate transposition

1. Transposition issues related to administrative formalities for Union

2. Transposition of Article 7(3): retention of the status of a worker or

3. Transposition issues related family members

4. Transposition issues related to expulsion

Social assistance acts:

Acts regulating employment and business

2. Assessment of the transposition

a) Incomplete transposition or non-transposition

i. Missing transposition (gap

Article Retention of the status of a worker or self-employed person in cases of

ii. Incomplete transposition

b) Incorrect or imprecise/ambiguous transposition

iii. Incorrect transposition

Article 3(2)(a) Other family members to be facilitated entry and residence

iv. Imprecise/ambiguous transposition

Free movement as a fundamental freedom of the internal market

1.2 FRAMEWORK FOR TRANSPOSITION & IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC

1.2.1 Distribution of competences according to the national Constitution

1.2.2 General description of organisation of national authorities implementing

a) the Directorate of Alien and Border Police Service;

2 LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSPOSING MEASURES FOR DIRECTIVE

Administrative offences of natural persons (misdemeanours – přestupky), both substantive and

2.1 Definitions, family members and beneficiaries

Definitions: the concept of “family members” (Article 2)

• “Registered partnerships” (Article 2(2)(b)

• Direct descendants as family members (Article 2(2)(c))

• Article 2(3) – Host Member State

Beneficiaries and facilitation of entry and residence (Article 3)

• Article 3(2) – other family members to be facilitated entry and residence

2.2 Rights of exit and entry

Right of exit (Article 4)

• Article 4(1) – right of exit

• Article 4(2) – prohibition of exit visa

• Article 4(3) and 4(4) – requirements for travel documents

Right of entry (Article 5)

• Article 5(3) – no entry or exit stamp to a holder of a residence card

Therefore, Article 5(5) was considered as correctly transposed in Czech law.

2.3 Right of residence

2.3.1 Right of residence for up to three months (Article 6)

1) he/she is staying in CZ with a Union citizen;

(a) Conditions under Article 7

• Article 7(3) – retention of a status of a worker

(b) Administrative formalities for Union citizens (Article 8)

• Article 8(4) – sufficient resources

Assessment of an unreasonable burden on (the social care) system

• Administrative formalities (Article 9)

o Article 9(1): issuance upon request

• Issue of residence cards (Article 10)