Author
General (scope, criteria, time limits)
National legislation provides for the concept of inadmissibility of an asylum application. An application will be considered inadmissible if:[1]
- it is submitted by a citizen of the EU who does not meet the conditions under EU law, (i.e., who does not meet the provisions set out Protocol (No 24) on asylum for nationals of Member States of the EU);[2]
- another state is responsible for examining the application under the Dublin III Regulation;
- the applicant has already been granted international protection by another EU Member State;
- the applicant could have found effective protection in a first country of asylum;
- the applicant filled a subsequent application that has already been assessed as inadmissible;
- the applicant comes from a country considered a European safe third country and does not demonstrate that this does not apply in their case; or
- the applicant, who is not an unaccompanied minor, comes from a safe third country and does not show that this country should not be considered safe for them.
Once an application is declared inadmissible, the authorities will not examine whether the applicant meets the conditions for asylum or subsidiary protection. Instead, they will discontinue the asylum proceedings.[3] The authority responsible for adopting the decisions on admissibility is, as in the regular procedure, the MoI .
There is no specific time limit that must be observed by the MoI for taking a decision on admissibility. Only if the application is made in the transit zone, the MoI must decide on the inadmissibility of an asylum application within four weeks from the date of its submission.[4] If this deadline is not respected, the applicant must be allowed to enter the territory.[5]
In practice, the grounds for inadmissibility of an asylum application are applied quite often. The most common ones are when a subsequent application has been filed or when the Dublin regulation applies.
All asylum seekers are systematically subjected to an admissibility procedure, regardless of whether they have lodged their application at the border or within the territory.
In 2025, 186 cases were recorded, but information regarding the particular ground of inadmissibility is not available. Prior to 2024, statistical reports reflected only the number of decisions rejecting applications as inadmissible, without distinguishing between the specific grounds for inadmissibility.[6]
Personal interview
There is no rule in Czech national law that would generally allow the MoI to refrain from conducting an interview solely on the grounds that the application is inadmissible. However, there are two exceptions, as the law clearly defines the situations in which an interview may be omitted (see above), and two correspond to grounds of inadmissibility : (i) that an application was filed by an EU citizen, and (ii) that it is a subsequent application after the first application was declared inadmissible.[7] In all other cases, an interview must be conducted. Its scope, however, may differ, as it will focus on the factual circumstances relevant to the specific ground of inadmissibility. All the procedural rules regarding standard interview apply (presence of an interpreter, transcript of the interview etc.).
Appeal
An appeal against a decision to discontinue the proceeding because of the inadmissibility of the application can be filed with the competent regional court, same as in the regular procedure. Unlike in the regular procedure, however, the deadline for the appeal is only 15 days and in most cases, it does not have an automatic suspensive effect. The only exception when this lawsuit does have an automatic suspensive effect is regarding an inadmissibility decision in the case of an applicant, who is not an unaccompanied minor, comes from a country that the Czech Republic considers a safe third country. In all the other cases, the applicant may submit a request for the granting of suspensive effect together with the lawsuit. The court then decides within 30 days whether or not the person will be granted suspensive effect. In OPU’s experience, courts rarely grant requests for a suspensive effect. Same as in the regular procedure, the court usually decides on the appeal without holding an oral hearing, unless it deems one necessary or the applicant has asked for it. There is no statutory deadline for the Court to issue a decision on the main appeal.
In practice, asylum seekers face the same obstacles when lodging an appeal against an inadmissibility decision as in other types of proceedings (see above).
Legal assistance
Access to legal aid for those applicants whose application is later declared inadmissible follows the same rules as in the regular procedure (see above).
Suspension of returns for beneficiaries of protection in another Member State
As of 2025, the Czech Republic has not suspended returns of beneficiaries of international protection to any EU Member State or associated country as a matter of general policy. Returns are carried out under readmission agreements. Any refusal or delay in a transfer would be considered on a case-by-case basis, typically following legal or judicial review. So far, OPU does not have any information about returns being suspended.
So far there is no case law that determined the prevention of the returns of beneficiaries of international protection to other EU Member States. There have been only a few cases in which beneficiaries of international protection (usually in Greece) applied for protection in Czechia and their cases were found inadmissible. In these cases, courts upheld the inadmissibility decision.[8] The Supreme Administrative Court has ruled that, unlike in Dublin cases, authorities are not generally required to assess living conditions in the State of protection. Returns may be suspended, or applications considered admissible, only in exceptional cases where the applicant proves a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, such as extreme material deprivation, in line with CJEU case-law in Jawo[9] and Ibrahim .[10] In the absence of such evidence, returns remain lawful.[11] Only in one known Czech case the inadmissibility decision was cancelled, but it was due to procedural reasons.[12]
[1] Section 10a of the Asylum Act.
[2] Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – PROTOCOLS – Protocol (No 24) on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union, 9 May 2008, available here.
[3] Section 25(i) of the Asylum Act.
[4] Section 73(11) of the Asylum Act.
[5] Section 74(2)(e) of the Asylum Act.
[6] Information provided by MoI upon reguest.
[7] Section 23(2) of the Asylum Act.
[8] See e. g. Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 33 Az 19/2019-34, 17 September 2020, available in Czech here; Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 33 Az 12/2019-34,19 May 2020,available in Czech here; Regional Court in Ostrava, judgement No 62 Az 46/2019-25, 20 January 2020, available in Czech here; Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 41 Az 11/2018-33, 22 August 2018, available in Czech here.
[9] CJEU, judgment No C-163/17 Jawo, 19 March 2019.
[10] CJEU, judgment No C-297/17 Ibrahim, 17 May 2019.
[11] Supreme Administrative Court, judgement No 5 Azs 65/2020-31, 9 November 2020, available in Czech here.
[12] Municipal Court in Prague, judgement No 16 Az 10/2023-41, 4 July 2023, available in Czech here.