Author
The Czech Republic has consistently opposed the introduction of mandatory migrant relocation quotas under the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. The Czech government has maintained that the Pact does not impose automatic obligations to accept relocated asylum seekers and that Member States may instead fulfil their solidarity obligations through alternative means, such as financial or operational contributions. Both the government in office during the adoption of the Pact in 2024 and subsequent political representatives have publicly rejected compulsory relocation mechanisms, emphasising national discretion in implementation. Czech authorities have repeatedly stated that the country will not participate in mandatory migrant quotas and have sought to limit domestic implementation to procedural and border-related measures, while avoiding obligations to receive relocated migrants.
An extensive amendment to the Asylum Act was adopted in the summer of 2025 to implement the EU Migration Pact (with most provisions taking effect in June 2026).[1]
The amendment introduces a wide range of changes to the Czech asylum system, particularly in the areas of terminology, procedural rules, judicial review, return procedures, and material standards for applicants. One of the changes concerns the basic concepts and terminology used in the Asylum Act. Definitions such as “application”, “applicant”, and “family member” are now directly aligned with EU Regulations 2024/1348 and 2024/1347. The amendment also distinguishes between “making an application”, meaning the expression of a wish to seek international protection under Article 26 of the Asylum Procedures Regulation, and “lodging an application” or “providing data,” which constitutes the formal procedural act under Article 28 of the Asylum Procedures Regulation. Another major conceptual shift concerns the definition of a “final decision”. A final decision is now understood as the decision of the Regional Court on an action against the Ministry’s decision, except in cases involving the withdrawal of protection. According to the explanatory memorandum, this change enables the state to carry out returns immediately after the Regional Court has ruled, because a cassation complaint lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court will no longer automatically prevent return.
The amendment also significantly restricts access to the asylum procedure in certain situations. An expression of the intention to seek asylum is no longer regarded as an application if it is made during departure from the territory, during a readmission procedure, or after a criminal court has ordered extradition or expulsion. The explanatory memorandum states that this aims to prevent abuse of the asylum system by individuals attempting to avoid return at the last possible moment. Furthermore, the Ministry is now obliged to begin registering an application within five days of receiving information about it, whereas previously the period ranged from three to six working days. Applications must also be submitted personally at designated locations, such as border police facilities or reception centres. According to the explanatory memorandum, this requirement is intended to verify the genuine intention of the foreigner to seek protection and to prevent the previously abused practice of submitting applications from hospitals. In addition, where a parent submits an application, it is automatically considered to apply also to the parent’s minor child staying with them without an independent residence permit. This measure is intended to prevent family members from submitting applications successively in order to artificially prolong their stay.
Another substantial reform concerns the introduction of combined decisions on international protection and return. If the Ministry rejects an application for asylum or complementary protection, it will now simultaneously decide that the foreigner’s stay is unlawful and impose an obligation to leave the territory of the European Union. This eliminates the need for separate administrative expulsion proceedings conducted by the police following the rejection of an asylum claim, thereby significantly accelerating return procedures. The period for voluntary departure is set between seven and thirty days, although a shorter period may be imposed on persons considered a threat to public order or national security.
The amendment also changes the duration and extension of protection statuses. Asylum will no longer be granted for an indefinite period but instead for at least three years. Beneficiaries of asylum will subsequently be required to apply for extensions, which may be granted for further periods of at least three years if the reasons for protection continue to exist. According to the explanatory memorandum, this reflects the broader European Union approach that international protection should only last for as long as the relevant danger persists. Subsidiary protection will be granted for at least one year and may be extended for periods of at least two years. At the same time, the national institution of humanitarian asylum is completely abolished in order to harmonise the system with EU standards.
Significant restrictions are also introduced in the area of health care and material reception conditions. Adult applicants for international protection and persons with tolerated stay status will now only be entitled to healthcare financed by the state to the extent of necessary or emergency care. The explanatory memorandum explicitly states that this measure is intended to respond to so-called “health tourism”. By contrast, applicants under the age of eighteen remain fully covered by the public health insurance system. The MoI is also granted the power to reduce financial allowances to the subsistence minimum in several situations, including where the applicant submits a subsequent application, fails to cooperate during the proceedings, participates in unlawful secondary movements within the EU, or seriously violates accommodation rules, for example through aggression or drug-related conduct. Financial support must also be reduced once a decision has been issued transferring the applicant to another responsible Member State under the Dublin system.
The amendment further strengthens state control over applicants’ residence and communication with authorities. The MoI may now designate a specific asylum facility where an applicant must reside, even outside detention, if justified by considerations of public order or a risk of absconding. The maximum period during which an applicant may temporarily leave such a facility is shortened to ten consecutive days, with an obligation to return by the tenth day at the latest. Applicants residing in private accommodation outside asylum facilities must submit proof of accommodation bearing the notarised signature of the property owner. Service of documents is also simplified: documents are delivered only to the last address reported by the applicant, and if they are not collected within ten days, a legal fiction of delivery applies. This is intended to eliminate the lengthy process of appointing guardians for applicants whose whereabouts are unknown.
Judicial review procedures are substantially accelerated. The time limit for filing an action is shortened to ten days in cases involving manifestly unfounded applications, border procedures, and detained applicants, whereas previously the limit was fifteen days. In other cases, the filing period is reduced from one month to fifteen days. Regional Courts are now also subject to fixed deadlines for deciding cases: five weeks for border procedures, four months for manifestly unfounded or withdrawn applications, six months for cases with suspensory effect, and twelve months for all other cases. The courts will decide on the basis of the factual situation existing at the time of their own decision, allowing them to consider developments occurring after the MoI’s ruling. In addition, courts are no longer strictly bound by the specific points raised in the action and may take into account relevant circumstances not expressly invoked by the applicant. Cassation complaints to the SAC are newly inadmissible in cases concerning border procedures and third or further subsequent applications.
The amendment also fundamentally modifies the institution of tolerated stay on the territory. A certificate of tolerated stay will only be issued to a foreigner who has lodged a cassation complaint if the SAC grants that complaint suspensory effect. The previous financial allowance available to tolerated persons, amounting to up to 1.6 times the subsistence minimum, is abolished entirely, meaning that foreigners must now bear the costs of their stay themselves. Adults are likewise entitled only to necessary healthcare. Tolerated stay is granted for a maximum of three months and may be repeatedly extended until the cassation proceedings are concluded.
Finally, the amendment introduces several technical and border-procedure innovations. Both the MoI and the courts are expressly authorised to use machine translation and artificial intelligence tools for documents submitted without official translations. Interviews with applicants must now be recorded, at least in audio form, in order to prevent subsequent disputes concerning their content. A new border procedure regime is also established at international airports, under which applicants may be required to remain in a reception facility for the duration of the procedure, generally for up to twelve weeks with the possibility of a further twelve-week extension, including through detention. Compliance with fundamental rights during these strict border procedures will be monitored by the Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsman).
[1] Act No. 314/2025 Coll., amending Act No. 325/1999 Coll., on Asylum, as amended, Act No. 326/1999 Coll., on the Residence of Foreign Nationals in the Territory of the Czech Republic and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended, and other related legislation, avilable here.