Author
General (scope, time limits)
Czech national legislation provides for a specific border (airport) procedure for applicants for international protection who lodge their application in the transit area of an international airport,[1] in practice primarily at Václav Havel Airport in Prague. This procedure is regulated in the sections 73 and 74 of the Asylum Act. Section 73 (2) of the Asylum Act constitutes a distinct regime in which the applicant does not acquire the right to enter the territory while their asylum application is being examined. As such, the asylum seeker is not considered to have entered the national territory during the border procedure. Specifically, Section 73(2) of the Asylum Act states as follows: “The Ministry shall inform the applicant for international protection, upon his or her transfer to the reception centre at the international airport, of the fact that by lodging an application for international protection he or she does not acquire the right to enter the territory and, unless otherwise provided, shall be obliged to remain in the reception centre at the international airport for the duration of the proceedings on his or her application”.
Location and fiction of non-entry
When an application for international protection is lodged in the transit zone of an international airport, the Police should transfer the applicant to the reception centre located at the airport, unless grounds for detention under the Immigration Act apply (in which case the applicant is detained in one of the detention centres). The airport reception centre is a closed detention-like type of centre, however formally it is not considered as “detention” and falls under the scope of the Asylum Act (sections 73 and 74), while the other detention centres in Czechia fall under the scope of the Immigration Act. Based on the statistical data provided by the Czech Police, the number of persons who currently are arriving to the airport transit zone and are not being allowed to enter the territory is around 30 persons monthly, while the number of actual asylum seekers there is 0-2 monthly. This, based on previous observance of practice,[2] brings up serious concerns about the risk of push-backs at the airport.
Upon transfer to the reception centred in the airport, the MoI informs the applicant that lodging the asylum application does not give rise to a right of entry to the Czech territory and that, as a rule, the applicant must remain in the airport reception centre for the duration of the procedure.
Within five working days from the lodging of the application, the MoI must decide on the non-admission to the territory (which equates to a detention decision), provided that less coercive special measures (alternatives to detention) cannot be effectively applied and that such a decision is not contrary to the Czech Republic’s international obligations. According to the law, non-admission may be ordered in particular where:
- it is necessary to reliably establish or verify the applicant’s identity;
- the applicant presents forged or altered identity documents and identity cannot otherwise be established;
- there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant poses a threat to state security or public order;
- the applicant is subject to transfer to another EU Member State under directly applicable EU law (Dublin system) and there is a serious risk of absconding;
- there are justified reasons to believe that the application was lodged solely to avoid or delay expulsion, extradition or surrender, even though the applicant could have applied earlier; or
- the applicant obstructs the asylum procedure, in particular by failing to cooperate, where there is a risk of absconding or where the applicant has previously left the territory irregularly.
The decision on non-admission determines the period during which entry to the territory is not allowed. The total stay of the applicant in the airport reception centre may not exceed 180 days from the date the application was made.
A decision on the non-admission to the territory specifies the time for which the non-admission will apply, as per section 73 (4) of the Asylum Act. Based on the same section, the MoI can further extend the time of non-admission to the territory up to a total of 180 days. Both the decision on non-admission, as well as its extension, are subject to judicial review. An appeal may be lodged within 15 days before the competent Regional Court. The court must then decide swiftly, within seven working days of receiving the administrative file.[3] During the time for which the admission to the territory is not permitted (as specified in the non-admission decision), the MoI is obliged to continuously review whether the grounds for non-admission persist. The applicant may also apply for permission to enter the territory once the statutory conditions are met (e.g., lapse of time, change of circumstances, or annulment of the decision by a court).
Certain categories of applicants, in particular vulnerable persons, must be allowed to enter the territory without a formal non-admission decision, unless special measures are imposed. Entry must also be allowed without delay if the grounds for non-admission cease to exist, the relevant time limits expire, a court annuls the decision, protection is granted, or the MoI fails to decide on inadmissibility or manifestly unfoundedness within the four-week deadline.
Decision-making
Decisions on asylum applications in the border procedure are taken by the MoI. There is a special unit seated at the Prague Václav Havel airport who is in charge of these, with about 3 to 5 case workers (due to the low number of applications lodged at the airport).
During the border procedure, all the elements of the application are examined as in regular procedure. There are no substantial differences between procedures applied in the case of those applicants who made an application in the transit zone compared to those who applied at the territory.
A decision on the outcome of an application within a border procedure might take up to 180 days as implied in the section 73 (4) of the Asylum Act. However, the asylum claim itself may be decided in an accelerated manner. In this case, the MoI must decide on the inadmissibility or reject the application as manifestly unfounded within four weeks from the lodging of the application. Also, there is a special rule that the inadmissibility decision or decision rejecting the application as manifestly unfounded must be adopted within four weeks, otherwise an applicant needs to be allowed to enter the territory and their application must be examined on merits, where standard deadlines for issuing a decision apply (see above).
Statistics
This border procedure is applied in practice, albeit to a very limited number of cases, reflecting the generally low number of asylum applications lodged at Prague airport.
