Dublin

Author

OPU

General

Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December of 2025

Source: Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic, Department for Asylum and Migration Policy, Dublin proceedings by EU Member States in 2025, available here; and information provided by MoI upon request.

* Transfers refers to the number of transfers actually implemented, not to the number of transfer decisions.

Source: Information provided by MoI upon request (values less than or equal to 5 were not provided with a reference to protecting personal data in accordance with GDPR regulations)

Source: Information provided by the MoI upon request.

Application of the Dublin criteria

In practice, the most frequently used criterion for both outgoing and incoming requests is Article 12 of Dublin III – visas and residence permits.

In practice, the family unity provisions under Articles 8–11 of the Dublin III Regulation are applied, but their implementation can vary depending on the stage of the procedure and the type of evidence provided.

For incoming Dublin procedures, authorities generally attempt to verify family links through documentation such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, or other official documents. Asylum seekers are often required to provide original or certified copies of documents whenever possible.

In outgoing Dublin procedures, the application of the family criteria depends on whether the existence of family members in another Member State is timely asserted and sufficiently substantiated by the applicant. If such information is not provided at the outset of the procedure, authorities may proceed on the basis of other applicable criteria under the Dublin system and may conclude that the conditions for applying family unity provisions have not been demonstrated. This may result in the transfer of the applicant to another Member State under a different Dublin criterion, which can in practice lead to the separation of family members residing in different Member States. Family unity indications are, therefore, typically taken into account prior to the issuance of a transfer decision. Once a transfer decision has been adopted, they are not taken into consideration.

Regarding the family unity criteria, the most frequently used criteria in outgoing and incoming procedures are spouses/partners and minor children. Authorities prioritize uniting minor children with parents, whether in incoming or outgoing transfers. Documentation such as birth certificates is usually required. Siblings, adult children, or other dependent family members are less commonly used as grounds for family unity under Dublin rules, and practical application is more limited.

In outgoing requests, authorities sometimes reject family unity applications if the asylum seeker did not declare family members in another Member State at the initiation of the proceedings. In incoming requests, authorities tend to give priority to minors and spouses already residing in the requesting Member State.

Overall, while the law formally guarantees family unity, practical challenges, such as the lack of documentation, delayed disclosure of family links, and procedural strictness in Dublin transfers, can limit the effective application of these provisions.

In 2025, a total of 359 outgoing requests were processed in the Czech Republic. Of these, 212 applications were approved, while 147 applications were rejected. The MoI does not state the specific reasons for rejecting the application and does not have them at its disposal. In the case of take-charge requests, the reason for non-acceptance is usually that the conditions for responsibility set out in Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 are not fulfilled.

The discretionary clauses

In practice, the sovereignty clause (Article 17(1)) is invoked exceptionally and only for applicants with strong legal or social ties to the Czech Republic, while the application of the humanitarian clause (Article 17(2)) is more flexible and frequently applied to protect vulnerable persons even if another Member State would normally be responsible under Dublin rules. Authorities generally distinguish clearly between the two clauses in their reasoning, using objective links for sovereignty and exceptional humanitarian circumstances for humanitarian applications.

In practice, the most frequently accepted ground for applying the humanitarian clause is family reunification. Other humanitarian or social factors are considered on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the authorities.

The sovereignty clause is used in exceptional cases, if the applicant has a strong relation to the Czech Republic.

According to the information provided by the MoI, in 2025 Czechia used the sovereignty clause in less than 5 cases. The humanitarian clause was not used at all.

Procedure

The Dublin procedure is regulated directly by the Dublin III Regulation. The Asylum Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Code regulate the course of the administrative proceedings.

The Dublin procedure is applied systematically in all cases where the conditions laid down in the Dublin III Regulation are met. National legislation does not contain any exceptions that would allow the Dublin procedure not to be applied in these cases.

Fingerprinting

The Immigration Police systematically takes fingerprints of every asylum seeker older than 14 years of age. These fingerprints remain in the national records for 20 years from the end of the foreigner’s stay in the Czech Republic. All asylum seekers are systematically checked for a hit in Eurodac.

