Author
As mentioned in Identification, the Asylum Act does not include an exhaustive list of asylum applicants presumed to be in need of special procedural guarantees. Nevertheless, it does refer to age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, serious illness, mental disorders, and victims of torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence as possible factors which may indicate the need for special procedural guarantees.[1]
The Asylum Act establishes that, when such needs are identified, applicants must be provided the necessary support and conditions to exercise their rights and duties within the asylum procedure.[2] While the Asylum Act does not provide an exhaustive list of special procedural guarantees, it explicitly provides for the possibility to postpone the personal interview, to extend deadlines for presenting evidence, and to carry out interviews with the assistance of experts.[3]
According to the Asylum Act, victims of torture and/or serious violence in need of special procedural guarantees shall be exempted from the border procedure and from detention in the context of border procedures when the necessary support and conditions cannot be ensured within that context.[4]
While the implementation of certain special procedural guarantees will in practice depend on action from AIMA, according to the law, the responsibility for implementing these measures lies with the Institute of Social Security (ISS).[5]
In 2025, CPR observed cases of manifest inability or limited ability of applicants to exercise the rights and comply with the obligations stemming from the Asylum Act where no or insufficient special measures were adopted by the authorities (e.g. cases where there were clear signs of mental illness).[6] In a Dublin case involving compulsory hospitalisation, the Agency refused to suspend the time limit for exercising the right of appeal (see The discretionary clauses).
Adequate support during the interview
As mentioned in Identification, there is no specific unit in place with specially trained staff that can provide special procedural guarantees such as special interview techniques or tailored support during personal interviews. While some training was provided in 2025, this remains insufficient and has not been consistently applied across all staff. The Asylum Act provides for mandatory training on how to deal with claims by vulnerable groups, but full compliance with this requirement has yet to be achieved in practice.[7]
In practice, except for asylum applicants whose limited ability to exercise the rights and comply with the obligations stemming from the Asylum Act is self-evident (e.g., due to serious illness, pregnancy), such guarantees are not implemented.
In cases where AIMA identified vulnerabilities that did not allow the procedure to continue, the Agency systematically suspended proceedings under general administrative rules rather than providing special procedural guarantees (namely postponement of the interview or admission to the regular procedure), even in cases where the incapacity was evident and the Agency had itself requested medical reports. According to CPR’s observations, such suspensions tend to be prolonged, in some cases lasting several months, well beyond the 30 working-day limit established by law for accelerated and admissibility procedures.[8]
On a number of occasions throughout 2025, CPR observed that, even where it had flagged cases with vulnerabilities, these reports almost invariably received no follow-up.
Case law regarding the provision of special procedural guarantees in the asylum procedure has consolidated the approach of not implementing such guarantees.[9]
In accordance with the law,[10] CPR provides specific legal assistance to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under its care, inter alia, through the presence of a legal officer during the personal interview with AIMA (see Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Children).
Exemption from the border procedure
According to the Asylum Act, victims of torture and/or serious violence in need of special procedural guarantees shall be exempted from the border procedure and from detention in the context of border procedures when the necessary support and conditions cannot be ensured within that context.[11]
However, no standard operational procedures and tools allowing for the early and effective identification of survivors of torture and/or serious violence and their special procedural needs are in place. As such, asylum applicants who claim to be survivors of torture, rape, or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence are not specifically exempted from border procedures in practice, despite the lack of provision of special procedural guarantees at the border.
According to CPR’s observation, since the beginning of its operations AIMA has not demonstrated any decision-making power regarding the conditions and maintenance of detention of asylum applicants at the border. The separation of administrative and law enforcement competencies has somewhat led to the belief that the responsibility for detained applicants rests solely with PSP, contrary to what is explicitly provided for in the Asylum Act.[12] This has raised concerns regarding the identification of vulnerable people, the application of special procedural guarantees and reception conditions, and in 2025 CPR observed instances where direct intervention by the asylum authority was necessary but did not occur.
Exemption from the accelerated procedure
According to the Asylum Act, unaccompanied children are exempt from accelerated procedures (with the exception of subsequent applications that have not been deemed inadmissible) as well as from the application of certain grounds for inadmissibility, such as Dublin, and first country of asylum/third safe country grounds.[13]
While jurisprudence focusing on the impact of vulnerabilities in the asylum procedure and particularly on the use of accelerated procedures remains extremely rare, TCA South issued a decision deeming that an application should not have been subject to an accelerated procedure as the health condition of the applicant’s daughter amounted to a special vulnerability on health grounds. The Court noted that this element was taken into account by the examining authority and considered that, in light of article 31(7)(b) of the APD and article 17-A of the Asylum Act, the application should not have been analysed in an accelerated procedure, but instead fast-tracked.[14]
[1] Article 17-A(1) Asylum Act.
[2] Article 17-A(2) Asylum Act.
[3] Article 17-A(3) Asylum Act.
[4] Article 17-A(4) Asylum Act.
[5] Article 17-A(5) Asylum Act.
[6] Practice-based observation by CPR, January 2026.
[7] Practice-based observation of CPR, January 2026.
[8] Article 20(1) Asylum Act.
[9] TAC Lisbon, Decision 1502/18.8BELSB, 24 October 2018, unpublished. The case relates to an asylum applicant suffering from documented epilepsies and depression who was not identified as a vulnerable before the interview and was therefore not provided special procedural guarantees during the first instance procedure. The applicant was unable to review the report of his interview due to his condition and later (but before the issuance of a first instance decision) managed to submit medical reports to SEF. According to TAC Lisbon, such issues were not material to the asylum application and were not relevant to assess the need for special procedural guarantees in accordance to the law “as the serious condition of the appellant was not due to him being a victim of torture, rape or other form of psychological, physical of sexual violence in his country of origin […]”.
[10] Article 79(3) Asylum Act.
[11] Article 17-A(4) Asylum Act.
[12] Article 61 Asylum Act.
[13] Article 79(9) Asylum Act.
[14] TCA South, Decision 637/21.4BELSB, 18 November 2021, available here.