Regular procedure

Author

OPU

General (scope, time limits)

The regular asylum procedure at national level is primarily governed by the Act No. 325/1999 Coll., on Asylum (the Asylum Act). This act provides the fundamental legal framework for granting international protection in the Czech Republic. It regulates the conditions for submitting an asylum application, the course of proceedings, the rights and obligations of applicants, the decision-making process, available legal remedies (such as appeals), and family reunification. The Act is further supplemented by implementing regulations issued by the Ministry of the Interior, most importantly Decree No. 328/2015 Coll., which includes a list of safe countries of origin and provides a template of the applicant’s ID card. Additionally, certain general legal provisions are relevant. The Administrative Procedure Code (Act No. 500/2004 Coll.) applies to the extent that the Asylum Act does not provide specific rules, while Act No. 326/1999 Coll., on the Residence of Foreign Nationals in the Czech Republic complements the rights and obligations of foreigners within the residency framework. Furthermore, judicial review and remedies against decisions in asylum proceedings are governed by the Code of Administrative Justice (Act No. 150/2002 Coll., the Administrative Court Procedure Code), which regulates appeals and other legal remedies before administrative courts.

Within the regular procedure, the standard time limit for the competent authority to issue a decision is six months from the moment of the lodging of the application (i.e., the date when the applicant provided the relevant information on their application).^[2] This standard time limit for issuing a decision on an asylum application can be extended:

• For an additional nine months if:
  a) the case is factually or legally complex;
  b) many applications have been submitted at the same time; or
  c) the applicant fails to meet their obligations under the Asylum Act, making it impossible to decide within the standard time.
• Exceptionally, up to an additional three months if it is necessary to fully clarify the facts of the case.

The MoI shall notify the applicant in writing of the extension of the time limit and shall provide reasons for such a measure.^[3] In practice, this written notice is very short and provides only the legal reason for the extension of the time limit, without any specifications regarding the applicants’ individual circumstances. It also sometimes happens that the MoI does not inform the applicant about the extension of the time limit at all.

In some cases it is possible to interrupt the proceedings, even repeatedly. If the proceeding is interrupted because of one of the following reasons, the above-described time limit will pause:

• The applicant is asked to correct defects in their submission (the time limit can be paused up to 14 days);
• The applicant cannot participate due to serious long-term health or other reasons (the time limit can be paused up to 90 days); or
• Due to an uncertain situation in the applicant’s country of origin – a decision must still be issued no later than 21 months (either from lodging of the application or from the court decision annulling previous decision of the MoI).^[4]

If the MoI is taking a new decision after a previous decision had been annulled by the court, the new decision shall be adopted within three months, unless the case is factually or legally complex. In that case the MoI has six months to adopt the decision. Exceptionally, if it is necessary to establish the circumstances of the case beyond reasonable doubt, the decision may be issued within nine months.^[5]

A decision rejecting an application as manifestly unfounded must be issued no later than 90 days from the date of the to the submitted application for international protection.^[6] Failing to comply with this time limit may result in the annulment of the decision by the court, as it is not possible to reject an application as manifestly unfounded after this time limit passes.^[7]

In practice, it happens regularly that the statutory time limits for issuing decisions in asylum matters are not complied with, especially if the case is complex. In these cases, it is possible to file an inactivity complaint to the superior authority and subsequently an inactivity lawsuit with the court. If the lawsuit is justified, the court will provide a specific additional time limit in which the MoI shall adopt a decision (usually 30 days). It happens in practice that this timeframe is also not being respected.

In cases of applicants coming from safe countries of origin, whose applications are usually rejected as manifestly unfounded, the time limits are respected.

Exact statistical information on the length of the proceedings in individual cases is not publicly available. According to the information provided as an answer to OPU’s request, the MoI stated that the average length of the first instance procedure in 2025 was 147 days. Based on OPU’s experience, the average duration of the first instance proceedings varies significantly depending on the complexity of the individual case. The shortest proceedings in 2025 lasted no more than one month (since the lodging of the application), in cases where the MoI classified the application as manifestly unfounded or if the applicant submits a subsequent application without presenting new facts. There are also cases in which the proceedings exceed the maximum statutory time limits. In particular, in more complex cases, requiring multiple interviews and a thorough assessment of the evidence submitted, the duration of the proceedings may commonly exceed one year. The longest proceedings in 2025 lasted even more than two years.