If an asylum seeker refuses to provide fingerprints, the application may be considered manifestly unfounded because the applicant is considered not to be cooperating with the authorities.^[2] Refusal to provide fingerprints is a misdemeanor under the law and may be punished by a fine of up to CZK 2,000 (approx. 80 EUR).^[3] The law does not authorize the use of physical force to take fingerprints without the applicant’s consent. Therefore, in cases of refusal, fingerprints are not forcibly collected; instead, the above legal consequences will apply.

In practice, asylum seekers are informed in advance about their obligation to provide fingerprints and the consequences of their refusal. Based on the observance of practice by OPU, cases where an applicant actually refuses to provide fingerprints are rare.

Information provided to the asylum seeker in Dublin procedures

If the MoI determines that another Member State may be responsible for examining the application under the Dublin III Regulation, the asylum seeker is notified of this fact. The applicant is informed that the Czech Republic will send a request for transfer or take-back to another Member State and is provided with the reasons for this request (e.g., records in the EURODAC system, a valid visa, or residence permit issued by another Member State). The applicant also receives standardized written information in his language about the Dublin procedure.^[4]

The asylum seeker is informed of the response of the Member State when they access their case file. In every case, where the MoI intends to discontinue the proceedings because another Member State is deemed responsible under Dublin rules, the applicant receives an invitation to access their case file. This is a voluntary administrative act, the applicant is not obliged to attend it. If the applicant attends this act, all the relevant documents that will be used as a basis for the decision must be presented to them and they have the right to express their opinion on the documents. The applicant can claim systemic flaws in the asylum procedure of the responsible Member State or individual reasons against the transfer. The MoI has to take these into account and deal with these objections in the reasoning of the Dublin decision.

The decision on discontinuation of proceedings due to the fact that another Member State is deemed responsible for the application also contains information on the reply of that Member State.^[5]

Individualised guarantees

In practice, the authority conducting the Dublin procedure in the Czech Republic rarely seeks individualized guarantees regarding adequate reception conditions in another Member State. Information about reception conditions is mostly obtained only generally. As a result, legal actions against transfer decisions are successful only in rare cases, particularly when it can be shown that the reception conditions in the receiving state do not meet the standards established by the ECtHR and CJEU case law.

Systematic requests for individualized guarantees are not standard practice, nor are they applied consistently for specific categories of applicants or particular Member States. They occur only in exceptional cases, typically after the court cancels the Dublin decision and asks the MoI to obtain individual guarantees. Even in these cases, however, the guarantees obtained by the MoI cannot always be considered sufficiently individual. As demonstrated by case law of the Regional Court in Brno:^[6], the Court has annulled decisions of the MoI because it failed to obtain individual guarantees from the Hungarian authorities prior to ordering a Dublin transfer. In its previous judgment in the same case, the Court had clearly stated that a transfer to Hungary would be compatible with Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation only if the MoI secured specific assurances that the applicant would be allowed to lodge an application for international protection upon their return. The MoI did not challenge that judgment and was, therefore, bound by its legal opinion. However, instead of obtaining individual guarantees, the MoI relied on general information provided by the Hungarian authorities to the EUAA. The court held that such general information cannot substitute individualized diplomatic assurances, particularly in light of systemic concerns regarding the Hungarian asylum legislation and practice.

 Transfers

Asylum seekers can be detained in connection with their Dublin transfer if it is considered that there is a serious risk of them absconding, in particular if they have previously evaded the execution of a transfer, attempted to abscond, or expressed an intention not to comply with a final decision ordering the transfer to a designated Member State or if such intention is apparent from their conduct.

OPU has  observed that detention for the purpose of a Dublin transfer of an applicant is a common practice in the Czech Republic in some cases. Particularly, regarding people who are transiting through Czechia to other countries (typically Germany) and are caught by the police and get a Eurodac hit. On the contrary, if a person comes voluntarily to a reception centre to seek international protection, they will rarely be detained.

Transfers are carried out both under escort (if the applicant is in detention) by the authorities and voluntarily. Asylum seekers typically do not receive specific personal documents to travel in the context of a Dublin transfer. Any personal belongings and documents that were held during detention will be handed over directly to the authorities of the receiving Member State.

