CYIL Vol. 7, 2016

MONIKA FOREJTOVÁ CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ Interior rejected their application as manifestly unfounded, since they arrived to the Czech Republic from Portugal, which must be considered a safe country. Bringing an action against those decisions did not have a suspensive effect in their case, so in March 2007 the decision on their expulsion was made. In May 2007 the applicants were sent back to Guinea. The European Court firstly concluded that since the applicants were deported without prior notice, they cannot be attributed to the detriment of procedural errors (they had not granted their lawyer specific powers of attorney to a complaint). The European Court found that the applicants were not required to raise their objections to the absence of an effective remedy in front of the national courts before they applied to ECtHR, since at the same time they would not achieve the review of their main objection at the risk i.e. of becoming victims of mistreatment if returned to Guinea. Given the available information on serious and mass violations of human rights in Guinea in 2006 and 2007, the European Court concluded that the fears of the complainants were subjectively justified and reasonable. Therefore the European Court concluded that a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights had occurred. The European Court awarded the first complainant a 5,000 euros compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Also it considered it fair to award him the costs of 400 euros. The decision on the question of just satisfaction for the second complainant has been postponed because his current whereabouts were not known. In addition to what has already been said, there are also strong political pressures to adopt stricter measures and legal norms on migration in some Member States, which often form an estuary in reducing procedural guarantees for asylum procedures. For example, the Czech Republic, although ranking in 22nd place for the number of asylum applicants across the EU, 17 is known for its long lasting dismissive attitude towards migration. 18 The Czech Republic responded to the growing migration e.g. with the resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic dated 19 January 2011 no. 48 On measures of managing the economic migration, protection of the rights of migrants in search of work and the realization of returns, by which it sought to respond primarily to the economic migration of third country nationals temporarily residing in the territory of the Republic. Economic migration should be primarily governed by economic needs of the Czech Republic and its integration capacity. Deciding on the extent and composition of immigration flows remains within the exclusive competence of the government. The system of economic migration should be flexible to respond to changing labour market conditions. The possibilities of a permanent and circular migration should be used. Migration of low-skilled persons should be only temporary. Migration should be managed in cooperation with the

17 Report of the Committee on Security of the Interior Ministry report on migration of foreigners in 2013. 18 HORÁKOVÁ M., International Migration in the Czech Republic during the ongoing economic recession in 2010 , the Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs, ISBN 978-80-7416-093-6, p. 11-12.

270