By 31 December 2025, there were 627 pending asylum applications before the MoI.^[8]

The decision-making at first instance is rather consistent throughout the territory of the Czech Republic, as the decision-making is centralised (meaning the MoI is the only authority responsible for decision-making). Some differences exist only on the court level of the proceedings. There might, however, be some discrepancies as regards the thoroughness of the reasoning of the decision, depending on which particular decision-maker wrote the decision.

Prioritised examination and fast-track processing

Officially, Czech law does not expressly regulate so-called priority processing of applications for international protection within ordinary (non-accelerated) proceedings. The Asylum Act distinguishes between ordinary proceedings and shortened proceedings (accelerated procedure). However, the legislation does not explicitly provide for a priority order of examination (e.g. for vulnerable persons or clearly well-founded applications).

Personal interview

With few exceptions, the MoI must conduct an interview with the applicant for international protection. A written record of the interview is made, including the questions asked by the MoI and the applicant’s answers. Upon request, an audio recording of the interview can be made, and the Ministry may also decide to record it on its own initiative.^[9]

An interview is not required in the following cases (unless it is needed to fully establish the facts of the case):

1. a decision granting asylum can be taken;
2. the application is a subsequent (repeated) one (in this case, the applicant can explain the reasons in writing or another suitable way);
3. the applicant is a minor, except for unaccompanied minors; or
4. the applicant is an EU citizen.^[10]

An interview is also not conducted if the applicant cannot participate, for example due to health reasons. In such cases, the applicant may provide the reasons for their application in writing or by another appropriate method.^[11]

Until the time of writing of this report, interviews have never been conducted through video conferencing. However, the latest amendment of the Asylum Act provides for this possibility.^[12] Through videoconferencing equipment, the presence of an interpreter may also be ensured. The law permits the participation of an interpreter via videoconferencing both where the interview is conducted remotely and where only the interpreter participates remotely, while the interview itself is conducted in person.^[13] Prior to the commencement of the interview, the applicant must be informed of the manner in which it will be conducted and may raise objections concerning the quality of the transmission; if such an objection is justified and cannot be remedied, the interview must be interrupted. The applicant’s explicit consent of the interview via videoconferencing is not required by law; it is sufficient that the applicant does not raise any objection to the conduct of the interview via videoconferencing. However, the applicant’s rights must be fully respected, and the interview must be conducted in a manner that guarantees confidentiality, comprehensibility, and the possibility of effective communication.

An asylum seeker may request the interviewer and the interpreter to be of a specific gender. The MoI, however, will allow this only in exceptional circumstances. In particular, pursuant to Section 23(5) of the Asylum Act: ‘For reasons worthy of special consideration or at the explicit request of an applicant for international protection, the Ministry shall ensure that the interview is conducted, and, where possible, that interpretation is provided, by a person of the same or the opposite gender; this shall not apply if the Ministry reasonably believes that the application is based on facts unrelated to any difficulties the applicant may have in presenting the reasons for the application for international protection.’ In practice, however, this option is not provided automatically. Particularly where the applicant states that they would not feel safe or would have difficulty testifying openly in the presence of a person of the opposite gender (for example, in cases involving sexual or gender-based violence), the MoI seeks to accommodate the request, subject to its personnel capacities (such as the availability of an official or an interpreter of the requested gender).

The interviews are typically conducted individually, meaning that each applicant is interviewed separately so that they can freely and confidentially present the reasons for their application. Each adult family member (e.g., husband and wife) undergoes their own individual interview.

Children are usually not present during the parents’ interview, unless necessary (for example, in the case of very young children who cannot be left unsupervised), and rarely have their own interviews. When it comes to the final decision, children are included in the decision regarding one of their parents. Unaccompanied minors, however, always have their own individual interview and are represented by a guardian. Given the very low number of unaccompanied children seeking international protection in Czechia (only 3 in 2024 and none in 2025) OPU do not suppose staff is specifically trained to conduct interviews with children.

