33. Statelessness should also be a juridically relevant factor, which is considered in
decisions to detain. Stateless people should be identified in order to protect their
human rights and are not routinely detained on grounds of their statelessness.
Vulnerability assessments should be carried out prior to detention. Specific
circumstances of stateless people should be understood and addressed, as are other
experiences, characteristics and circumstances leading to vulnerability.
34. However gaps exist in the legal framework to protect stateless people from arbitrary
detention in the Czech Republic. Powers for immigration detention are provided for in
law and are restricted to purposes allowed under Article 5(1)(f) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. However, a proposed country of removal does not need
to be identified prior to detaining someone, but merely a reasonable prospect for
removal.42 Although statelessness can be put forward by the individual as an argument
for the impossibility of removal, statelessness is not assessed during the decision to
detain nor considered relevant in vulnerability assessments.43 The procedure is often
long to determine the impossibility to remove the person because of statelessness.
Although there is a requirement to consider alternatives to detention for each
individual case, there is no need for the authorities to exhaust all alternatives prior to
rendering a decision to detain. In practice, the police justify the ineffectiveness of
alternative measures by the risk of non-respect of the removal decision.44 Alternatives
vary depending on the type of detention (deportation, Dublin transfer, asylum seekers)
and include stay at an address designated by the Immigration Police, regular reporting
to the Immigration Police, and obligation to stay at the asylum reception centre.45 There
is evidence that detention is used prior to all alternatives considered in practice.
35. There are some procedural safeguards, such as a time limit – although cumulative time
spent in detention is not counted towards the maximum time limit -, written reasoned
decisions, free legal aid, and the right to an appeal. However, there are no automatic
periodic reviews of detention, and the detainee must request one.46
36. No public information is available about any guidelines in place governing the process
of re-documentation and ascertaining entitlement to nationality, which is carried out
by the Immigration Police. No identification documents or legal status are issued to
people on release from detention. A one-month departure order visa is issued if the
person does not hold a travel document, but the law does not currently provide a route
to regularisation if the person cannot be removed.47 Statelessness is considered in most
bilateral return or readmission agreements entered into by the Czech Republic, most of
which explicitly permit the readmission of stateless people.48
42
§126 of Act on Residence of Foreign Nationals in the Czech Republic no. 326/1999 Sb. “Immigration Act” purposes of
detention; Jurisprudence of Supreme Administrative Court, NSS, case no. 1 As 12/2009 – 61 from 15 April 2009.
43 Section 2, i) of Asylum Act, no. 325/1999 coll. (in force since 2 August 2021).
44 Article 46a of Asylum Act, no. 325/1999 coll. (in force since 2 August 2021); §124 and §124b, §129 of Act on Residence of
Foreign Nationals in the Czech Republic no. 326/1999 Sb. “Immigration Act”.
45 Articles 123b-129 of Act on Residence of Foreign Nationals in the Czech Republic no. 326/1999 Sb. “Immigration Act”
46
Act on Residence of Foreign Nationals in the Czech Republic no. 326/1999 Sb. “Immigration Act”; Asylum Act, no. 325/1999
coll. (in force since 2 August 2021).
47 Practice of the Immigration Police.
48 See e.g. Agreement between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Kosovo on the readmission of persons residing without
authorisation, no. 12/2013.
9