CYIL 2012

THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN 2011 authorities to adopt all reasonable expected measures in order to ensure the right of the applicant to family life as well as length of proceedings contributed to the deprivation of his rights. 42 Similar reasoning was applied in the case of Prodělalová. 43 After separating from the father of twins, the applicant agreed to share custody of the children with him. Subsequently, the father obtained an interim custody order, having complained that his parental rights were not being respected. Because of the father’s obstructions, the mother had a limited ability to see her children. Later, the District Court awarded custody of the children to the father. The decision, which limited the applicant’s visitation rights, was based on the findings of several reports by psychology experts. The applicant complained of the way in which the court proceedings were conducted and of being separated from her children for several years. The ECtHR declared that the two and half years which passed between the interim custody order and the judgment by the District Court severely damaged the mutual relationship between the mother and her children. The appellate proceedings were not finished as of August 2010. Analogously to the Bergmann case, the state authorities failed in their obligation to protect the parental rights of the applicant by not adopting any suitable measures. Therefore the ECtHR concluded that the right to respect for private and family life was violated. The presented judgments show a long-term lack of suitable remedies in similar cases and thus might be of important guidance for Czech authorities. 10. Czech extradition procedure does not meet the requirements of the Convention The ECtHR firstly found the Czech Republic in breach of the right to an effective remedy (Article 13) in conjunction with prohibition of torture (Article 3) in the case of Diallo 44 in June 2011. In this unusual case two Guinean nationals, having transferred in Lisbon, arrived at the Prague airport and immediately applied for asylum. The first applicant claimed to be a participant of an anti-government teachers’ strike and the second applicant had allegedly presided over a secondary school students’ association that apparently had a political focus. Therefore they were terrified of being detained and possibly even killed if they returned to Guinea. The Czech asylum and immigration authorities dismissed their asylum applications as manifestly unjustified without examining the merits. The decision was made on the grounds that the asylum seekers arrived from Portugal, which is considered a safe third country. 45 An application for judicial review of the asylum procedure would Czech Republic App no 27726/03 (ECHR, January 2007) and Zavřel v the Czech Republic App no 14044/05 (ECHR, January 2007). 42 For similar findings, see Sylvester v Austria App no 36812/97, 40104/98 (ECHR, April 2003). 43 Prodělalová v the Czech Republic App no 40094/08 (ECHR, December 2011). 44 Diallo v the Czech Republic App no 20493/07 (ECHR, June 2011). 45 The Czech Republic based its defence on the fact that it acted in accordance with the Dublin Regulation. However, the ECtHR stated that it was not its task to interpret the European Union law or domestic

289