Author
The Czech Asylum Act provides a specific procedure for subsequent applications (also called repeated or further repeated applications). They are defined as follows: a subsequent application for international protection is any new application lodged by the same person either before the previous decision of the Ministry becomes final or after it has become final.[1] A further subsequent application for international protection is the third and any subsequent application lodged by the same person, provided that:
- any earlier application was rejected (either because protection was not granted or the claim was dismissed as manifestly unfounded);
- the second application resulted in a decision whereby protection was not granted or was withdrawn due to exclusion grounds;[2] or
- the procedure on the second application was discontinued because the applicant was an EU citizen not meeting the EU-law conditions,[3] or the repeated application was found inadmissible.[4]
If a foreign national submits a subsequent application for international protection, the MoI must first assess whether the application is admissible. It checks whether the applicant has presented, or there are, new facts or findings that (a) were not examined before in the previous final decision, and this was not the applicant’s fault, and (b) indicate that the applicant might face persecution, or risk serious harm upon return.
If the subsequent application is not found inadmissible, the MoI proceeds to decide whether to grant or refuse international protection, unless another procedure is justified (this can be, for example, the discontinuation of the proceeding for procedural reasons). If, on the other hand, the subsequent application is found inadmissible, the procedure will be discontinued.
There is no specific time limit within which the MoI must decide on a subsequent application if it intends to consider it inadmissible. Whether the application was assessed as inadmissible or not is usually only communicated to the applicant in the final decision on that application for international protection. In the case of subsequent applications for international protection, there is usually no interview, unless it is found necessary ex officio (while, in theory, an applicant can request an interview, the MoI does not have to agree to it). Instead, applicants are always given the opportunity to state the reasons for submitting the subsequent application in writing.
During the first-instance procedure on a subsequent application, the applicant is entitled to remain in the territory until the MoI’s first-instance decision becomes final. This means that the removal order is suspended during the examination of a subsequent application. There is no limitation regarding access to legal aid for applicants who filed subsequent applications (i.e., the same rules as during the examination of a first application apply).
The main procedural difference between the first and a subsequent application concerns the appeal stage. If a subsequent application is declared inadmissible and the proceedings are discontinued, applicants have only 15 days to file a judicial action to the competent Regional Court against that decision, instead of the standard one-month time limit against the rejection of the first asylum application. At the same time, filing the action does not have an automatic suspensive effect. However, the applicant may request the court to grant it. The applicant’s ability to remain in the territory during the court proceedings therefore depends on whether the court grants the request for suspensive effect or not. The court has 30 days to decide about the suspensive effect. During this time, an individual is still formally considered to be an applicant for international protection with the corresponding right to remain in the territory. If the court rejects the request for suspensive effect, the applicant is given a departure order and must leave the territory. There is no possibility to submit a separate application for a national form of protection.
The scope of judicial review of an appeal against an inadmissibility decision regarding a subsequent application is limited solely to verifying whether the application was correctly assessed as inadmissible. The court does not examine whether the applicant meets the conditions for any form of international protection. It focuses only on whether new facts arose during the procedure that should have led the MoI to reassess the need for international protection on the merits. Otherwise, the judicial review, particularly regarding the applicant’s rights, does not differ from the review of a ‘standard’ decision refusing international protection. The applicant may request the court to appoint a lawyer if they can demonstrate insufficient financial means. The court must always hold an oral hearing if the applicant requests it.
If a further subsequent application (third, fourth, etc. application) is fil ed, the applicant is not legally entitled to remain in the territory of Czechia. It means that the filing of a further subsequent application will not prevent their removal. In this case, the OAMP will assess whether, based on the earlier case or the current situation, there is no reasonable indication that the applicant could face persecution, serious harm, or that they already meet the conditions for asylum or subsidiary protection (including for family reunification). If not, the OAMP will issue a decision on the discontinuation of the proceedings. The OAMP needs to issue the decision within 10 days from the date of the further subsequent application. It is possible to file an appeal (lawsuit) against the decision of the OAMP before the competent regional court. However, filing a lawsuit against this decision does not have any effect on the impossibility of the applicant to remain in the territory, but it is possible to ask the competent Regional Court to issue a preliminary injunction and order the authorities to tolerate the applicant’s stay during the court procedure. This possibility is, however, very rarely granted.
The OAMP may decide to treat a subsequent application and further subsequent application as admissible if there are some special reasons. However, it is not possible to tell how often this possibility is being used.
The main obstacle asylum seekers face in lodging subsequent applications is the strict interpretation of the requirement of new elements, especially regarding new statements/elements that the asylum seeker could have provided sooner. Authorities and courts often demand that a subsequent application is based on facts or evidence that are entirely new and clearly distinguishable from those examined in the initial procedure. At the same time, these new facts or evidence must be strong enough to clearly indicate possible risk of persecution or serious harm. In practice, this requirement is frequently applied in a highly formalistic manner, with limited consideration of the applicant’s individual circumstances. As a result, developments that represent a continuation, escalation, or better substantiation of previously raised claims are often dismissed on the ground that they do not constitute a genuinely ‘new element’. This approach is particularly problematic in cases where the applicant’s situation has evolved gradually, such as a progressive deterioration of the political or security situation in the country of origin, increased visibility of the applicant’s political activities, etc. Similarly, applicants may face serious difficulties in obtaining or producing new evidence, especially when such evidence depends on documents from authorities in the country of origin, testimony from witnesses who are unreachable, or proof of risks that are inherently difficult to document. Consequently, even claims that may indicate a real risk of persecution or serious harm can be rejected at a preliminary stage without a full substantive assessment.
In total, 260 subsequent applications were lodged in 2025. The main nationalities lodging subsequent applications in 2025 included the following: Uzbekistan (40), Vietnam (38), Ukraine (34), and Türkiye (26).[5] There are no statistics available showing how many of these subsequent applications were considered inadmissible and how many were processed in standard procedure.
[1] Section 2(1)(f) of the Asylum Act.
[2] Sections 15, 15(a), 17 and 17(a) of the Asylum Act.
[3] Section 25(i) of the Asylum Act read in conjunction with Section 10a(1)(a) or (e) of the Asylum Act
[4] Section 2(1)(g) of the Asylum Act.
[5] Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic, Department for Asylum and Migration Policy, Applications for international protection in 2025, available here.