According to the summary provided by the EUAA Courts and Tribunals Network:

The complainant of Iraqi origin was detained by the police in connection with his transfer to Romania, a Member State responsible for examination of his application for international protection according to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (“Dublin III Regulation”). He was examined at the hospital. To determine his bone age from x-rays, the doctors used two methods. According to the results of the GP (Greulich, Pyle) method, the complainant was approximately 18 years old. According to the TW3 (Tanner, Whitehouse) method, he was 16 years old. The examining doctor concluded that the complainant was approximately 18-19 years old. He was since then treated as an adult and was not represented by a legal guardian in the proceedings. The complainant disputed the age examination result, claiming that he was only 16 years old and that he should have been treated as an unaccompanied minor, which would have prevented his continuing detention.

The complainant’s motion against the prolongation of his detention was dismissed by the Municipal Court in Prague, and later his cassation complaint against that ruling was dismissed too. The first instance court focused on methods of determining the complainant’s age, and also expressed doubts about the credibility of his statements. The Supreme Administrative Court agreed with these conclusions, even though it criticised usage of TW3 method unless it is supported by further proofs.

The complainant then filed a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”). The Court found that the contested judgments of the administrative courts violated complainant’s right to liberty and security under Art. 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial under Art. 36(1) and Art. 38(2) and the right to the services of an interpreter under Art. 37(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Czech Republic.

The Court stated that the right to liberty represented one of the principal values in the democratic rule of law. In this context, the Court considered it highly problematic to conduct first instance court hearing in the presence of the complainant, who did not understand the Czech language, but was not aided by an interpreter. Thus, he had no opportunity to comment on the evidence, to explain perceived contradictions in his earlier statements, and as a result, he could not effectively participate in the hearing. Additionally, the Court recalled that the inalienable elements of the right to a fair trial include the principle of audiatur et altera pars. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Supreme Administrative Court had violated the right to a fair trial by not examining the evidence submitted in the form of photocopies of the complainant's personal documents due to their alleged illegibility.

The Court also emphasized that there are a significant differences between the rules for detention of adults and minors. According to the national law, implementing Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation, a minor could only be detained if there is a reasonable risk that he or she may endanger the state’s security or seriously disturb public order. Thus, the issue of proper age assessment is vital for prevention of violations of right to liberty. The detention has to follow the best interest of a child and the right of a child to comment all matters affecting him or her as well [Art. 3(1) and Art. 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child]. Furthermore, physical integrity and human dignity must always be respected, even in the course of medical examination for the purpose of age assessment.

The Court acknowledged there are multiple methods for age assessment, but reiterated that methods that are the least invasive (Article 25 (5) of the Procedural Directive) should be preferred. In case that doubts about the applicant’s age persist even after thorough examination including psychological examination, a conclusion that an individual is a minor should be reached (in dubio pro libertate).

The Court concluded there had been a violation of the above-quoted constitutionally guaranteed rights of the complainant. The medical examination was carried out without the presence of an interpreter or under supervision of administrative authority for protection of children. As a result, the complainant could not exercise his rights. The Court also critically analysed the two methods that were used for bone age assessment, concluding that the Supreme Administrative Court in the complainant’s case reversed its own case-law that preferred TW3 method over GP method due to its greater accuracy and stressed that the results of the examination should lead to re-evaluation of the applicant’s claims only when the alleged age differs for more than 3 years from the age established by medical examination by TW3 method. Finally, the Court also criticised the Municipal Court’s approach to the complainant’s credibility, and the fact that the court took the lack of credibility into account.

The Court, therefore, annulled the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Municipal Court in Prague.