Poland

European Court of Human Rights December 4, 2025 Third country: Belarus. The applicants complained that the Polish authorities ignored their requests for international protection and “pushed them back to the Belarusian side of the border”.

Disposition The Court took note of the friendly settlement and decided unanimously “to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention”. Poland undertook to pay EUR 20,000 “jointly to the five applicants, who form one household”, and the applicants agreed “to waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications”. The decision was notified in writing on 8 January 2026.

The applicants complained under Articles 2 and 3, alone and with Article 13, “that the Polish authorities had ignored their requests for international protection and that, instead, they had pushed them back to the Belarusian side of the border. As the Belarusian authorities forced them back towards the Polish side, the applicants were stranded in the border forest area without access to medical aid, food, water, and shelter and in harsh weather conditions including frequent rains and low temperatures.” Their further complaints included detention under Article 5, Article 8 and collective expulsion under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (appended table). The parties signed friendly-settlement declarations, which the Court received in February 2025 (appended table). The Court was “satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols” and struck the applications out.

Pushbacks Access to asylum Friendly settlement Article 3 ECHR Collective expulsion Detention

Caution A friendly settlement is not a finding of a violation, and the decision makes no finding of fact; the account of events is the applicants’ complaint, and the decision does not date the events. The summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021 are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026.

European Court of Human Rights April 4, 2024 Third country: Ukraine. From December 2016 to January 2017 border guards at Medyka and another crossing on the Polish-Ukrainian border turned each of them away to Ukraine at least four times, and one of them fourteen times (paragraph 5); on 1 February 2017 all four were sent back again (paragraphs 9 and 10). The Court noted that Ukraine was “a Contracting Party to the Convention” (paragraph 47).

Disposition Unanimously: the applications joined and declared admissible; “a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention”; a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; a violation of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; and no need to examine the complaint under Article 8 in application no. 54255/17. EUR 13,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage; the remainder of the claims dismissed. The judgment became final on 4 July 2024.

The four men said they asked each time for international protection “because they were at risk of political persecution in Tajikistan” (paragraph 5). On 1 February 2017 all four presented themselves at Medyka and asked to apply; a lawyer from the Helsinki Foundation, who had written authority from two of them, asked to attend their interviews and was refused (paragraph 9). The border guards recorded economic and personal reasons, and all four were sent back to Ukraine (paragraph 10). The Polish administrative courts later found that the border guards had not properly established whether the men wished to apply. The Supreme Administrative Court held on 20 September 2018 that “the official notes could not have been considered sufficient evidence of the applicants’ intentions as expressed at the border” (paragraphs 17, 19 and 20). The European Court observed that those findings “did not result in any change of the applicants’ situation, given that the appeal to those courts did not have automatic suspensive effect” (paragraph 49). That Ukraine was a party to the Convention “did not exempt the Polish authorities from conducting a thorough examination of the applicants’ situation” (paragraph 48). Poland “should either have allowed the applicants to remain in Polish territory pending the examination of their asylum application or, before sending them back to Ukraine, they should have examined whether that State was safe for the applicants and whether they would have access to an adequate asylum procedure there” (paragraph 48). Sending them back without that examination “constituted a violation of the procedural limb of that Article” (paragraph 50).

Access to asylum Pushbacks Safe third country Collective expulsion Effective remedy Article 3 ECHR Access to a lawyer

Caution The violation is of the procedural limb of Article 3: Poland did not examine whether Ukraine was safe for the applicants before sending them there. The Court did not find that Ukraine was unsafe for them or that they were ill-treated there. The judgment lists one applicant as living in Warsaw, two in Austria and one in Ukraine (appended table).

European Court of Human Rights October 13, 2022 Third country: Belarus. Between August 2016 and April 2017 the family went to the crossing at Terespol on twenty-two occasions and then three more times with a written application for international protection, and was each time sent back to Belarus (paragraphs 2 to 4).

Disposition Unanimously: the application admissible; a violation of Article 3; and violations of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 “as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court”. EUR 28,000 to the applicants jointly for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 480 for costs and expenses; the remainder of the claim dismissed. As a Committee judgment it was final when delivered.