The duration of Dublin procedure differs if the applicant is detained or not. In the case of detention the transfer should take place within 6 weeks from acceptance of responsibility by another Member State (unless a claim to the court against the transfer decision was filed by the applicant, in which case it is 6 weeks running from the final decision of the competent court). In these circumstances, the transfer typically takes place within two weeks to one month, as authorities aim to minimize waiting time and ensure a swift handover. If the applicant is not detained, the transfer should take place within 6 months after the acceptance by the responsible Member State (unless a claim to the court against the transfer decision was filed, in which case it is 6 months from the final decision of the competent court).

Outgoing Dublin transfers from the Czech Republic are generally carried out successfully. Delays and practical obstacles occur, including the asylum seeker’s health condition, limited cooperation of the applicant or capacity constraints, which may require postponing the transfer.

Personal interview

The law requires a personal interview of the asylum seeker also in the Dublin procedure. During this interview, which usually takes place within one week from making the application, basic information about identity, travel route and reasons for seeking asylum is collected, and simultaneously assesses whether the applicant falls under the Dublin III Regulation. There is, therefore, no separate interview specifically for the Dublin procedure.

This interview is conducted by the same authority as the one responsible for the regular procedure (i.e., the MoI).

There are no specific aspects of the interview in the Dublin procedure that differ from the interview in the regular procedure. Within this interview the information relevant for the assessment of the responsible Member State are collected, such as the place of entry into the EU, visas or residence permits in other Member States, fingerprint data, family members in other Member States as well as the reasons why the application was filed in the Czech republic and possible reasons against the transfer.

Appeal

An appeal against a decision of the MoI regarding a Dublin transfer 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 since the notification of the transfer decision, and it does not have an automatic suspensive effect, although it is possible to request it together with the lawsuit. The court has 30 days to decide on the suspensive effect and 60 days to decide about the appeal. Same as in the regular procedure, the court usually decides without holding an oral hearing, unless it deems one necessary or unless an applicant asks for it.

An asylum seeker is allowed to challenge the application of the Dublin criteria in the appeal against a decision on a Dublin transfer. In the court proceedings, the applicant may argue, for example, that the responsible Member State was incorrectly determined under the criteria set out in the Dublin III Regulation—for instance, that another Member State is actually responsible for examining the application, or that the transfer of responsibility was not properly assessed. At the same time, the applicant may also raise arguments that the transfer would be incompatible with their fundamental rights, particularly prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment due to systemic flaws in the reception system of the responsible state. An applicant may also challenge a non-application of the discretionary clause in their particular case.

When reviewing a Dublin transfer decision, the court considers several factors to decide if the transfer to another Member State can be allowed. These include especially the reception conditions in the receiving country, such as housing, healthcare, and basic living needs. The court also takes into account family life (e.g., whether the applicant has close relatives in another Member State), as well as other personal circumstances like health, age, vulnerability, or other relevant factors. The key consideration is that the transfer must not violate the fundamental rights of the applicant, especially the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and the right to respect for private and family life.

Legal assistance

Legal assistance in the Dublin procedure does not differ from the regular asylum procedure.

Czech law provides asylum seekers with access to free legal aid during the Dublin procedure under the same conditions as in the regular procedure. This is also the case in practice. An asylum seeker may choose to hire a lawyer at their own expense or use free legal assistance from a non-governmental organization or from a law firm contracted by the State. Legal assistance mainly includes advice on filing an appeal against a Dublin transfer decision, as well as help with drafting and submitting the appeal to the Regional Court. Legal aid may also cover representation during an interview or other actions on the first instance procedure. This, however, is not automatic, but depends on the discretion of the person providing free legal assistance (including existing budgetary constraints). NGO lawyers usually use these opportunities in cases of vulnerable applicants. Contracted lawyers limit provision of legal aid only to counselling and drafting appeals.

The current state-funded system of free legal assistance does not cover the appeal procedure. It ends with the filing of a lawsuit against a negative (or Dublin) decision. Then, applicants either represent themselves, are appointed a lawyer by the court (upon request and only if they meet the means test), or are represented by an NGO (if their case is considered well-founded by an NGO lawyer).

