The article deals with the fundamental problems that emerged on the territory of the Czech Republic during the implementation of the asylum procedure throughout the migration crisis in the years 2015 to 2019. Problematic issues related primarily to the detention of migrant asylum seekers were identified by studying the key decisions of national and international courts. The first problematic point was the amendment to the Asylum Act, which required the courts to discontinue proceedings on the review of detention orders after the foreign national was released from detention. Due to the conflict with EU law and the impossibility to claim damages for unlawful detention, this amendment was finally annulled by the Constitutional Court. The second problem was that the factual conditions for asylum seekers in the EU Member State where the asylum seeker was to be transferred for the purpose of processing his/her asylum application, were not examined. In this regard, the situation had since been rectified and the administrative authorities and courts of the Czech Republic already take this aspect into account when deciding whether an asylum seeker detained on the territory of the Czech Republic is to be transferred to the country where he/she applied for asylum. The most serious problem is so far incomplete transposition of the Procedures Directive, in particular Article 46 of the Procedures Directive, which requires from the court to review the decisions on asylum in full jurisdiction and could possibly grant asylum itself. However, this requirement does not correspond to the concept and system of administrative courts in the Czech Republic and would require a significant and costly change. The last issue identified was the poor implementation of the Dublin III Regulation, involving not setting serious risk of absconding of an asylum seeker as a precondition for his/her detention directly in the law.

The right of assembly is one of the most important political rights. This right, together with freedom of speech and the right to associate, is the basis of every civil society. In particular, it enables everyone to comment on public affairs, get information, share it with other people, and also influence public opinion. This right is especially important in times of social changes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), seated in Strasbourg, protects compliance for the European Convention on Human Rights and assesses, inter alia, whether the member states violated the right of free assembly. The application of article 11 of the Convention raises a number of questions about the scope of the possibility to restrict the right of assembly. Member States of the Convention sometimes face the question whether to ban the assembly of the enemies of democracy or whether the right of assembly can be abuse to prevent other assemblies by blocking the route of march, for example. This paper deals with the ECHR's approach to these issues as well as the concept of right of assembly according to the Convention. At the same time it follows the evolution of the opinion on this right over time.

The article deals with the legal regulation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic with regard to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The chosen topics focus on the definition of assembly, the relationship between freedom of expression and property rights together with the right of assembly.  In each of above-mentioned countries, the assembly to which constitutional protection is granted, the definitiondiffers slightly; with the widest concept of assembly deriving from the judicature of the ECHR. The constitutional protection of the Assembly, in particular found in Germany and Austria, which is significantly narrower than the protection provided by the European Convention on Human Rights, may thus at some stage come  into conflict with the requirements of the ECHR. The section devoted to freedom of speech deals, among other things, with cases exhibiting shocking photographs, which were part of the campaign against abortion, in front of schools in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. In the future, the most serious problem is the conflict of the right of assembly along with the right of ownership, consisting in assemblies held on private property, which is used by the public, such as shopping malls, airports or railway stations. This has been the focus of the professional public and the courts for a long time, especially in Germany.