The Court recorded: “At 10.05 a.m. on 13 June 2017 the Court (the duty judge) decided to apply Rule 39, indicating to the Polish Government that the applicants should not be removed to Belarus until 27 June 2017. The Government were informed of the interim measure before the planned time of the expulsion. Nevertheless, the applicants were returned to Belarus at 11.25 a.m.” (paragraph 6). On 19 June 2017 they came back with an application and a copy of the Court’s letter and were allowed to enter Poland (paragraph 7). Following M.K. and Others v. Poland, the Committee held that “the fact that no proceedings in which the applicants’ applications for international protection could be reviewed had been initiated when the applicants were at the Polish border crossing constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention”, and that the authorities “knowingly exposed them to a serious risk of chain refoulement and treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 19). It found the other violations “in the light of its findings in previous judgments” (paragraph 21). It rejected the Government’s argument that the family should have appealed against the refusals of entry: such an appeal had no suspensive effect and could not have prevented their return to Belarus (paragraphs 12 to 15).

Access to asylum Pushbacks Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Interim measures Article 3 ECHR

Caution A three-judge Committee decided the case under the Court’s well-established case law. After the applicants were admitted to Poland, the head of the Aliens Office refused them international protection on 20 April 2018 and the Refugee Board upheld the refusal on 2 October 2019 (paragraph 10); the judgment does not record what happened to them after that. Their complaints did not include Article 34 (paragraph 11), so the judgment makes no finding on the interim measure. Like M.K. and Others v. Poland (see that entry), the judgment concerns an official border crossing in 2016 and 2017. It does not decide the summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021, which are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026.

European Court of Human Rights June 30, 2022 Third country: Belarus. Border guards at Terespol turned the family away to Belarus sixteen times between October 2016 and June 2017 (paragraphs 6, 11, 13, 15 and 45). On 25 May 2017 the Belarusian authorities told them that “they had to leave Belarus by 4 June 2017, otherwise they would face deportation” (paragraph 12).

Disposition Unanimously: the application admissible; violations of Article 3, of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, and of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. EUR 28,000 to the applicants jointly for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 750 for costs and expenses; the remainder of the claim dismissed. The judgment became final on 14 November 2022.

The family went to the crossing at Terespol thirteen times in October and November 2016, and again in March and May 2017 with a written application for international protection (paragraphs 6, 11 and 13). Each time the border guards issued decisions turning them away, recording that they had not said they were at risk of persecution but were trying to emigrate for economic or personal reasons (paragraph 9). The Court recorded: “At 10.10 a.m. on 2 June 2017 the Court (the duty judge) decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Polish Government that the applicants should not be removed to Belarus until 16 June 2017. The Government were informed of the interim measure before the planned time of expulsion. Nevertheless, the applicants were returned to Belarus at 11.25 a.m.” (paragraph 15). They came back that afternoon with an application for international protection and a copy of the Court’s letter, and were allowed to enter Poland (paragraph 16). The Court held: “The fact that no proceedings in which the applicants’ applications for international protection could be reviewed were initiated on the sixteen occasions when the applicants were at the Polish border crossing constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention”; the Polish authorities “knowingly exposed them to a serious risk of chain refoulement and treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 45). The applicants had “attempted to cross a border in a legal manner, using an official checkpoint and subjecting themselves to border checks as required by the relevant law” (paragraph 55), and their case was “an exemplification of a wider State policy of refusing entry to foreigners coming from Belarus” (paragraph 56).

Access to asylum Pushbacks Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Interim measures Article 3 ECHR

Caution After they were admitted to Poland, the head of the Aliens Office refused them international protection on 14 December 2017, the Refugee Board upheld the refusal on 12 June 2018, and the applicants did not appeal to the administrative courts (paragraph 19). The judgment does not record what happened to them after that. Although they were returned to Belarus after the interim measure had been indicated, the Court made no finding under Article 34: notice of the application was given to the Government only for the complaints under Article 3, Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 13. Like M.K. and Others v. Poland (see that entry), the judgment concerns an official border crossing in 2016 and 2017. It does not decide the summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021, which are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026.

