Why Did the Court Refuse Suspensive Effect? The Applicant Failed to Meet the Burden of Proof

In June 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court dealt with a case that powerfully recalls one of the most important principles of court proceedings — whoever asserts something must also prove it. The case concerned a seemingly simple question: can a court grant suspensive effect to a cassation complaint when the complainant gives no reasons at all for the request?

The answer is clear: it cannot. And this case is a valuable lesson for anyone who finds themselves a party to administrative proceedings or a court dispute.

What was it actually about?

The Ministry of the Interior discontinued proceedings on granting international protection to an applicant from Vietnam, on the ground that his application had been assessed as inadmissible under the Asylum Act. The applicant challenged that decision by an action before the Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem, which dismissed it.

A cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court followed. Together with it, the complainant filed a motion for suspensive effect — a request that the legal effects of the contested decision not be carried out pending the decision on the cassation complaint. The problem was that he gave no reasons for this motion whatsoever.

The court invited the complainant to supplement his motion within seven days and to explain the specific reasons for which he sought suspensive effect, and advised him of the consequences of inaction. The complainant himself announced he would supplement the motion within fifteen days. The time-limit expired — and nothing happened.

The court therefore had no choice but to dismiss the motion.

Three conditions you must meet

Granting suspensive effect to a cassation complaint is not automatic. The law lays down three conditions that must be met at the same time:

• Imminent harm: carrying out the decision must mean specific harm to the applicant.
• Proportionality: that harm must be disproportionately greater than any harm that granting suspensive effect would cause to other persons.
• Public interest: granting suspensive effect must not conflict with an important public interest.

Crucially, all three conditions must be satisfied cumulatively. If even one is missing, the court will not grant suspensive effect.

Here the complainant failed at the very first condition. He gave no facts from which it could be inferred what specific harm he faced. And, as the court rightly noted, it is not the court's task to work out on the complainant's behalf what that harm might consist of.

Administrative justice is governed by the principle of party disposition. The court is not obliged to search of its own motion for reasons to accommodate a complainant. The initiative must come from the party, who bears both the burden of assertion (must say what is happening) and the burden of proof (must substantiate it).

The case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court has long stressed that a motion for suspensive effect must be sufficiently individualised. General phrases such as „I face harm“ are not enough. The complainant must describe specifically what harm he faces, how intense it is and from what circumstances he infers it will arise — and must support these assertions with evidence.

The imminent harm must, moreover, be serious and real, not merely hypothetical or trivial. The court does not assess theoretical scenarios but the actual impact on the life and rights of a specific person or entity.

An important lesson follows for entrepreneurs and business owners. In administrative proceedings and court disputes, it is not enough to file a remedy and wait to see what happens. An active approach and proper reasoning for every motion are absolutely essential.

If you seek suspensive effect — of a cassation complaint, an action or another remedy — you must explain to the court clearly and specifically why. What negative consequences do you immediately face? How serious will they be? Why can you not wait for the final decision on the merits?

The absence of proper reasoning leads to the motion being dismissed, even where reasons for granting suspensive effect might materially exist. The court simply has nothing to go on.

This case also illustrates why it is important to observe the time-limits set by the court. The complainant was given seven days to supplement his motion and promised a response within fifteen — and in the end did nothing. Such passivity inevitably has negative consequences in court proceedings.

Finally, a decision granting or refusing suspensive effect is only of a preliminary nature. As the court itself recalled, it does not prejudge how the cassation complaint itself will be decided. Refusal of suspensive effect therefore does not mean the complainant will lose on the merits — only that time will run normally until the final decision and the effects of the contested decision remain in force.

Source: Supreme Administrative Court, 4 Azs 93/2026-16