Author
Detainees have the right to receive visits from an attorney at law or a legal counsel from an NGO.[1] Further rules on the visits are specified in the internal regulations.[2] According to the visiting regulations, NGOs providing legal counselling or other services (i.e. social or religious services) have to request an entry permit through the website of the RFA.[3] Attorneys at law do not have to request such a permit, provided they present a power of attorney to represent a concrete detainee.[4] In the same way, a NGO providing legal counselling does not have to request an entry permit provided they can present a power of attorney to represent a concrete detainee.[5] Visits may take place at any time in the room designated for this purpose, except during the night time or if the operational reasons of the facility prevent it (e.g., capacity of the room designated for legal advice, meal times, etc.).[6]
Additionally, a representative of an international or non-governmental organisation protecting the rights of persons deprived of their liberty is entitled to conduct a monitoring visit. They have to submit a written request to the RFA at least 3 working days in advance and, in doing so, they are obliged to follow the instructions of the RFA. These requests are normally accepted. The RFA is entitled not to allow the monitoring visit in case of a threat to the proper functioning and security of the facility.[7]
Additionally, the law guarantees access to the Ombudsperson who is entitled to carry out systematic visits to places where persons deprived of their liberty by public authority are or may be found, with the aim of protecting them from torture, cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment and other ill-treatment.[8] The Ombudsperson is entitled to visit the detention facility without prior notice, as part of a so-called unannounced visit.[9] Following the visit to the detention facility, the Ombudsperson draws up a report on its findings, which may also include recommendations or proposals for improvement with different degrees of urgency.[10] These reports are available in the Ombudsperson’s Register of Opinions (ESO, https://www.ochrance.cz/eso/).
In 2024, representatives of the Ombudsperson visited the detention facility in Bělá Jezová. The goal was to verify the conditions for families with children and unaccompanied minors. In the final report,[11] the Ombudsperson stated that no ill-treatment was occurring at the facility and staff treated detainees with respect. However, despite this generally positive assessment, the report also identified several shortcomings that reduce the quality of care provided to vulnerable groups.
- Regarding material conditions, the prison-like character of the environment was criticized, which consisted of internal fencing over two meters high and razor wire that was visible directly from the windows of family rooms.
- Another criticized point was the metal stops on windows that allowed them to be opened only about 10cm, preventing sufficient ventilation. In the area of contact with the outside world, the Ombudsperson highlighted limited possibilities for internet calls and the fact that accommodated children did not receive their own phone cards, making them dependent on their parents’ credit. Furthermore, there was a lack of privacy at payphones in the hallways, and information about stay rules was not provided to children in a child-friendly format, such as via pictograms.
Reactions from the responsible authorities to the proposed corrective measures were mixed. The RFA proceeded to remove metal stops from most windows and introduced a pilot regime of free internet access in Bělá-Jezová, which now allows calls via apps like Instagram or Skype. The RFA also began issuing phone cards to children upon individual request and now offers outings outside the complex to all children, regardless of age. However, it strictly refused to remove the razor wire and internal fencing, considering them necessary for security and efficient operation. The Ombudsperson expressed disagreement with the retention of these security features.
In response to the report, the Immigration Police sent the Ombudsperson a methodology for the age assessment of foreigners. It was in this area that the Ombudsperson found serious procedural shortcomings, where unaccompanied minors were labelled as adults after X-ray exams and immediately moved to facilities for adult men without being able to comment on the result or defend themselves. One such foreigner was even found to be a minor again after spending two months among adults and was placed in the care of child protection services. Regarding the creation of a methodology for personal searches of children and their escorts, the immigration police forwarded this task to the Directorate of the Uniformed Police, and the result is still pending. The police also refused to prepare child-friendly information materials themselves, stating it is a task for the RFA.
The law does not foresee any specific rules on access to individuals placed in alternatives to detention.
In practice, NGOs may struggle to obtain entry permits if their counselling is not funded through a project approved by the MoI. This has to do with changes in the funding structure for free legal aid to asylum seekers and detainees implemented since 2022.