OPU is not aware of any existing training or guideline for interviewers (and interpreters) on how to detect vulnerabilities. Regarding interpreters, the MoI has a contract with a translation agency that provides specific interpreters for individual proceedings (such as interviews or the delivery of decisions), but there is no specific requirement for them to undergo training on how to conduct asylum interviews or to identify vulnerable applicants.

Interpretation

The presence of an interpreter during the personal interview is explicitly required by law. In particular, under Czech law, applicants for international protection have the right to conduct proceedings in their mother tongue or in a language in which they can communicate.^[14] The MoI is obliged to provide an interpreter free of charge for all procedural acts for which the applicant has been summoned or requested, while applicants may also bring their own interpreter at their own expense.^[15]

In practice, interpreters are generally available for personal interviews, allowing applicants to communicate in their own language. However, the quality of interpretation varies.

The most common languages spoken by applicants — such as Arabic, Russian, Ukrainian, Kurdish, English, and Spanish — are covered. However, for less common languages (e.g., Tigrinya, Somali, Amharic, certain West African languages, or minority languages from Afghanistan and Pakistan), arranging interpretation can be difficult or time-consuming, sometimes requiring interpretation via a mediating language (e.g., English), which may affect translation quality.

The quality and expertise of interpreters is not always consistent, as not all interpreters have specialized training in asylum procedures or working with vulnerable persons. In practice, there have been cases where applicants reported discrepancies between what they actually said during the interview and the official transcript, indicating potential errors or an incomplete interpretation. Applicants have sometimes also questioned the impartiality of interpreters, claiming misinterpretation or inappropriate guidance.

The conditions for performing interpreting activities before public authorities are governed by Act No. 354/2019 Coll., on Court Interpreters and Translators. Interpreting activities may only be performed by interpreters registered in the list of interpreters and translators. Persons not registered in this list may be appointed as interpreters in proceedings before public authorities only exceptionally, if:

1. no interpreter is registered for the relevant language;
2. no interpreter registered in the list of interpreters and translators is able to perform the interpreting task; or
3. performing the interpreting task with a registered interpreter would involve disproportionate costs or difficulties.

It follows that, before the MoI appoints as an interpreter a person not registered in the list, it is obliged to examine whether the conditions for such an appointment under one of the reasons mentioned above are met. The MoI does not always comply with this obligation, and appoints as interpreters persons that are not certified, without providing valid reasons. This is due to the fact that, as mentioned above, interpreters for personal interviews are chosen by the contracted agency and not the MoI itself. This might be a problem as only those interpreters who are officially registered are bound by a Code of Conduct and by other obligations stipulated in the Act on Court Interpreters and Translators.

An asylum seeker may legally request that the interview be conducted and interpreted by a person of a specific gender. This possibility is explicitly provided for in Section 23(5) of the Asylum Act (see above). In practice, this option is formally available, but its implementation is limited. The Ministry generally grants such requests in cases, for example, of sexual violence or persecution based on gender. However, the availability of interpreters or staff of the requested gender always plays a decisive role. In some cases, asylum seekers are not aware of this option due to insufficient information about their rights, so the provision of Section 23(5) is used relatively rarely.

Recording and report

Under Czech law, audio recording of the personal interview is possible but not mandatory. The MoI must make an audio recording of the interview at the request of the applicant, or can do so on its own initiative.^[16] Consent of the asylum seeker is not legally required for the Ministry to make a recording, but the recording can only be made if procedural rights are fully respected.

The audio recording serves as part of the case file and functions equally to the written protocol. In appeal proceedings, it can be used to verify the accuracy of the MoI’s decision, particularly to check whether the protocol or assessment faithfully reflects what the applicant stated during the interview.

In practice, however, audio recordings are rarely used. Applicants are often unaware of their right to request a recording or do not fully understand its significance. They are generally not informed of this option before the interview, and MoI staff seldom make recordings on their own initiative, which contributes to their low practical utilization in both first-instance and appeal proceedings.

