Author
The definition of ‘vulnerable person’ is included in the Asylum Act. It includes, in particular, unaccompanied minors, parents or families with minor children, or parents or families with adult children with disabilities, persons over 65 years of age, persons with a disability or serious illness, pregnant wome n, victims of human trafficking, or persons who have been tortured, raped, or subjected to other serious forms of psychological, physical, or sexual violence.[1]
Screening of vulnerability
Screening of vulnerability should be done by the MoI within the phase of lodging of the application for international protection, which is done shortly before the initial interview. This means that the law requires the screening to be done systematically in every case. If the applicant for international protection is deemed to be a vulnerable person, the MoI shall further determine whether, in view of their personal situation, they require additional support in exercising their rights and fulfilling their obligations during the procedure. The MoI shall also provide such support to a vulnerable applicant if the need for this support arises only during the course of the international protection procedure.[2]
Vulnerability screening is not done by a specific unit within the MoI and, as far as OPU is aware, workers of the MoI are not specifically trained to identify potential vulnerabilities if they are not apparent.
Victims of trafficking in human beings
According to the information provided in the GRETA report for 2024 (GRETA report),[3] a training course on human trafficking is organised every two years for staff (mostly social workers) who work in reception centres for asylum seekers and refugees and detention centres for foreigners . This training is organized in co-operation with La Strada Czech Republic. The course focuses on the identification of victims of trafficking and their referral to assistance. In every centre or facility, there should be at least one social worker trained on detecting victims of trafficking.
Officers dealing with applications for international protection do not receive specific training on human trafficking, but the topic is highlighted during training courses on other issues. Authorities have justified this by reference to the low number of victims of trafficking historically identified among asylum seekers. Further, these officers are provided with materials on detecting victims of trafficking, such as the handbook of the project ‘ Identification of Trafficked International Protection Beneficiaries’ Special Needs’ (TRIPS).
Mechanisms for identifying special groups of vulnerable applicants
There is currently no special mechanism in place to systematically identify vulnerable asylum seekers in th Czech Republic.
In 2021, there was an inquiry of the Ombudsman’s office which pointed out significant shortcomings in the identification of vulnerable asylum seekers in the Czech Republic, especially as regards victims of human trafficking.[4] The case, in particular, concerned a Nigerian woman, who had applied for international protection while in detention, stating that she was a victim of trafficking. Her application for international protection was rejected by the Department for Asylum and Migration. The Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsman) found that this Department had failed to carry out an adequate vulnerability assessment and had, consequently, not recognised her as a trafficking victim. The Ombudsman also noted that the Department had disregarded the expert opinion of La Strada Czech Republic, which indicated that the applicant had been trafficked, as well as relevant country-of-origin information. In its final opinion of 17 April 2023, containing recommendations for corrective measures, the Ombudsman urged the MoI to apply a proper vulnerability-assessment procedure throughout the international protection process. It recommended that the Department for Asylum and Migration documented vulnerability assessments, developed a methodological tool for conducting them, and provided regular training and guidance on interviewing asylum seekers. The MoI stated that they disagreed with the Ombudsman’s findings and maintained that a full vulnerability assessment — including an assessment of trafficking risks — is always carried out as a mandatory part of international protection procedures.
Overall, the above inquiry showed that, although a mechanism to identify vulnerable asylum seekers formally exists, its implementation is insufficient and fails to ensure effective identification of trafficking victims. In practice, vulnerability assessments are often delayed or omitted, evidence disregarded, and procedural safeguards not applied. As a result, many persons who should be recognized and treated as vulnerable (e.g., trafficking victims, torture victims, exploited persons) are not identified as such and thus do not receive the protections and guarantees they are legally entitled to.
Administrative courts, acting as the appellate instance in asylum matters, have issued several judgments annulling decisions of the Department for Asylum and Migration on the basis that the authority had failed to adequately examine the applicants’ claims of being victims of trafficking.[5]
The above-cited GRETA report urged Czech authorities to take additional measures to improve the detection and identification of victims of trafficking , in particular by: (i) strengthening the proactive identification of victims of trafficking (also) amongst asylum seekers and persons placed in administrative detention pending removal from the Czech territory, and (ii) strengthening the training and guidance on the identification of victims of trafficking provided to relevant professionals (in particular, staff working in asylum and immigration detention centres and staff examining asylum requests), in co-operation with civil society and lawyers.
Age assessment of unaccompanied children
If the applicant for international protection states to be an unaccompanied minor and there are reasonable doubts about their stated age, a medical examination shall be carried out to determine their age. If the unaccompanied minor refuses to undergo a medical examination, the MoI shall treat them as an adult applicant for international protection. If the medical examination is not conclusive, the MoI shall treat the applicant in question as an unaccompanied minor.[6]
It will usually be up to the Immigration Police or the MoI to determine whether an age assessment procedure is needed. The law does not provide any criteria to decide which applicants should undergo an age assessment. In practice, the age assessment is triggered, for example, if the applicant does not have any identity document and their appearance and/or mental maturity does not correspond to their stated age, or if the applicant provides different dates of birth.
The law does not provide for a specific method to be used in the age assessment process. It only mentions the use of a ‘medical examination’. In practice, however, an x-ray of wrist bones is usually used.