Monthly there are typically 0 to 4 applications processed in the border procedure. In 2024, altogether 29 applications (based on the MoI statistical data available online, or 27 based on the statistics provided by the Czech Police) were submitted in the transit zone. In 2025, altogether 40 applications were submitted in the transit zone (based on the statistics provided by the MoI).[4] There are no statistics available as regards the outcome of these applications (i.e., how many applications have been declared inadmissible, rejected as manifestly unfounded, or admitted to the regular procedure).
Personal interview
There is no rule in national law that would allow the MoI to refrain from conducting an interview solely on the grounds that an asylum application was made in a transit zone. The law clearly defines the situations in which an interview may be omitted (see Personal Interview in the Regular Procedure), including some corresponding to grounds of inadmissibility (such as an application filed by an EU citizen or a subsequent application).[5] In all other cases, an interview must be conducted. No special rules regarding conducting interviews apply solely for the transit zones.
In the border procedure, interviews tend to be rushed and are conducted under more stressful conditions, including the fact that the reception centre (including the interviewing room) is right at the actual airport, so that the sound of planes invoke the uncertainty of whether or not the person will be admitted to the territory. Interviews suffer from a lack of quality of interpreters and gender-sensitive case-workers, and vulnerability-sensitive case-workers are not at hand. These problems, however, are common in all the asylum interviews, not specifically in the border procedure.
Appeal
A distinction needs to be made between an appeal against (a) the decision on non-admission to the territory and (b) the decision on the asylum application. Both decisions are subject to judicial review, but different rules apply to each.
As regards the decision on non-admission to the territory, an action may be lodged within 15 days before the competent Regional Court, who must decide swiftly, generally within seven working days of receiving the administrative file. This is a very short deadline compared to the regular procedure, which creates a risk of impacting the quality of decision-making.
As regards the decision on the asylum application, exactly the same rules apply as in the regular procedure.
As regards the practical obstacles faced by asylum seekers in lodging an appeal at the border, it should be noted that the police operating in the airport transit zone apply a practice of entry refusal to the territory under Section 9 of the Immigration Act,[6] implementing the Schengen Border Code. The entry refusal is issued by the Czech Police and is not formally a ”procedure“. Therefore, the police are not required to provide interpretation services nor to initiate formal administrative proceedings, nor to keep a case-file. The person is informed about the refusal of entry on by a standard Schengen form which merely indicates the applicable ground for refusal of entry by ticking the relevant box, without any other reasoning being provided. It is, however, possible to appeal this “decision” within 15 days.[7] The appellate authority provides a somewhat more detailed statement of reasons when deciding on an appeal.
Based on previous practical observance, as described in the 2017 report Pushed Back at the Door, some persons who were issued the questionnaire of entry refusal faced obstacles when attempting to apply for asylum.[8]
Legal assistance
Asylum seekers have access to free legal assistance once they successfully applied for asylum (i.e., lodged their asylum application). Before that, they will have no access to it. In the border procedure, after asylum applicants have lodged their application, they will have access to free legal aid during the first and second instance under the same conditions as in the regular procedure (see above, Legal Assistance in the Regular Procedure).
[1] Sections 73 and 74 of the Asylum Act.
[2] Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Pushed Back at the Door, 2017, available here.
[3] Sections 73(7) of the Asylum Act.
[4] Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. Department for Asylum and Migration Policy, Applications for international protection in 2025 by place where application was lodged, available here.
[5] Section 23(2) of the Asylum Act.
[6] Under this provision the Police shall refuse a foreign national entry to the territory if: (a) the foreign national does not hold a valid travel document, (b) the foreign national presents a forged or altered travel document, visa, or residence permit, (c) the foreign national fails to present a visa, where the foreign national is subject to a visa requirement, or a residence permit, (d) the foreign national fails to present documents proving the purpose of stay and the means to secure the conditions of stay on the territory, (e) the foreign national does not have sufficient means for stay on the territory and for departure from the territory, (f) the foreign national is an undesirable person (Section 154), (g) the foreign national is entered in an information system established by states bound by international treaties on the abolition of controls at their common borders (hereinafter ‘contracting state ’), for the purpose of maintaining an overview of foreign nationals who are not to be allowed entry to the territory of the contracting states (hereinafter the ‘information system of the contracting states ’); this shall not apply if the foreign national has been granted a visa authorising stay solely on the territory, (h) there is a reasonable risk that, during his or her stay on the territory, the foreign national could endanger the security of the state, seriously disturb public order, or endanger the international relations of the Czech Republic, (i) there is a reasonable risk that, during his or her stay on the territory of another contracting state, the foreign national could endanger its security, seriously disturb public order therein, or endanger the international relations of the contracting states, or (j) the foreign national does not meet the requirements laid down by a measure of the Ministry of Health aimed at preventing the introduction of an infectious disease from abroad under the Public Health Protection Act (hereinafter the ‘requirement of a measure preventing the introduction of an infectious disease’).
[7] Section 180e(1)(c) of the Immigration Act,
[8] See Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Pushed Back at the Door, 2017, available here, pages 8-11.