A verbatim transcript of the personal interview is always drafted, recording the questions asked by the MoI and the applicant’s answers, rather than merely summarizing the main points.^[17] After the interview, the applicant has the opportunity to review the transcript and may add or correct answers if they believe their statements were not accurately or fully recorded. Any comments or corrections can be incorporated at the end of the protocol immediately following the interview.

In practice, however, problems with the quality of the transcript are reported, particularly when the interview is conducted through an interpreter. Common issues include incorrect translation or distortion of the applicant’s statements, sometimes due to inattention or insufficient language proficiency of the interpreter. Applicants may not always notice these inaccuracies or may trust the officials and fail to thoroughly review the transcript. Errors often only come to light after the MoI’s decision is issued, at which point correcting them becomes more difficult.

Appeal

The average processing time varies depending on the complexity of the case and on the particular court and particular judge. The minimum duration is 1–3 months, up to 1 year or more.

First appeal

The law provides for an appeal mechanism against the decision of the MoI. According to Section 32 of the Asylum Act, an appeal may be lodged with the regional court of the applicant’s place of residence at the time of issuing the decision.

According to Section 32, the review of the MoI’s decision on international protection is a judicial review, not an administrative remedy.

The court not only assesses points of law, but may also review the facts of the case (i.e., verifying whether the MoI properly determined and evaluated the facts relevant to the application for international protection). Therefore, the regional court conducts a full judicial review, encompassing both legal questions and the factual circumstances of the case.^[18] The court itself, however, cannot grant international protection, because it is the Ministry’s responsibility.^[19] It can only annul the decision of the MoI and refer the case back for a new assessment.^[20]

The time limit for filing the appeal against a decision of the MoI depends on the type of decision. In particular:

1. 15 days from the delivery of the decision in cases of

(a) a rejection of the application as manifestly unfounded,

(b) decisions on termination of proceedings, or

(c) if the applicant is detained.

1. 1 month from the delivery of the decision in all other cases not falling under the categories above.
2. 2 months if the decision does not include correct or complete information on the available remedy.

The Asylum Act stipulates the cases in which an appeal has suspensive effect and when it does not.^[21]

Where the appeal does not have an automatic suspensive effect, the applicant may still request the court to grant it under the Administrative Justice Code,^[22] but only within the time limit for filing the appeal (see above). The court then has 30 days to decide whether the suspensive effect will be granted or not. It is not possible for the court to grant suspensive effect ex officio.

Under Section 32(2), the general rule is that the filing of an action has suspensive effect unless it falls within an expressly stated exception. Accordingly, the automatic suspensive effect applies in particular to an action against:

1. negative asylum decisions adopted in a regular (not accelerated) procedure (i.e., the decision stating that neither refugee status nor subsidiary protection is being granted).
2. decision to discontinue proceedings because of the inadmissibility of the application if the applicant comes from a safe third country (this being the only case in which a procedural decision to discontinue proceedings has an automatic suspensive effect);
3. some of the decisions rejecting an application as manifestly unfounded, in particular, if the ground for the decision is that the applicant:
4. states only economic reasons,
5. applies for international protection solely in order to escape a situation of general hardship,
6. presents facts that are manifestly not credible, or
7. submitted an application for international protection solely with the aim of avoiding or delaying imminent expulsion, extradition, or surrender under a European Arrest Warrant for criminal prosecution or for the enforcement of a custodial sentence abroad, although they could have applied for international protection earlier.

On the contrary, an automatic suspensive effect does not apply to actions against the following decisions:

1. Decisions rejecting an application as manifestly unfounded for one of the following reasons:

1. An applicant provides false information regarding their identity or nationality, or refuses to provide such information without serious reason,
2. With the intention of obstructing the proper establishment of the facts of the case, an applicant destroys, damages, or conceals their travel document or another important document, or for the same purpose submits a forged or altered travel document or other important document,
3. An applicant refuses to comply with the obligation to undergo fingerprinting,
4. An applicant comes from a safe country of origin, or
5. An applicant holds more than one nationality and has not sought protection from one of the countries of which he or she is a national.

