Author
In detention cases, applicants are entitled to free legal aid similarly to their right to legal aid in the international protection procedure (see Legal assistance). In practice when a decision is delivered to detained applicants, they are also given the list of providers of free legal aid from which they can choose an attorney or lawyer from NGO, who are then notified by the Ministry of Interior. Attorneys and lawyers from NGO secure an interpreter for the appointment and then inform the Ministry of Interior.
According to national legislation, the measure of accommodation at the reception centre for foreigners (i.e., detention) may be imposed if, following an individual assessment, it is established that other alternative measures would not achieve the purpose of restriction of freedom of movement. However, in previous years, legal representatives reported that decisions on the restriction of freedom of movement do not always contain a reasoning behind the individual assessment. They simply state that the individual assessment has determined that detention is necessary because other measures cannot achieve the purpose of restricting freedom of movement.[1] Something similar was reported for 2024.
In addition, in cases involving restrictions of freedom of movement, one attorney at law reported that, in a particular case, the Administrative Court scheduled the hearing at the time of expiration of detention.[2] In other cases, hearings were scheduled within a period of one to two months, while the imposed restriction lasted for three months. According to the same attorney, applicants for international protection are generally not summoned to attend hearings in administrative disputes related to the restriction of freedom of movement. In some cases, courts did not instruct the respondent to submit the case file within the eight-day deadline stipulated under the Law on International and Temporary Protection), but instead applied the general 30-day deadline provided by the Law on Administrative Disputes. Furthermore, according to the attorney’s information, applicants are often not informed of the specific reasons for the restriction. They are notified only in general terms that the decision concerns the restriction of freedom of movement through placement in the Reception Centre for Foreigners for a certain period, but applicants for international protection often state that they do not understand the concrete grounds for the measure. The same attorney also reported that in some cases, when the decision on the restriction of movement was served, an interpreter was not present in person. Instead, interpretation was provided over the phone (without the interpreter being able to see the decision and translating only the oral statements of the official and the applicant), or there was no interpreter at all. Several attorneys noted that, although the decisions formally state that an individual assessment was conducted, decisions fail to provide reasoning as to which criteria and individual circumstances were taken into account.[3] One attorney at law noted that decisions sometimes reference the applicant’s age and the existence of a travel document, as well as a general conclusion that the person is not vulnerable, even though such claims are often inaccurate.[4] In some cases, applicants did not possess valid travel documents, and there were clear indications that they should have been classified as vulnerable individuals (e.g., survivors of torture or persons with mental health issues).
[1] Information provided by attorneys at law, 3 December 2019, 6 December 2019.16 December 2019, 21 January 2020.
[2] Information provided by attorney at law, 31 January 2025.
[3] Information provided by attorneys at law, 19, 21 and 31 January 2025.
[4] Information provided by attorney at law, 31 January 2025.