European Court of Human Rights June 30, 2022 Third country: Belarus. The family went to the crossing at Terespol again and again between February and June 2017 and was each time sent back to Belarus (paragraphs 5 to 11). On 17 July 2017 they told the Court that “they had left the area of the Polish border and returned to Russia” (paragraph 16).

Disposition Unanimously: the application admissible; violations of Article 3, of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, and of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; and “there has been a violation of Article 34 of the Convention”. EUR 30,000 to the applicants jointly for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 for costs and expenses; the remainder of the claim dismissed. The judgment became final on 14 November 2022.

From 21 February 2017 the family came to Terespol repeatedly, from April with a written application for international protection, and was refused entry each time (paragraphs 5, 7 and 8). The Court recorded: “At 10.48 a.m. on 16 June 2017 the Court (the duty judge) decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Polish Government that the applicants should not be removed to Belarus until 30 June 2017. The Government were informed of the interim measure before the planned time of expulsion. The applicants were nevertheless returned to Belarus at 11.25 a.m.” (paragraph 10). On 19 June 2017 they came back with a copy of the Court’s letter and a written application for international protection, “clearly expressed a wish to lodge this application”, and were turned away again, while a lawyer sent the application to the Border Guard by email, fax and ePUAP (paragraphs 11 and 12). The Court held that the failure to begin any asylum procedure on “the thirty-three occasions when the applicants were at the Polish border crossing constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention”, and that Poland “knowingly exposed them to a serious risk of chain refoulement and treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 42). Their case was “an exemplification of a wider State policy of refusing entry to foreigners coming from Belarus” (paragraph 53), and Poland breached Article 34 by not complying with the interim measure.

Access to asylum Pushbacks Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Interim measures Article 3 ECHR Article 34 ECHR

Caution The judgment does not record what happened to the applicants after they returned to Russia; the interim measure was discontinued on 19 July 2017 (paragraph 16). It describes twenty-four visits to the crossing between 21 February and 14 April 2017, eight more in April and May, and two in June (paragraphs 5, 8, 10 and 11), and gives the total as thirty-three (paragraph 42). Like M.K. and Others v. Poland (see that entry), the judgment concerns an official border crossing in 2016 and 2017. It does not decide the summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021, which are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026.

European Court of Human Rights July 8, 2021 Third country: Belarus. Border guards at Terespol turned them away to Belarus on five occasions in July 2017, including on the day the Court indicated an interim measure and the day after (paragraphs 5, 11, 14 and 69). The Court found that returning them there risked “chain‑refoulement” to Syria (paragraphs 63 and 64).

Disposition Unanimously: a violation of Article 3 “on account of the applicants being denied access to the asylum procedure and exposed to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture in Syria”; not necessary to examine the complaint about their treatment during border checks; a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; a violation of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; and Poland “has failed to discharge its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention”. The Court continued to indicate that the applicants should not be removed to Belarus “if and when they present themselves at the Polish border crossing” until the judgment became final, and awarded EUR 10,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment became final on 22 November 2021.

The applicants went to the border crossing at Terespol three times between 14 and 18 July 2017 and, they said, asked each time for international protection (paragraph 5). Each time the border guards issued decisions turning them away on the ground that they were “simply trying to emigrate for economic or personal reasons”, based on official notes that the applicants had not signed (paragraph 8). On 20 July 2017, “at 10.08 a.m. the Court (the duty judge) decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Government that the applicants should not be removed to Belarus until 3 August 2017. The Government were informed of the interim measure before the planned time of expulsion. Nevertheless, the applicants were returned to Belarus at 11.25 a.m.” (paragraph 11). The next day they came back with a copy of the Court’s letter and the conscription orders, and were sent back again (paragraphs 13 and 14). The Court held that the applicants “could arguably claim that there was no guarantee that their asylum applications would be seriously examined by the Belarusian authorities and that their return to Syria could violate Article 3 of the Convention”, and that Poland was obliged to allow them “to remain within Polish jurisdiction until such time that their claims had been properly reviewed by a competent domestic authority” (paragraph 64). It rejected the argument that EU law required the refusals: the measure “fell outside the scope of Poland’s strict international legal obligations” (paragraph 67). Sending them back on each of the five occasions “constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 69). Their cases “were part of the same wider policy” found in M.K. and Others v. Poland, and the decisions “constituted a collective expulsion of aliens within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4” (paragraph 83).