Suspension of transfers

The Czech Republic has not currently suspended transfers of asylum seekers to any other EU Member States or Associated States. In the past, transfers to Greece were generally suspended from 2011 following the ECtHR judgement of M.S.S v Belgium and Greece.^[7] As of 2017, after the Commission recommended resuming transfers to Greece,^[8] Czechia has been sending numerous take back and take charge requests to Greece every year. However, until the end of 2025 no transfer to Greece had taken place.^[9]

Also transfers to Hungary have been suspended in the past following national jurisprudence, after courts repeatedly annulled decision of the MoI due to systemic flaws in Hungarian asylum system, especially as regards a possible refoulement to Serbia. For example, inthe SAC held that: “In view of the reform of the Hungarian asylum system effective from 1 August 2015, there arises a completely real risk of the complainant being transferred precisely to Serbia and subsequently potentially deported to other countries, including, ultimately, the complainant’s country of origin, without his application for international protection having been properly examined by any state. This is the case even though no other EU country considers Serbia a safe third country, and Hungarian law and practice do not comply with the rules and safeguards established by the procedural directives for the application of the concept of a safe third country, or, as applicable, a European safe third country, compliance with which in the case of applying the safe third country concept following the transfer of an applicant under the Dublin system is also emphasized by Article 3(3) of the Dublin III Regulation“.^[10]

However, even before the SAC issued this decision, the Regional Court in Prague had already consistently maintained that the Hungarian asylum system was characterized by such significant shortcomings that the transfer of the applicant to Hungary was inadmissible.^[11] Also the Regional Court in Brno, ruled in 2016 that the transfer of an asylum seeker would pose a real risk due to deficiencies in the Hungarian asylum system, including the risk of subsequent deportation without proper examination of the applicant’s international protection claim, and that authorities should consider the applicant’s vulnerability and explore less restrictive measures than detention.^[12]

In other cases, if a transfer is suspended, it usually happens only upon a court decision in an individual case.

When transfers are suspended, Czechia assumes responsibility for the asylum application, and the procedure continues as if the applicant were under the regular procedure.

Relevant national jurisprudence in the Czech Republic concerning the suspension or annulment of Dublin transfers is primarily based on the MoI obligation to conduct a thorough, individualized, and up-to-date assessment of both the receiving state’s asylum system and the applicant’s specific vulnerabilities.

Systemic Deficiencies in Recipient Countries (Article 3(2))

Courts frequently intervene when a transfer could possibly expose an applicant to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment due to systemic flaws in the responsible Member State.

Hungary: Transfers have been repeatedly quashed in 2015 and 2016 due to restrictive legislation and the ‘automatic ’ risk of refoulement to Serbia, which Hungary considered a safe third country despite contrary evidence from the UNHCR.^[13] Also in some recent judgements, courts found possible systemic flaws of the Hungarian asylum system given the uncertain situation of Dublin returnees as regards the possibility of making a new application for international protection. The courts noted that ‘[t]he impossibility of applying for international protection in Hungary without the applicant having first submitted a declaration of intention to the Hungarian embassy gives, in the opinion of the court, serious grounds for believing that the Hungarian asylum procedure suffers from systemic deficiencies which entail a risk of ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. If it is currently not certain that an application for international protection can be lodged in Hungary at all in accordance with the guarantees arising from EU law, then it cannot be ruled out that the applicant could be returned to his country of origin without his application for international protection having been properly examined by the Hungarian authorities. Such a procedure is clearly contrary to the principle of non-refoulement’.^[14] Therefore, to effect transfers to Hungary, courts require the MoI to obtain individual guarantees before a transfer can proceed

Italy: Some rulings have highlighted a critical lack of reception capacity and overcrowding, which may lead to homelessness and material deprivation.^[15]

Bulgaria: Some rulings have annulled transfers to Bulgaria due to failures in addressing arguments about systemic procedural deficiencies and the applicant’s specific vulnerabilities.^[16]

France and Lithuania: Courts intervened in transfers to France during the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that a dysfunctional reception system combined with high infection rates posed severe risks to health and dignity.^[17] In cases involving Lithuania, courts criticized the lack of evaluation regarding actual conditions in reception facilities.^[18]

Assessment of Individual Vulnerabilities

The courts maintain that the MoI has a duty to identify and protect vulnerable persons before ordering a transfer.