Prior to this date, this counselling was provided by NGOs and was covered through funding from the EU AMIF fund which the MoI was redistributing nationally. This funding scheme was set to expire by 2022, with the grant covering legal aid to asylum seekers expiring by the end of April and another grant covering legal aid to detainees coming to a close by October 2022. Thereafter, the MoI decided to fund these activities from the national budget, citing the delayed AMIF Regulation for the 2021-2027 programming period as the key reason. Consequently, the MoI published a call for proposals for service providers in March 2022, with NGOs explicitly excluded from responding to the call and only attorney offices allowed to apply. Following the call, the MoI selected a law firm as the service provider for the period following April 2022 (for asylum seekers), respectively October 2022 (for persons in detention). That despite the fact that this law firm did not have any experience in foreigners’ and asylum law so far and had a somewhat dubious reputation from the past. Several newspapers reported about the change pointing out that the new system will be more expensive and is likely to be of lesser quality. In 2023, the Ombudsperson also conducted an inquiry into the overall system for legal aid for detainees as well as the quality of legal aid provided by the attorneys after 2022. In its report, the Ombudsperson noted, among others, the following shortcomings:[12]
- Insufficient independence of the MoI as the administrator of the legal aid system. The system should be administered by an administrative authority which does not at the same time decide on asylum applications or the detention of asylum applicants.
- No consideration as to the knowledge of asylum and immigration law when selecting the legal aid provider, as well as a lack of training of the legal aid provider by independent experts.
- Limitation of legal aid only to the administrative procedure. This results in the need to request a new attorney to be assigned by the court in court proceedings and leads to a lack of continuation in the counselling provision.
- Time allocated to each consultation was usually between 10-15 minutes, including interpretation, since the funding covers only visits of about 2-3 hours.
- Important reduction in lawsuits and cassation complaints against immigration detention. Whereas in 2018, the detainees supported by NGOs submitted 170 cassation complaints to the SAC, in 2023 only 17 such complaints were submitted with the help of the attorney.
- Overall reduction of detainees’ satisfaction with the quality of legal services from 2022 and lack of independent quality oversight.
- Shortfalls in funding legal aid that have affected its availability.
Moreover, even in cases where NGOs have been successful in ensuring additional funding, in particular from private donors, the authorities created additional bureaucratic obstacles to access the detention facilities. The long-term entry permit was denied based on the fact that the funding does not come from the MoI. Accordingly, OPU could only visit detainees who expressly requested a visit by OPU or who OPU was already representing on the basis of a power of representation. On some occasions, these visits would take place only in the visitors’ room where no computer, printers or other equipment are available, and while such a room did not provide for a safe private space suitable for counseling vulnerable and traumatized persons. In 2023, the Government Council on Human Rights and its Committee on the Rights of Foreigners adopted a motion requesting the authorities to grant NGOs access to the detention facilities on the basis of a long-term permit and independently from whether or not they receive funding for its activities from the MoI.[13] The practice of connecting access to detention facilities with the question of funding was also criticised by the Ombudsperson.[14]
Based on the observance of OPU, by the end of 2023, the funding structure for legal counselling changed again and the MoI reopened the calls for the provision of legal assistance to NGOs, when the budget for the new AMIF programming period was approved. From March 2024 to September 2025, the counselling was thus provided in parallel by the attorney at law and NGOs. In October 2025, there was a three week gap in the provision of legal counselling in the detention facilities and at the Václav Havel airport due to administrative delays in approving the financing for a new contractual period.
In short, while the law does guarantee entry into the detention facilities, NGOs may face difficulties in accessing them in situations where they do not receive funding for the provision of legal counselling from the government, as the government connects the questions of funding with the question of access to these facilities.
As noted above, only NGOs who have a contract on the provision of legal services with MoI have regular access to detention facilities. Between January and September 2025, the Consortium of Migrant Assisting Organizations in Czechia had such a contract with the MoI. On that basis, OPU was regularly present in Bělá-Jezová, Bálková and Vyšní Lhoty each week. SIMI was present at Václav Havel airport upon request. In October 2025, there was a three weeks gap in the provision of legal counselling in the detention facilities and at the airport due to administrative delays in approving the financing for a new contractual period. As of November 2025, NGOs continue to have access to all of the detention facilities.
