You are here
Home › Poland ›EDAL case summaries
Following the appeal of the Children’s Rights Ombudsman, the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the order of the Regional Administrative Court, in relation to a challenge to the decision of the Polish Refugee Board, and set aside the aforementioned decision to refuse tolerated stay, dismissing the appeal in all other respects.
The court justified its decision with reference to the procedural errors of the Polish Refugee Board, which included failing to gather evidence in an appropriate manner and inappropriately establishing the facts relating to the Applicant’s children....
An application to suspend the effects of a decision, contained in an appeal of a decision ordering return and a ban from re-entering the territory of Poland and other Schengen area states should be allowed, due to the validity of the Applicant remaining in Poland pending the conclusion of the administrative court proceedings. Under art. 61 § 3 of the Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts, the Court may, upon the application of the Appellant, order that the challenged decision be suspended, in whole or in part, if the act or function to be performed would result in a risk of...
The application of S.C. and her minor children Z.C. and F.C. related to the cassation of an Appeal Court judgement regarding compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of an indisputably unjust decision to place the Applicants in a Guarded Detention Centre for Foreigners. The Supreme Court reversed the challenged judgement and passed the case to the Appeal Court for re-consideration.
The Supreme Court granted the cassation complaint lodged by the Polish Ombudsman in the case of a persecuted journalist forced to leave the country together with her son and accused of deception in order to obtain attestation of false information (in a form of a visa issued by a Consul). The Supreme Court agreed that there was a reasonable doubt with regard to the circumstances of the case and the guilt of the defendant. In the view of the Court, even if the defendant acted in a way which could be defined as deception in order to obtain attestation of false information, the circumstances...
D.T., who possesses a leave to remain in Poland due to humanitarian considerations, appealed the Municipal Appeal Board’s decision to uphold the decision refusing to award her child benefits. Relying on a purposive interpretation of the applicable regulations regarding social welfare and the access of foreigners to the labour market, the Court decided to set aside both decisions, while stressing that the deciding body shall be bound by the legal analysis contained in the Court order.
The purpose of the child care benefit “500+” envisaged in the Law of 11 February 2016 is to provide assistance to parents and guardians in raising children by covering some expenses related to their needs. Excluding refugees from persons entitled to this benefit because their residence card does not contain a note “access to labour market” would lead to unfair differentiation of the legal situation of the foreigners (dividing them into those who were issued a residence card with the note “access to labour market“ and those issued a residence card without this note) and of the children (...
In order to protect the security of state and public order, it is justifiable to limit freedoms and rights, including the right to court. The right to court covers the possibility to access case files by the party of the proceedings as well as the possibility to get to know the motives of the decision and formulate allegations against them. When there is a need to protect the security of state and public order, the rights of the party of the proceedings are limited. The party cannot get to know the motives of the decisions and has to rely on the fair judgement of the authority.
The...
Arranging for medical or psychological examination is required, for example, when the third country national indicates that they were subject to violence, which left physical or mental signs which can be confirmed by medical or psychological examination. Not all invoked health problems will require an exam. Moreover, in subsequent proceedings this obligation is limited. The authority has no basis to arrange for such an examination when the event indicated in the subsequent application related to violence which was already subject to examination in the first asylum proceedings and was...
Limiting the possibility to access classified information to the third country national does not automatically mean that their right to an effective remedy with regard to a return order was infringed. By the same token there has been no infringement of Article 47 of the Charter.
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Membership of a particular social group 11
- Refugee Status 11
- Effective remedy (right to) 10
- Individual assessment 9
- Internal protection 9
- Effective access to procedures 8
- Return 8
- Standard of proof 8
- Relevant Facts 7
- Subsequent application 7
- Procedural guarantees 6
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 6
- Subsidiary Protection 6
- Well-founded fear 6
- Access to the labour market 5
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 5
- Detention 5
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 5
- Actors of protection 4
- Country of origin information 4
- Credibility assessment 4
- Family unity (right to) 4
- Internal armed conflict 4
- Material reception conditions 4
- Persecution (acts of) 4
- Real risk 4
- Vulnerable person 4
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 3
- Best interest of the child 3
- Gender Based Persecution 3
- Inadmissible application 3
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 3
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 3
- Refugee sur place 3
- Relevant Documentation 3
- Sexual orientation 3
- Burden of proof 2
- Cessation of protection 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Circumstances ceased to exist 2
- Discrimination 2
- Dublin Transfer 2
- Family member 2
- Freedom of movement (right to) 2
- Manifestly unfounded application 2
- Non-refoulement 2
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 2
- Personal circumstances of applicant 2
- Protection 2
- Reception conditions 2
- Revocation of protection status 2
- Accelerated procedure 1
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Country of origin 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Duty of applicant 1
- Exclusion from protection 1
- Family reunification 1
- Humanitarian considerations 1
- Individual threat 1
- Integration measures 1
- Political Opinion 1
- Religion 1
- Request that charge be taken 1
- Residence document 1
- Trafficking in human beings 1
- Visa 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Russia 22
- Ukraine 4
- Afghanistan 3
- Pakistan 3
- Russia (Chechnya) 3
- Unknown 3
- Cameroon 2
- Uganda 2
- Georgia 1
- Palestinian Territory 1
- Sudan 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove Poland filterPoland