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

The Ministry found the applicant's application for international protection manifestly unfounded, because the applicant came from India, a country designated as a safe country of origin, which was also supported by country of origin information (COI) materials at hand. Thus, it rejected the application. The applicant challenged the decision at the Regional Court in Brno, which quashed the administrative decision.

The Regional Court in Brno relied on paragraph 40 of the Preamble and Articles 36 and 37 of the Procedural Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU). It observed that the Czech law provides a national list of safe countries of origin that is issued as an administrative ordinance (currently ordinance 328/2015 Coll.) by the Ministry of the Interior based on annual evaluation of the relevant COI. By listing a country as a safe country of origin, the Ministry declares that the country fulfils criteria for such designation, which essentially mean that the applicant likely does not face a threat of persecution or risk of serious harm. However, in order to serve as a basis for rejection of application as manifestly unfounded, the ministry must be capable to show that the specific country really materially meets the criteria.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 46 of the Procedural Directive require the court to perform full and ex nunc examination of the administrative decision regarding international protection. Therefore, the court must also be able to examine whether a country was designated as a safe country of origin. In this regard, the court generally pointed out that the national Asylum Act does not fully implement the criteria for designation as safe country of origin, which are demonstratively listed in Annex I to the Procedural Directive (Designation of safe countries of origin for the purposes of Article 37(1)).

Applying its general conclusions to the applicant's case, the court found that the administrative file lacks relevant and up-to-date COI. Those COI reports that were included informed the court about “persisting shortcomings in observation of human rights”, including torture, discrimination against women and impunity of perpetrators in cases of gendered violence. Moreover, the reports provided basically no information on the system of effective remedies against persecution and serious harm. The COI further contradicted that India respects the principle of non-refoulement, as stipulated in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. In sum, the court concluded that the designation of India as a safe country of origin contradicted the directly effective criteria listed in Annex I to the Procedural Directive. Therefore, the rejection of the application was contrary to law.