Access to asylum Pushbacks Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Interim measures Article 3 ECHR Safe third country

Caution Like M.K. and Others v. Poland (see that entry), the judgment concerns an official border crossing in 2016 and 2017. It does not decide the summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021, which are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026. The judgment records that the applicants “currently reside in Belarus” (paragraph 2); it does not record what happened to them after it was delivered.

European Court of Human Rights July 23, 2020 Third country: Belarus. Polish border guards at Terespol and Czeremcha-Połowce refused them entry and returned them to Belarus, on thirty-five, eight and nineteen or more occasions respectively (paragraph 185). The Court held that sending them back there exposed them to a serious risk of chain refoulement to Chechnya.

Disposition Applications joined and, unanimously, declared admissible. Unanimously: a violation of Article 3 “on account of the applicants being denied access to the asylum procedure and exposed to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture in Chechnya”; not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 3 about their treatment during border checks; a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; a violation of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; and Poland “has failed to discharge its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention”. The Court continued to indicate to Poland “not to remove the applicants in cases nos. 40503/17 and 43643/17 to Belarus” … “until such time as the present judgment becomes final, or until a further decision is made”. By six votes to one, EUR 34,000 for non-pecuniary damage in each of the three applications, with costs; the remainder of the claim dismissed unanimously. The judgment became final on 14 December 2020, when a panel of the Grand Chamber rejected the requests for referral by the applicants and by the government.

The applicants came to the border crossings repeatedly and asked for international protection. The border guards refused them entry and sent them back to Belarus. In June 2017 the Court indicated interim measures that they not be returned to Belarus (paragraph 3). The Court held that “pending an application for international protection, a State cannot deny access to its territory to a person presenting himself or herself at a border checkpoint who alleges that he or she may be subjected to ill-treatment if he or she remains on the territory of the neighbouring State, unless adequate measures are taken to eliminate such a risk” (paragraph 179). The applicants “could arguably claim that there was no guarantee that their asylum applications would be seriously examined by the Belarusian authorities and that their return to Chechnya could violate Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 178), and “the Polish authorities, by failing to allow the applicants to remain on Polish territory pending the examination of their applications, knowingly exposed them to a serious risk of chain refoulement and treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 185). It found a collective expulsion. The applicants “attempted to cross the border in a legal manner, using an official checkpoint and subjecting themselves to border checks as required by the relevant law” (paragraph 207), and their cases were “an exemplification of a wider State policy of refusing entry to foreigners coming from Belarus, regardless of whether they were clearly economic migrants or whether they expressed a fear of persecution in their countries of origin” (paragraph 208).

Access to asylum Pushbacks Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Interim measures Article 3 ECHR Safe third country

Caution The applicants presented themselves at official border crossings, and the Court relied on that in finding a collective expulsion (paragraph 207). The judgment does not decide the summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021, which are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026. Judge Eicke’s dissent concerned only the assessment of non-pecuniary damage.

European Court of Human Rights July 24, 2014 Third country: United States custody. The CIA flew him into Poland on 5 December 2002 and out of Poland on 6 June 2003 on its rendition aircraft (paragraph 417). At the date of the judgment he was held at the Internment Facility at the United States Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba (paragraph 41).

Disposition Unanimously: the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion dismissed; Poland “failed to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention”; violations of Article 3 in its procedural and its substantive aspect, of Articles 5, 8 and 13, and of Article 6 § 1; and a violation of Articles 2 and 3 taken with Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 “on account of the transfer of the applicant from the respondent State’s territory despite the existence of a real risk that he could be subjected to the death penalty”. EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment became final on 16 February 2015.

