Author
There are no specialised units within the MoI which deal with claims by vulnerable asylum seekers.
Adequate support during the interview
The law does not provide for any special procedural guarantees for vulnerable applicants. The only special rule regards detention, in that , if an applicant is a vulnerable person — except for a person with a disability that does not prevent placement in a reception centre or a detention facility — the MoI may detain them only in exceptional cases (i.e., only if the applicant is over 18 years old and has repeatedly and seriously violated an obligation arising from previously imposed alternative to detention).
Recent case law of the SAC highlights persistent concerns that asylum seekers who need special procedural guarantees are not always identified in a timely manner, and that their specific needs are not properly taken into account during the procedure, especially if the vulnerability is not visible.
In one case, the applicant claimed to have a disability and to suffer from schizophrenia, which was also confirmed by available medical records. In spite of this, the MoI failed to identify the applicant as vulnerable and did not adjust the procedure to his particular vulnerability. The SAC criticised that the personal interview was conducted in a standard manner, without adapting the questioning, without consulting a specialist, and without considering whether the applicant was even fit to be interviewed. Moreover, memory problems and cognitive difficulties raised by the applicant were ignored, and no expert assessment was sought to evaluate how the applicant’s mental condition affected their ability to give a coherent and credible account. According to the SAC, such failures might have significantly disadvantaged the vulnerable applicant and undermined the fairness of their procedure.[1]
Similarly in another case regarding the Dublin III regulation, where the case file already contained indications of past trauma and risks arising from the applicant’s journey (i.e., transport in a truck under dangerous circumstances, detention, death of a fellow traveller and threats by smugglers), the court criticised the MoI for having failed to properly identify and assess the applicant’s potential vulnerability.[2] The SAC stressed that the assessment must be active: if there are indications of trauma, psychological distress or possible victimisation (such as trafficking or violence), the authorities must consider the applicant vulnerable from the outset and adapt the procedure accordingly. Ignoring these indicators—such as trauma symptoms, psychological strain or safety risks—constitutes a failure to identify a person in need of special guarantees. The Court also underlined that vulnerability does not depend only on a person’s internal health condition, but also on the traumatic circumstances they have experienced. If traumatic circumstances are present, the authority must verify the facts with increased care and adjust the conduct of the procedure to ensure effective participation of the applicant.
Failure to properly consider an applicant’s vulnerability and mental health recently led the SAC to send the case back to the MoI also in a case in which the applicant repeatedly reported anxiety, depressive symptoms, suspected ADHD, memory problems, and submitted medical evidence confirming treatment with strong antidepressants and anxiolytics. The court noted that the MoI had failed to take these into account when conducting the interview (which had taken over 7 hours) and assessing the credibility of the applicant.[3]
Exemption from special procedures
The asylum application of an unaccompanied minor cannot be declared inadmissible if they come from a safe third country.[4] Moreover, their application also cannot be rejected as manifestly unfounded.[5]
Vulnerable applicants shall be excluded from the border procedure (see above).[6]
[1] SAC, judgement No 5 Azs 156/2023 – 32, 18 September 2023, available in Czech here.
[2] SAC, judgement No 2 Azs 5/2025 – 45, 4 March 2025, available in Czech here.
[3] SAC, judgement No 7 Azs 212/2024 – 58, 21 February 2025, available in Czech here.
[4] Section 10a(1)(g) of the Asylum Act.
[5] Section 16(5) of the Asylum Act.