1. A decision granting asylum.
2. A decision granting subsidiary protection.
3. A decision extending subsidiary protection.
4. A decision to discontinue proceedings (with the one exception mentioned above).

The Asylum Act does not set a fixed time limit within which the court must decide on the appeal. Court proceedings are governed by the Administrative Justice Code, according to which the actions in the matter of international protection should be decided with priority.^[23] In some cases the court needs to adopt a decision within 60 days from the filing of the action. These cases include:

• Dublin cases;^[24]
• If an applicant is detained;^[25]
• If an applicant is subject to a deportation order or extradition proceedings;^[26] or
• If an applicant is not permitted to enter the territory.^[27]

According to the practice observed by OPU, the duration of the judicial proceedings varies depending on the complexity of the case and the workload of the particular court and judge. In cases where the application for international protection is manifestly unfounded, a judgment may be issued within a few weeks. In more complex cases, which require extensive evidence gathering, translation of documents from foreign languages, court proceedings may take several months, exceptionally even more than a year. In practice, certain differences can be observed between individual regions, particularly with regard to the length of proceedings and, to some extent, quality of the decision-making practice. Traditionally, the Municipal Court in Prague (which is one of regional courts) and the Regional Court in Brno are more heavily burdened than courts in other parts of the country, which may result in longer proceedings. The regional court in whose district the applicant for international protection was registered for residence on the date of the decision has jurisdiction in the case.

Administrative justice is exercised at first instance by the regional courts.^[28] In proceedings concerning a lawsuit in the matter of international protection, the court with local jurisdiction is the regional court in whose district the applicant for international protection was registered for residence on the date the decision was issued.^[29] For the Capital City of Prague, this court is the Prague Municipal Court.^[30]

In practice, asylum seekers may face obstacles when filing an appeal against a decision of the MoI. Given the complexity of judicial proceedings, relatively short time limits for the appeal, lack of resources and language barriers, asylum seekers are usually not able to appeal without proper legal assistance. NGOs and lawyers providing free legal aid play a crucial role in this context, as they assist applicants in drafting and submitting the appeal to the court and, if necessary, represent them in the proceedings.^[31],[32] Without such support, the majority of asylum seekers would be unable to effectively exercise their right to judicial review.

The court may decide on the merits of the case without a hearing if the case can be decided only on the basis of documentary evidence on which the parties have had the opportunity to comment or which is known to them, and the parties have unanimously proposed or consented to this. Consent shall also be deemed to have been granted if the party does not express its disagreement with such a hearing of the case within two weeks of the receipt of the summons from the chairman of the panel; he must be informed of this in the summons.^[33] An asylum seeker may be heard during the judicial review of a decision of the MoI only if they request to do so. This request can be made only in Czech language. In practice, however, courts often decide based on written materials (i.e., the administrative file, the appeal, and the Ministry’s response), and a personal hearing of the applicant occurs only exceptionally, upon their request.

As of 2023 the law allows that the presence of the applicant at court hearings may be ensured also via videoconference.^[34] However, the use of videoconferencing must not restrict the rights of participants in the proceedings. In particular, the asylum seeker must have the possibility to communicate with their legal representative, who may be present either at the court or at the location where the applicant is situated. In practice, videoconferencing is rarely used for hearings as not all of the courts have sufficient technical equipment.

Hearings of the court are generally public. However, the law allows for the exclusion of the public, either partially or entirely, for reasons such as the protection of classified information, public morality, or public order.^[35] The applicant can also request the court for the exclusion of the public. If the public is excluded, an applicant may request that two trusted representatives be allowed to attend. The court permits their attendance provided that it does not undermine the purpose of excluding the public, and will instruct them on the obligation of confidentiality and the consequences of its breach. In cases involving classified information, the representatives must provide the court with certification for the appropriate level of confidentiality.^[36] The presiding judge also has the authority to expel anyone from the courtroom who disrupts the order or the dignified conduct of the proceedings.^[37]

