CYIL 2012

ĽUBOMÍR MAJERČÍK ȃ ANNA MATUŠINOVÁ ȃ HUBERT SMEKAL CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ not have a suspensive effect. Despite the second applicant’s judicial challenge, the Regional Court upheld the reasoning of the administrative authorities failing to examine the non-refoulement claim. The applicants did not comply with orders to leave the country, therefore administrative expulsion proceedings were brought against them. The applicants unsuccessfully appealed against the expulsion orders to leave the country issued by the police. Both applicants were removed to Guinea and their lawyers lodged an application with the ECtHR. The ECtHR reiterated that in cases of extradition or expulsion states should take close and rigorous scrutiny of claims if there are substantial grounds for believing that a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 exists, and issue a remedy with automatic suspensive effect. 46 According to the Strasbourg Court, the Czech authorities did not fully consider various reports about human rights violations in Guinea. 47 Moreover, the personal circumstances of the applicants made their fears well-founded. 48 Therefore, the conditions of close and rigorous scrutiny required by the Convention were not met. Additionally, there were no remedies with automatic suspensive effect available to the applicants regarding the authorities’ decision not to grant them asylum and to expel them. Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). 11. Conclusion Over the last couple of years we can notice three different trends. First of all, Czech applicants tend to submit fewer and fewer applications every year. In 2011, the average number of applications per 10,000 inhabitants was 0.79 for all of Europe. Surprisingly, there were only 0.5 applications filed against the Czech Republic. 49 This may be interpreted as a sign that the Czech Republic is gradually improving its remedies (e.g. for the length of proceedings), and that Czech applicants are turning into typical Western applicants who are less vexatious and more trusting of their local authorities and courts. law to establish which country (the Czech Republic or Portugal) should have examined the asylum request. Additionally, the Court noted that the applicants were not expelled to Portugal, but to Guinea. Therefore, the Czech authorities had to consider possible human rights violation in Guinea and not in Portugal. 46 See M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece App no 30696/09 (ECHR, January 2011), Baysakov and Others v Ukraine App no 54131/08 (ECHR, February 2010) and Gebremedhin v France ECHR 2007-V 25389/05. 47 The Court considered particularly documents of the UN Human Rights Council, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 48 As participants in strikes and demonstrations, they were sought by the Guinean police for their political activities. 49 Analysis of statistics 2011, pp. 12. http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Reports+and+Statistics/ Statistics/Statistical+data/ accessed 27 May 2012.

290