CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

CYIL 15 ȍ2024Ȏ AGE ASSESSMENT OF UNACCOMPANIED MINORS IN ASYLUM LAW In Lithuanian court cases, a person’s age based on X-rays is indicated with a margin of error of two years. 51 In individual cases, the error margin is three years 52 or four years. 53 T his rule coincides with the approach of the courts of the Czech Republic. 54 The decision of the Regional Court in Prague on 30 November 2021 pointed out that the determination of bone age through medical examination is not identical to the determination of calendar age. It reiterated that the GP method (Greulich, Pyle) is characterised by a generally accepted deviation of +/- 2 to 3 years in relation to calendar age. Therefore, if the age is determined to be between 18–19 years, it cannot be excluded that the person is a minor and should not automatically be treated as an adult. In most cases, the Lithuanian courts did not scrutinise the credibility of the expert’s conclusions about a person’s age assessment. The court presented the expert’s opinion as an irrefutable fact, confirming that the person’s age is as stated in the expert’s opinion. 55 In individual cases, the court additionally relied on the fact that the person did not provide the court with evidence refuting the expert’s conclusion. 56 The position of the courts of the Czech Republic regarding this issue is different. The court indicated that the accuracy of determining a person’s calendar age, calculated using the bone age method, decreases with age. Therefore, doubts about the applicant’s age cannot be exclusively based on the medical report alone, especially when the established age of the foreigner is close to the majority. 57 In another decision, the court held that the result of a wrist examination is of limited credibility, particularly after age 16. The established age cannot undermine the testimony of the foreigner unless it is three or more years higher than the foreigner’s stated age. 58 Other court decisions support these rulings. 59 According to Roztočil, the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic shows that the court is less favourable toward foreigners regarding age assessment when the foreigner indicates a different age on different occasions. In this case, the court considered the applicant’s claim to be 17 years old unreliable because he gave different birth dates earlier (20 years). The court decided that the foreigner was an adult, considering the medical examination results and information provided by the Bulgarian authorities. 60 The Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment No 5 Azs 107/2020-46, pointed out that the results of the so-called bone age examination may have different degrees of conclusiveness in relation to establishing the actual (i.e., calendar) age of the alien. It also depends on the method used. In that decision, the Supreme Administrative Court explained 51 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Administrative Cases: No. eA-1318-602/2022, 2 March 2022; No. eA-1704-552/2022, 23 March 2022; No. A-1334-822/2022, 21 February 2022; No. eA-1976-502/2022, 13 April 2022; No. eA-3258-822/2022, 20 July 2022; No. eA-3586-525/2022, 10 August 2022. 52 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Administrative Case No. A-3759-442/2022, 1 September 2022. 53 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Administrative Case No. eA-5131-968/2019, 28 August 2019. 54 Judgment Supreme Administrative Court of 26 September 2019, Case No 7 Azs 87/2019-22. 55 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Administrative Case No. eA-2634-654/2022, 8 June 2022. 56 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Administrative Case No. eA-1318-602/2022, 2 March 2022. 57 Judgment Supreme Administrative Court of 26 September 2019, Case No 7 Azs 87/2019-22. 58 Judgment Supreme Administrative Court of 10 June 2021, Case No. 1 Azs 1/2021-38. 59 See the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 20 June 2020, No. 5 Azs 107/2020-46, or the judgment of 30 March 2017, No. 2 Azs 38/2017-28. 60 ROZTOČIL, A., Určování věku cizinců v judikatuře správních soudů.[Determining the age of unaccompanied foreign minors – legal framework, current and future challenges.]. in: JÍLEK, D., POŘÍZEK, P. (Eds.), Ročenka uprchlického a cizineckého práva . ISBN 978-80-7631-101-5. Praha, 2022.

113