Unlike judgements of civil or criminal courts, judgements of administrative courts (Regional courts or Municipal Court in Prague) are being regularly published in full, with personal data being anonymized. Publication takes place in the Decisions Database of the Supreme Administrative Court.^[38]

Decision-making at the second instance (i.e., the judicial review of international protection decisions by regional courts) should theoretically be uniform, as all courts apply the same legal framework and are bound by the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). In practice, however, some differences, as regards the quality of the decision-making, may occur between individual courts and even between individual judges of the same court. Within some courts^[39] (Regional Court in Brno, Regional Court in Ostrava and, until recently, also the Municipal Court in Prague), cases concerning international protection are decided by specialised single judges who focus primarily on asylum and migration matters (and, apart from these cases, they usually deal only with social security issues and minor administrative offences). As a result, these judges have greater experience and expertise in adjudicating asylum claims. At other courts, however, asylum cases are decided by judges who handle a wide range of other areas of administrative law, such as tax law, construction law, environmental law, or public procurement. In practice, these judges may have limited opportunity to develop expertise in asylum law, and the quality of their decisions in asylum cases might therefore often be lower. As such, judicial decision-making practice may differ slightly between regions on certain issues. However, where inconsistencies in the outcome of case law arise, their harmonisation falls within the competence of the SAC.

Onward appeal

Further appeals against the decision of the regional courts are provided under Czech law through a cassation complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court.^[40] A cassation complaint needs to be filed within two weeks after receiving the judgement of the regional court.^[41]

The filing of a cassation complaint has automatic suspensive effect in those cases where the filling of an action had one. There is an exception, however, namely: if the applicant is in a detention facility for foreigners or is not permitted entry to the territory. In these cases, a cassation complaint lacks automatic suspensive effect even if the action had it. However, but the applicant may request the court to grant suspensive effect separately within the time limit for filing the cassation complaint.^[42]

The court cannot grant the suspensive effect ex officio.

The cassation complaint is not admissible in case of further subsequent applications for international protection (meaning the third and next applications) or if the applicant withdrew the asylum application and the proceedings were, thus, terminated.

Legal assistance

Legal assistance and representation at first instance (administrative procedure)

In the Czech Republic, asylum seekers have the right to free legal assistance from the moment they make their application for international protection.^[43] However, the law does not guarantee them a right to free legal representation in the first instance administrative procedure. The law is very vague and does not specify what exactly should the right to legal assistance cover in practice. The rules for free legal assistance do not differ depending on the type of procedure (regular, accelerated, Dublin, etc.). This means that, in practice, all asylum seekers can benefit from the same extent of legal assistance, regardless of the outcome of their application.

Until April 2026 free legal assistance was provided by two main entities: (a) NGOs (OPU and SIMI), and (b) a private law firm. Access is not restricted based on the applicant’s financial circumstances or the potential success of their application. However, asylum seekers with sufficient financial resources may also hire a lawyer of their choice for legal assistance.

Legal assistance provided by the private law firm is funded from the State budget, based on the results of a public procurement process. The activities of the NGOs are partially funded by UNHCR and the MoI (distributing EU AMIF funds). The UNHCR program has faced significant budgetary cuts following the U.S. elections in 2024. This has not so far had any major impact on the provision of free legal aid as NGOs could still rely on AMIF funding.

The (free) legal assistance provided by NGOs or the selected law firm mainly includes advice on procedural rights and obligations, consultations regarding issues related to the individual circumstances of the case, or help with drafting an appeal against a negative decision. Lawyers from NGOs as well as selected attorneys may also, within the limits of their current funding, provide representation (e.g., at the interview, when accessing the file, or during the familiarisation with the case file before the decision is issued) to applicants they themselves consider suitable or necessary. This option is used primarily by NGO lawyers providing legal assistance. Staff of the contracted law firm, on the other hand, limit their activities to counselling and assistance with drafting remedies.

As noted above, while the law guarantees asylum seekers access to free legal assistance already at the first instance of the regular international protection procedure, applicants do not have a right to free legal representation in the first instance administrative procedure. However, as noted above, lawyers from NGOs and selected attorneys may also, within the limits of their current funding, provide legal representation at first instance to applicants they consider suitable or necessary. Moreover, an applicant may choose to hire a legal representative whom they arrange and pay for themselves.