Psychological and Physical Health: The SAC recently annulled a transfer to Bulgaria of a Syrian woman who survived a traumatic journey in a truck where another person died. The court ruled that the MoI cannot rely on a simple statement that the applicant is ‘healthy’ but must actively investigate potential PTSD or mental health deterioration through expert medical assessments.^[19]

Victims of Trafficking: A Nigerian woman was recognized as particularly vulnerable due to the high risk of sexual exploitation in Italy. The courts held that, before effecting a Dublin transfer, the MoI must investigate if the receiving state can actually protect these victims from traffickers.^[20]

LGBTQI+ Status: A recent ruling regarding a transfer to the Netherlands concluded that the MoI must assess specific risks related to an applicant’s gender transition and the receiving state’s ability to protect them before effecting a Dublin transfer.^[21]

Procedural Duties and the Discretionary Clause (Article 17)

Administrative decisions regarding Dublin transfers must be transparent and factor in an applicant’s social and family ties in the Czech Republic.

Discretionary Clause (Article 17): While the use of the ‘sovereignty clause ’ is discretionary, the MoI must provide individualized reasoning if it decides not to use it when the applicant has strong ties to the Czech Republic, such as a spouse, children, or long-term residence.^[22]

Factual Accuracy: Providing false or incomplete information (e.g., misrepresenting an applicant’s marital status) to the receiving state is a procedural error that prevents a fair assessment of whether that state should request a transfer under Article 17(2).^[23]

Right to a Fair Process: The failure to conduct a personal interview is considered a violation of the right to a fair procedure.^[24]

Up-to-Date Information: The MoI is obligated to gather relevant, reliable, and current information from various sources (UNHCR, AIDA, ECRE) rather than relying on outdated reports, when deciding on a Dublin case.^[25] The courts have also established that a Dublin decision must reflect the factual state at the time of the court’s decision (ex nunc), not just when the MoI issued its ruling.^[26]

In these cases, the annulment of the Dublin decision by the court does not necessarily mean the transfer would not take place at all. The MoI is given a new chance to assess the case and take into consideration the court’s objections. It is possible that the new Dublin decision is finally adopted.

The situation of Dublin returnees

OPU is not aware of any obstacles for asylum seekers transferred from another Member State with regard to access to the asylum procedure and to reception conditions in the Czech Republic. Each applicant who is the subject of a Dublin transfer to the Czech Republic has the right to the same material reception conditions as the applicant in a regular procedure. The access is ensured for applicants for international protection in the Czech Republic pursuant to Article 2 of the Asylum Act. This includes all take charge cases, and take back cases where the asylum procedure is still pending before the asylum authority or judicial authority on the condition that an appeal has suspensive effect by law or the suspensive effect is granted. In take charge and take back cases, when the asylum procedure was terminated by a procedural decision, the person is obliged to get to the reception centre. In cases where the asylum procedure is still pending, the person is usually obliged to get to the accommodation centre of their last stay. The access to accommodation and other reception conditions is provided in asylum facilities (reception and accommodations centres). The accommodation and other material reception conditions are available from the first moment of their arrival to the asylum facilities. Usually, it should be possible to take this step on the same day as the transfer was executed. The first information about the legal status of the applicant concerned is provided to them at the time of arrival to the border crossing point. Further information about reception conditions is provided after their arrival to the relevant asylum facility.

If the person following the Dublin transfer to the Czech Republic is not considered to be an asylum seeker (i.e., a take back case of a person whose application was rejected or withdrawn), the person will not have access to reception conditions anymore. The Alien’s Police will then consider the possibilities of issuing a return decision due to their condition of illegal stay. People can also ask for the assistance for voluntary return to their country of origin. At the time of arrival in Czechia, people are informed about their actual legal status (i.e., applicant or non-applicant for international protection) in the Czech territory and what the next steps in the process are.