National case law allows that the result of a medical examination of wrist bones may serve as evidence for determining the age of a foreign national, both in proceedings on the granting of international protection and in detention proceedings. However, this method raises several questions. A fundamental problem is that it cannot determine an individual’s age precisely, with a possible deviation of 2–3 years, which is critical in most cases (and, although this fact should be considered and a tolerance of two to three years considered, in practice this is often not the case). Other arguments against the use of this method include the fact that X-rays can determine a maximum age of 19 years, so the results never fully reflect the individual’s level of development or maturity. Another problematic aspect is that testing of this is that it was not originally developed with the aim of determining the chronological age of young people, but rather to determine whether children whose chronological age is known are developing sufficiently quickly compared to their peers of the same sex. The study was based on wrist X-rays of healthy white children in the USA, of European descent, from wealthier families. Each standard was based on a comparison of 100 children of a given age, and the images were obtained through a study conducted by the Brush Foundation between 1930 and 1942.[7]
The Ombudsman criticized use of this method, pointing out that the use of the conclusions of a medical examination of wrist bones is particularly problematic for the age group of 16 to 20 years. In this group, due to a possible deviation of up to 2-3 years,[8] none of the methods can reliably determine whether the individual has reached the age of 18. For example, if the examination result indicates that the skeletal age of the foreign national is 18 to 19 years, taking the deviation into account, their estimated chronological age ranges from 16 to 21 years. Therefore, the examination conclusion cannot, on its own, serve as the sole evidence to refute the minority.[9]
This position was also adopted by the SAC in the case of a foreign national whose medical examination estimated the age as ‘about 20 years’. The SAC stated that, after accounting for the mentioned 2-year deviation, the foreign national fell within the borderline range of minority. On this basis, the MoI ‘ could not be certain, without the possible use of additional methods to examine the claimant’s chronological age, of his adulthood’. [10]
In 2021, the Constitutional Court dealt with the age assessment procedure in the context of detention of a foreigner who claimed to be an unaccompanied minor.[11] The Court ruled that X-ray bone age tests are not a sufficiently reliable basis for determining legal adulthood, especially when used as the sole or decisive evidence. A comprehensive assessment and strict procedural safeguards are required, and any reasonable doubt must lead to treating the individual as a minor.
After national courts repeatedly criticised the method of determining age based on X-ray images of wrist bones, medical examinations are sometimes complemented in practice by an observation and interview done by a specially trained social worker in Bela Jezova facility. However, this approach may also be insufficient for reliably determining age, as social workers do not always have the sufficient expertise to assess whether the behaviour of the foreign national corresponds to the age they claim.
The law clearly states that, if the medical examination to determine age is not conclusive, the applicant for international protection shall be treated as an unaccompanied minor.[12] In practice, however, this is not always the case. Despite the above-mentioned doubts about the reliability of the methods used to determine the age of foreign nationals, if the examination result indicates that the individual is older than 18, then—even allowing for acceptable margins of error—they are regarded as an adult. A guardian is appointed prior to undertaking a child’s age assessment. It is not possible to appeal against the outcome of an age assessment procedure. It can be challenged only within the appeal filed against the final asylum or detention decision.
There was only one age assessment conducted for the purposes of an asylum procedure in 2025. The outcome concluded that the applicant was an adult.
[1] Section 2(1)(i) of the Asylum Act.
[2] Section 10(4) of the Asylum Act.
[3] GRETA, Report concerning the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings by the Czech Republic, GRETA(2024)11, second evaluation round, 1 July 2024, available here, p. 10.
[4] Public Defender of Rights, inquiry report No 6145/2019/VOP, 16 August 2021, available in Czech here.
[5] See, e.g. SAC, judgement No 10 Azs 73/2020-32, 3 December 2020, available in Czech here; Regional Court in Hradec Králové, judgement No 30 Az 11/2020-72, 20 April 2021, available in Czech here, Regional Court in Hradec Králové , judgement No 43 Az 5/2020-66, 14 September 2021, available in Czech here (in the latter case, however, the Regional Court subsequently dismissed the action brought by the applicant against the new decision of the Ministry of the Interior issued after the annulled judgment ref. no. 43 Az 5/2020-66; see judgment No 43 Az 4/2023-46,13 September 2023, available in Czech here).
[6] Section 89(1) of the Asylum Act.
[7] See the report of the Australian Human Rights Commission, An age of uncertainty: Inquiry into the treatment of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who say that they are children, July 2012, available here, p. 55
[8] It is acknowledged, both by experts (Roscam Abbing, Henriette D.C. Age Determination of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Minors in the European Union: A Health Law Perspective. European Journal of Health Law, (18) 2011, pp. 11–25. Krásničanová, H. Bone Age. Compendium of Pediatric Auxology, 2015) and in case law (Regional Court in Plzeň, judgement No 17 A 121/2019-74, 24 July 2019, available in Czech here; SAC , judgement No 5 Azs 106/2020-42, 31 July 2020, available in Czech here), that even completely healthy individuals may show a discrepancy of up to two years between their chronological age and their skeletal age. Judgments of Swiss courts even refer to discrepancies of up to three years (Swiss Federal Court, decision No E-7333/2018, 4 March 2019 cited by SAC, judgement No 5 Azs 106/2020-42, 31 July 2020).
[9] Public Defender of Rights, decision No 6771/2020/VOP, 24 November 2020, available in Czech here.
[10] SAC, judgement No 5 Azs 106/2020-42, 31 July 2020 available in Czech here.
[11] Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, decision No II.ÚS 482/21, 7 July 2021, available here.