The Court found it “established beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant arrived at Szymany on 5 December 2002 on the CIA rendition aircraft N63MU, was held from then until 6 June 2003 at the CIA detention facility at Stare Kiejkuty with the codename “Quartz”, was interrogated by the CIA and subjected to its enhanced interrogation techniques and to unauthorised techniques, and was flown out on the rendition aircraft N379P (paragraph 417). The treatment “amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 516). Poland “knew of the nature and purposes of the CIA’s activities on its territory at the material time” and cooperated in them, and it “ought to have known that, by enabling the CIA to detain such persons on its territory, it was exposing them to a serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention” (paragraph 442). The Court accepted the experts’ assessment that the torture was “the exclusive responsibility of the CIA” and that Polish officials were unlikely to have witnessed it, but held Poland responsible on account of its “acquiescence and connivance” in the programme (paragraph 517). On the transfer, it held that “by enabling the CIA to transfer the applicant to its other secret detention facilities, the Polish authorities exposed him to a foreseeable serious risk of further ill-treatment and conditions of detention in breach of Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 518), and that “at the time of the applicant’s transfer from Poland there was a substantial and foreseeable risk that he could be subjected to the death penalty following his trial before the military commission” (paragraph 578). Under Article 46 it required Poland “to seek to remove that risk as soon as possible, by seeking assurances from the US authorities that he will not be subjected to the death penalty” (paragraph 589).

Extraordinary rendition Secret detention Article 3 ECHR Death penalty Flagrant denial of justice Effective investigation Diplomatic assurances

Caution The judgment decides Poland’s responsibility under the Convention; the United States is not a party to the Convention or to the case. The Court’s findings of fact rest on evidence assessed as a whole, and it held that Poland had failed to comply with Article 38. The Committee of Ministers’ supervision of the judgment is set out on the Coalition’s page on Poland.

European Court of Human Rights July 24, 2014 Third country: United States custody. The CIA flew him into Poland on 5 December 2002, and on 22 September 2003 transferred him “to another CIA secret detention facility elsewhere” (paragraph 419). At the date of the judgment he was held at the Internment Facility at the United States Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba (paragraph 41).

Disposition Unanimously: the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion dismissed; Poland “failed to comply with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention”; the application admissible; violations of Article 3 in its procedural and its substantive aspect, of Article 5 and of Article 8; a violation of Article 13 “on account of the lack of effective remedies in respect of the applicant’s grievances under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention”; and a violation of Article 6 § 1 “on account of the transfer of the applicant from the respondent State’s territory despite the existence of a real risk that he could face a flagrant denial of justice”. EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 30,000 for costs and expenses. The judgment became final on 16 February 2015.

The Court found it “established beyond reasonable doubt” that the applicant arrived at Szymany with Mr Al Nashiri on 5 December 2002 on the CIA rendition aircraft N63MU, was held at the CIA facility at Stare Kiejkuty until 22 September 2003 and subjected there to the procedures and treatment applied to the CIA’s High-Value Detainees, and was then flown out on the aircraft N313P (paragraph 419). The treatment “amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 511). As in Al Nashiri, the Court accepted that the torture was “the exclusive responsibility of the CIA”, but held Poland responsible on account of its “acquiescence and connivance” in the programme (paragraph 512), and held that “by enabling the CIA to transfer the applicant to its other secret detention facilities, the Polish authorities exposed him to a foreseeable serious risk of further ill-treatment and conditions of detention in breach of Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 513). When he was transferred, “there was a real risk that his trial before the military commission would amount to a flagrant denial of justice” (paragraph 557). He had never been charged, and his detention without charge “by itself amounts to a flagrant denial of justice” (paragraph 559).

Extraordinary rendition Secret detention Article 3 ECHR Flagrant denial of justice Indefinite detention Effective investigation

Caution The judgment decides Poland’s responsibility under the Convention; the United States is not a party to the Convention or to the case. The Article 6 finding concerns the risk created by his transfer and his detention without charge; he had not been listed for trial before a military commission (paragraph 559). The Committee of Ministers’ supervision of the judgment is set out on the Coalition’s page on Poland.