Problems of the amendment

Amendment No. 727/2 to the “Lex Ukraine” Act introduces special conditions for Russian citizens applying for Czech citizenship. It requires them to renounce their Russian citizenship in advance, but at the same time automatically suspends the processing of their applications for an indefinite period. Due to this suspension, it is not possible to obtain the so-called “promise” of Czech citizenship, which is necessary for the applicant to renounce Russian citizenship. As a result, applicants find themselves in a dead end: they cannot meet the condition of renouncing Russian citizenship nor obtain Czech citizenship.

We believe that the amendment to the Lex Ukrajina 7 law should be repealed. Many deputies, senators, professional lawyers, and representatives of human rights organizations share this opinion. There are a number of reasons for this. Lawyers and human rights activists say that:

  1. The amendment was adopted in violation of constitutional procedures.

  2. The public and the press were misled.

  3. The amendment does not solve the problem of national security.

  4. The amendment undermines the sovereignty of the Czech Republic.

  5. The amendment is discriminatory in nature.

  6. The exceptions provided for in the amendment do not actually work.

  7. The amendment negatively affects citizens of other countries.

1. The amendment was adopted in violation of constitutional procedures The amendment was introduced as a so-called “prilepek” to the Lex Ukrajina law, which regulates exclusively issues related to the temporary protection of Ukrainian refugees. Issues of Russian citizenship are not directly related to this law and should be considered within the framework of the Citizenship Law. Similar “add-ons” have already been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic.

Due to the method chosen for its adoption, the amendment did not undergo a full constitutional review, was not discussed in the first reading, and was not the subject of expert and interdepartmental discussion. Many opposition MPs signed up for the debate, but they were simply not allowed to speak, with the announcement of “pevné zařazení hlasování”. The amendment was part of the refugee support law, and if the Senate had sent the law back to the Chamber of Deputies, there would have been a humanitarian collapse, as thousands of Ukrainian refugees would have been left without legal status in the Czech Republic if Lex Ukrajina 7 had not been passed on time.

2. The public and the press were misled
When the law was made public, the impression was created that it mainly concerned the “need to renounce previous citizenship.” However, the actual content of the amendment is different: it provides for a complete suspension of the consideration of citizenship applications for Russian citizens for an indefinite period, as clearly stated in paragraph 7y.

This creates a legal paradox: Russians are required to renounce their previous citizenship, but at the same time, the state completely deprives them of the opportunity to obtain new citizenship. Under Russian law and the UN Convention, it is impossible to renounce Russian citizenship without guarantees of obtaining new citizenship (which can only be issued after full consideration of the application) — as a result, this amendment makes it impossible to renounce Russian citizenship even for those who want to do so.

3. The amendment does not solve the problem of national security
The special services of unfriendly states send their agents using passports from other countries. As of January 2026, no Russian citizen who had obtained permanent residence or citizenship in the Czech Republic on general grounds had been officially charged with sabotage or espionage in favor of the Russian Federation—in all known cases, the suspects were citizens of other countries or had come as tourists. Restrictions against Russian applicants would not have prevented any of these cases. If Russian citizenship is required to be renounced, the Russian authorities will easily issue the necessary certificates to their agents even without actually renouncing citizenship, which makes this requirement completely meaningless in terms of security.

4. The amendment undermines the sovereignty of the Czech Republic
The requirement to provide proof of renunciation of Russian citizenship effectively transfers the final say on granting Czech citizenship to a foreign state—the Russian Federation. Since renunciation of Russian citizenship is only possible with the consent of the Russian authorities, it is they who have the power to block or grant access to Czech citizenship. According to the decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR of June 25, 2024, in the case of Ukraine v. Russia (Crimea), Russia systematically violates its own legal procedure for renouncing citizenship, including for the purpose of political pressure.

How is this problem solved in other countries?
Many other states that prohibit dual citizenship, in the event of a person being “denied” citizenship or their application being ignored by the Russian authorities, consider the condition of refusal to have been fulfilled and grant the person new citizenship, but Czech law does not make such exceptions - the authors of the amendment rejected this proposal without explanation.

Thus, the key sovereign power—determining the circle of its own citizens—is made dependent on the decision of another state, which is officially considered hostile.

5. The amendment is discriminatory
Although there is no right to citizenship, foreigners have the right to equal treatment and individual consideration of their cases. The amendment violates this principle by introducing an automatic and collective restriction based on citizenship (in essence, on a person’s place of birth, which they did not choose).

Citizens of one country are denied access to the standard naturalization procedure regardless of their length of residence, degree of integration, political position, or personal behavior.

What does Constitutional Court practice say?
When considering the question of whether this constitutes discrimination, the Constitutional Court assesses whether comparable people have been treated differently and whether there is a reasonable justification for this. The main thing is whether the measures used are proportionate and adequate to the objective pursued. Meanwhile, as can be seen from point 3, there are no reasons for the actual necessity of these specific measures (the authors of the law and the government did not provide them).

6. The exceptions provided for in the amendment do not actually work.
The text of the amendment specifies exceptions for persons with international protection, children, and persons who have made a “special contribution” to the development of the Czech Republic. However, in practice, these exceptions are formal in nature and almost impossible to achieve.

International protection. The number of Russian citizens receiving asylum in the Czech Republic is minimal. Most emigrants, including opponents of the regime and the war, left legally — on work, student, or family grounds — and after years of residence have permanent residence. At the same time, Czech law does not allow applying for asylum while holding a permanent residence permit, which deprives such persons of access to the stated exception.
Special contribution. The institution of citizenship “for merit” is used extremely rarely and is intended for exceptional cases. There are no clear criteria for what constitutes a “special contribution” and how it is assessed, which can lead to discrimination and abuse. According to the official statistics, there are only a few decisions per year for all foreigners, rather than a truly accessible mechanism for integrated specialists, doctors, scientists, or IT workers.
Children. Although formally the cases of children under 15 are not subject to freezing, they are subject to the requirement to renounce Russian citizenship. Under Russian law, a child cannot renounce citizenship without at least one parent also renouncing it, which makes it impossible to comply with the conditions.

As a result, the amendment hits hardest those who objectively cannot renounce Russian citizenship: politically persecuted individuals, anti-war activists, and their families.

7. The amendment negatively affects citizens of other countries
In practice, the application of the amendment goes beyond Russian citizens. The Czech Ministry of the Interior already requires applicants from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and other countries to prove that they do not have Russian citizenship—even if they have never had it and have never been to Russia.

The relevant certificates can only be obtained through Russian consulates, for a fee (which goes to the Russian budget) and with no guarantee of success. As a result, the law creates additional barriers and legal uncertainty for a wide range of foreigners who are not related to the stated objectives of the amendment.

In view of all this, we are convinced that this discriminatory amendment to Lex Ukrajina 7, which prohibits Russians from obtaining Czech citizenship, should be repealed, and with the help of a group of senators, we have filed a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic.

См. также:

Available in: [Čeština]  [Русский]