UNHCR visits the detention centres on an ad hoc basis. Legal counselling is provided by UNHCR’s partners (OPU). However, currently the UNHCR does not cover legal counselling in detention facilities – the project only covers legal counselling in reception and accommodation facilities for asylum-seekers. The visits conducted by UNHCR have solely monitoring purposes, so it does not provide any services to detainees. Reports are not publicly available.
The law guarantees the detainee the right to receive visitors.[15] The detainee has the right to receive visitors four times a week for one hour at a time, with a maximum of four people present at any one time. In justified cases, the head of the facility or his or her representative, in agreement with the police, may allow more frequent visits or longer visiting times and, if the capacity of the rooms designated for visits allows, the number of persons may also be increased.[16]
Further rules on the visits are specified in the internal regulations (Návštěvní řád Zařízení pro zajištění cizinců Správy uprchlických zařízení MV).[17] These specify that visits may take place every day between 9:00 and 20:00, except when meals are served or unless particularly serious operational reasons prevent it.[18]
The visit takes place in the visiting room. The RFA is entitled to monitor the course of the visit visually. Normal social contacts (handshake, hug, kiss) are allowed during the visit. The visit of a foreigner placed in a strict detention regime takes place in the presence of the Police of the Czech Republic.[19]
Mobile phones are taken away by the Immigration Police during the intake inspection. The detainees are entitled to make an initial call in the duration of three minutes during their intake. They are allowed to write down phone numbers from their mobile phones. In some cases, mobile phones can be provided to the detainees for a limited amount of time upon request (i.e., in case they need to contact their lawyer, forward them documents, etc.).
There are public phones and phone cards (or codes) available in the detention centres. These can be used to contact either family members or legal representatives. However, some facilities struggle with stable phone and internet connection due to their remote location. Typically, the cards also only suffice for brief calls to very remote locations such as Afghanistan or Syria. In Bělá-Jezová, once the credits expire, the detainees are provided with extra credit if they need to contact their legal representatives. It is not clear to what extent this practice followed in Bálková or Vyšní Lhoty.
Politicians do have access to detention centres. OPU is not aware of the media trying to gain access to detention centres in the past years.
[1] Section 144(3) of the Immigration Act.
[2] Návštěvní řád Zařízení pro zajištění cizinců Správy uprchlických zařízení MV [Visiting Regulations of the Refugee Facilities Administration], Příloha č. 1 pokynu Ř č. 17/2024, available here.
[3] Article 5(1) of the Visiting Regulations.
[4] Article 6(1) of the Visiting Regulations.
[5] Article 6(1) of the Visiting Regulations.
[6] Article 6(2) of the Visiting Regulations.
[7] Section 149(2) of the Immigration Act.
[8] Section 1a(1)(c), section 1b(2)(b) of the Act No. 349/1999 Coll. Act on the Public Defender of Rights and the Defender of Children’s Rights (Ombudsperson Law).
[9] Section 15 of the Ombudsperson Law.
[10] Section 21c(3) of the Ombudsperson Law.
[11] Public Defender of Rights, Report from visit to the facility No 2/2024/NZ/AM, 22 July 2024, available here.
[12] Public Defender of Rights, Access to free legal aid for foreigners deprived of their liberty, report No KVOP-28177/2025, 16 July 2025, available in Czech here.
[13] Motion of the Committee for the Rights of Foreigners of the Government Council for Human Rights dated 20 February 2023 to enable the provision of legal counselling in facilities for the detention of foreigners by non-governmental organizations; available here.
[14] Public Defender of Rights, Access to free legal aid for foreigners deprived of their liberty, report No KVOP-28177/2025, 16 July 2025, available in Czech here.
[15] Section 134(1)(c) of the Immigration Act.
[16] Section 144(1) of the Immigration Act.
[17] Návštěvní řád Zařízení pro zajištění cizinců Správy uprchlických zařízení MV [Visiting Regulations of the Refugee Facilities Administration], Příloha č. 1 pokynu Ř č. 17/2024, available here.
[18] Article 4(3) of the Visitation Regulation.
[19] Article 4(2) of the Visitation Regulation.