When the person is handed over by Alien’s police at the border crossing point, on condition that the person is not vulnerable, does not need any special assistance, is healthy without any required medical assistance/care etc., the person is accompanied to the nearest bus/train station, is given bus/train ticket and is informed where and how to get to the reception/accommodation centre. Moreover, the person concerned is provided by a kind of map and by special document, so called “confirmation”. This document allows the person concerned to move within the territory of Czech Republic in order to reach the asylum facility determined by Refugee Facilities Administration (organisation responsible for operation of asylum facilities). In cases of vulnerability and special needs, the transport to asylum facility and medical assistance is organized.^[27]

An asylum seeker whose previous application was abandoned and who left Czechia may submit a new application in Czechia that will not be considered a subsequent application, provided that the previous procedure was finally closed, under certain conditions (e.g., the procedure was discontinued under the relevant provisions of the law, or the MoI issued a decision on the refusal of international protection which was not notified to the applicant in person and no timely appeal was filed).^[28] In such cases, the new application is treated as a fresh claim, not as a repeated (subsequent) application. It can also happen that the asylum seeker would leave the country and be transferred back even before the decision on his original application was issued. In this case, the procedure will continue regularly.

^[1] This is a number of total outgoing requests. Below we mention five most frequent countries.

^[2] Section 16(1)(f) of the Asylum Act.

^[3] Section 93(3)(c) and section 93(7) of the Asylum Act.

^[4] This information in Czech language can be found here and here.

^[5] Section 10a(1)(b) and Section 25(i) of the Asylum Act.

^[6] Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 41 Az 49/2023 – 33, 19 January 2024, available in Czech here. 

^[7] ECtHR, Application No 30696/09, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, 21 January 2011.

^[8] Commission Recommendation (EU) 2016/2256 of 8 December 2016 addressed to the Member States on the resumption of transfers to Greece under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council

^[9] See the statistical information on Dublin transfers available for individual years here.  

^[10] SAC, judgement No 5 Azs 195/2016–22, 12 September 2016, available in Czech here.

^[11] Regional Court in Prague, judgement No 49 Az 109/2015–74, 14 January 2016, available in Czech here.

^[12] Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 22 A 50/2016–18, 16 August 2016, available in Czech here.

^[13] SAC, judgement No 5 Azs 195/2016-22,12 September 2016; Regional Court in Prague, judgement No 49 Az 109/2015-74, 14 January 2016.

^[14] Municipal Court in Prague, judgement No 2 Az 11/2024 – 27, 3 June 2024, available in Czech here; Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 41 Az 20/2023-49, 30 June 2023, available in Czech here; Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 34 Az 48/2023-53, 2 February 2024, available in Czech here.

^[15] SAC, judgement No 2 Azs 304/2016-24, 30 November 2016, available in Czech here; SAC, judgement No 10 Azs 12/2017-70, 4 May 2017, available in Czech here; Regional Court in Hradec Králové, judgement No 31 Az 5/2024-64, 30 August 2024, available in Czech here.

^[16] SAC, judgement No 10 Azs 41/2016-57, 11 May 2016, available in Czech here.

^[17] Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 33 Az 5/2020-74, 7 April 2020, available in Czech here.

^[18] Regional Court in Prague, judgement No 48 Az 8/2024-33, 26 July 2024, available in Czech here.

^[19] SAC, judgement No 2 Azs 5/2025 – 45, 4 March 2025, available in Czech here.

^[20] SAC, judgement No 6 Azs 275/2018-72, 31 October 2018, available in Czech here.

^[21] Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 41 Az 5/2025-25, 9 April 2025, available in Czech here.

^[22] Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 41 Az 36/2022-60, 4 January 2023, available in Czech here; SAC, judgement 5 Azs 229/2016-44, 12 January 2017, available in Czech here.

^[23] SAC, judgment No 6 Azs 331/2023-40, 1 February 2024, available in Czech here.

^[24] Regional Court in Prague, judgement No 49 Az 56/2015-41, 1 June 2015, available in Czech here.

^[25] Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 32 Az 5/2016-26, 13 July 2016. available in Czech here; SAC, judgement No 10 Azs 199/2016-56, f 26 October 2016, available in Czech here.

^[26] Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 41 Az 6/2021-116, 12 April 2021, available in Czech here.

^[27] Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic, Department for Asylum and Migration policy, Dublin unit,

Information on procedural elements and rights of applicants subject to a Dublin transfer to the Czech Republic, July 2024, available here.

^[28] Section 11c(2) of the Asylum Act.