Lawyers from NGOs and the contracted law firm have access to all asylum facilities, where they are available on a regular basis (once a week). In addition, they are available in their offices located in larger cities (Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Plzeň, Hradec Králové).

All in all, in practice, access to free legal assistance for asylum seekers in Czechia was generally available in 2025 and there were no major obstacles. However, as of April 2026, there have been significant changes in funding of the legal aid. The AMIF-funded project ended in March 2026, and the MoI decided not to continue with a new one, even though the new AMIF project for legal aid to asylum seekers was originally listed in the upcoming calls for 2025. At the beginning of March 2026, the MoI informed the representatives of the NGOs that they do not intend to continue with AMIF funding and instead, legal aid will solely be provided by the private law firm selected in a public tender. There was no further explanation regarding this decision. After the end of the AMIF project, access of NGOs to asylum facilities was restricted, despite the fact that OPU still has funding by UNHCR available to continue with the provision of free legal aid.

Legal assistance and representation at the appeal stage

Funding for the current system of the general free legal aid for all applicants only covers mainly the first instance (administrative) procedure and assistance with drafting an appeal against a negative decision. Further representation of an asylum seeker during the court proceedings is not covered. At this stage, asylum seekers may access free legal representation (through appointed legal representatives) under the same conditions as Czech citizens, which means that they need to prove that they do not have sufficient means to cover these costs themselves. As there is rarely an oral hearing (see above), the representation by a lawyer during the appeal is not always necessary. Drafting a well-reasoned appeal is the most essential part of the appeal procedure. Thus, in many cases, asylum seekers represent themselves. Representation by an attorney is not mandatory before regional courts, but it is mandatory before the SAC.^[44] If the regional court appoints a representative for an asylum seeker, this representation also covers the proceeding before the SAC. Otherwise, an asylum seeker must either find an attorney to represent them during the cassation proceeding or ask the SAC to appoint them a representative (after proving they do not have sufficient means). In contrast to proceedings before the regional court,[45] representation by an NGO is not permitted in proceedings before the SAC. National legislation does not explicitly provide for a ‘merits test’ at the appeal stage in the context of asylum cases.^[46] This means that free legal representation cannot be formally refused solely on the basis that the appeal is unlikely to succeed. In practice, NGOs and legal aid providers may still prioritize cases based on complexity or urgency, but there is no legal provision allowing denial of assistance purely because the appeal appears likely to be unsuccessful.

As mentioned above, the most important part of the appeal proceedings is the filing of an action with the regional court. The action must meet relatively strict formal and substantive requirements in order to be admissible, otherwise the court will dismiss it. This stage of the appeal proceedings is typically covered by lawyers from NGOs or by contracted attorneys who provide legal assistance already at the first-instance stage of the proceedings.

At the appeal stage of the procedure, these scenarios are the most common regarding free legal aid:

1. The applicant uses legal aid of the State-contracted law firm: First, the applicant goes to the State-contracted law firm and requests the preparation of the lawsuit to appeal the negative decision. They would prepare a short lawsuit, with some basic facts and points of law. As part of this lawsuit, they would ask the Court to appoint a legal representative. The applicant submits the lawsuit in their own name. Second, the applicant proves they do not have sufficient resources to cover the costs themselves. Third, if it is confirmed that the applicant does not have sufficient resources, the Court then appoints a different lawyer (from its own list) to take care of the applicant’s assistance and representation during the appeal process. The court can appoint any attorney from a list governed by the Chamber of attorneys, and there is no requirement that the lawyer must be specialized in asylum law.
2. The applicant uses legal aid from the NGOs: a lawyer from the NGO would prepare a detailed lawsuit and provide legal assistance (and in selected cases also representation) to the applicant throughout the appeal process before the regional court. In this case the applicant does not need to prove that they lack sufficient resources. The representation would not be provided automatically, as the applicant would represent themselves and the NGO lawyers would advise them on procedural steps. Only in some strong cases, the NGO lawyers would formally represent the applicant (currently this is possible because of UNHCR funding, as the AMIF funding does not cover it).

