Author
The law provides for the right of asylum applicants to receive information in writing regarding the grounds for their detention, access to free legal aid and legal challenges against detention in a language they either understand or are reasonably expected to understand.[1]
The competent authority to impose and review the detention of an asylum applicant in a CIT,[2] or in detention facilities at the border,[3] is the Criminal Court which has territorial jurisdiction over the place where detention occurs. In the case of detention at the border, PSP is required to inform the Criminal Court of the detention within 48 hours upon arrival at the border for purposes of maintaining the asylum applicant in detention beyond that period.[4]
The review of detention can be made ex officio by the Criminal Court or upon request of the detained asylum applicant at all times on the basis of new circumstances or information that have a bearing on the lawfulness of the detention.[5]
According to CPR’s experience, judicial decisions have frequently approved detention orders of the border authority without an assessment of necessity and proportionality or consideration of the individual characteristics of the applicants involved, and did not hold judicial hearings. Between the last quarter of 2023 and the first semester of 2024, CPR observed decisions ordering detention in the transit area of Lisbon airport if the EECIT was full, despite the well-documented poor conditions.
UNHCR and the Ombudsperson acknowledged an improvement in PSP’s communications to the Criminal Court, with PSP beginning to include individualised assessments to assist judges in weighing the necessity of detention. However, public reports in 2025 indicated that courts continued to systematically order the detention of asylum applicants, even contrary to PSP assessments and without considering alternatives to detention (see: Grounds for detention).[6]
On the other hand, detention reviews (either ex officio or upon request) are uncommon in practice. As such, release usually takes place following admission to the regular procedure or at the end/near the end of the maximum detention time limit of 60 days in cases of a negative decision and appeal (see Duration of Detention). Concerns regarding the absence of judicial review of decisions to detain have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Ombudsperson.[7]
In the beginning of 2024, UNHCR and the Judicial High Council (Conselho Superior de Magistratura, CSM) established a working group with multiple actors relevant in the field of asylum and border control[8] in order to, inter alia, discuss and harmonise the applicable procedures, in particular regarding detention and lack of alternatives to detention, lack of judicial hearings, family separation, and identification and referral of vulnerabilities. The group met regularly throughout the year and agreed on standard operating procedures for border control, which are due to be adopted in 2026.
[1] Article 35-B(2) Asylum Act.
[2] Article 35-A(5) Asylum Act.
[3] Article 35-A(5) and (6) Asylum Act.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Article 35-B(1) Asylum Act.
[6] Público, Tribunais ignoram pareceres da PSP e ordenam detenção sistemática de requerentes de asilo, 19 November 2025, available here.
[7] Ombudsperson, Mecanismo Nacional de Prevenção – Relatório à Assembleia da República 2024, July 2025, available here, 56.
[8] The group comprises CSM, UNHCR, PSP/UNEF, GNR, the Inspectorate-General of Internal Administration, the Office of the Deputy Secretary of State for Justice, AIMA, ISS, the National Preventive Mechanism of the Ombudsperson, IOM, CPR and the Bar Association.