The main restriction that possibly may undermine access to effective legal assistance and representation at the appeal stage is the quality of legal representation when the court is appointing an attorney to represent an asylum seeker. Moreover, there is often a shortage of attorneys who are familiar with asylum law, which can make it difficult for asylum seekers to secure effective legal assistance and representation. This shortage is particularly pronounced in regions outside major cities, where the availability of legal assistance is more limited. Furthermore, there are also financial constraints. As an example, OPU lawyers are able to provide free legal assistance and representation in the appeal stage of the procedure only in selected cases thanks to UNHCR funding.

The amount of financial compensation for legal assistance providers (both at first and second instances) is generally not considered an obstacle towards the effective engagement in the provision of legal assistance and representation to asylum seekers. While the remuneration does not always fully reflect the time and complexity involved in asylum cases, free legal assistance and representation is, nonetheless, consistently provided by a combination of NGOs and State-contracted lawyers.

^[1] Section 27 of the Asylum Act.

^[2] Section 27(1)(a) of the Asylum Act.

^[3] Section 27(4) of the Asylum Act.

^[4] Section 27(6) of the Asylum Act.

^[5] Section 27(1)(b) of the Asylum Act.

^[6] Section 27(5) of the Asylum Act.

^[7] Regional Court in Brno, judgement No 41 Az 31/2020-72, 2 June 2021, available in Czech here.

^[8] Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. Department for Asylum and Migration Policy, Number of persons in the international protection proceedings at the beginning and at the end of the year 2025, available here.

^[9] Section 23(1) of the Asylum Act.

^[10] Section 23(2) of the Asylum Act.

^[11] Section 23(3) of the Asylum Act.

^[12] Section 23d of the Asylum Act.

^[13] Section 23d(6) of the Asylum Act.

^[14] Section 22(1) of the Asylum Act.

^[15] Sections 22(2) and 22(3) of the Asylum Act.

^[16] Section 23(1) of the Asylum Act.

^[17] Section 23(1) of the Asylum Act.

^[18] Section 75(1) of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[19] Section 8 of the Asylum Act.

^[20] Section 78(3,4) of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[21] Section 32 (2) of the Asylum Act.

^[22] Section 73 of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[23] Section 56(3) of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[24] Section 32(6) of the Asylum Act.

^[25] Section 32(6) of the Asylum Act.

^[26] Section 32(4) of the Asylum Act.

^[27] Section 32(7) of the Asylum Act.

^[28] Section 3(1) of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[29] Section 32(3) of the Asylum Act.

^[30] Section 9(1) of Act No. 6/2002 Coll., on Courts, Judges, Lay Judges, and the Administration of Courts, and on Amendments to Certain Other Acts (the Courts and Judges Act).

^[31] Section 33a of the Asylum Act.

^[32] Section 35(10) of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[33] Section 51(1) of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[34] Section 33a of the Asylum Act.

^[35] Section 49(2) of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[36] Czech law (Act No. 412/2005 Coll.) recognizes four different levels of confidentiality of classified information, depending on the extend of harm to national interest that could be caused by their disclosure (these levels are: reserved, confidential, secret, top secret). In order to access the classified information of a particular level, one must hold a certificate for the particular or higher level of confidentiality (e.g., if a person wants to access the information classified as secret (third level), they must hold a certificate for access to secret or top secret information).  

^[37] Section 49 (2) of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[38] Available here.

^[39] Whether all judges of a given regional court hear all types of cases, or whether specialized single-judge panels are instead established that adjudicate exclusively or primarily matters assigned to single judges under the Administrative Justice Code, depends on the court’s schedule of work, which is drawn up by the president of each regional court.

^[40] Section 102 of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[41] Section 106(2) of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[42] Section 32(5) of the Asylum Act.

^[43] Section 21 of the Asylum Act.

^[44] Section 5(2) of the Administrative Justice Code. 

[45] Section 35(5) of the Administrative Justice Code.

^[46] Section 35(10) of the Administrative Justice Code.