Deportation Without Notice: Challenges for Legal Representation in Poland

A recent case handled by our Polish legal team highlights the severe procedural challenges faced by lawyers representing clients at risk of deportation.

One of our clients was deported to a country in East Africa* without any prior notice to his legal representatives, despite ongoing proceedings and an active request for suspension of the return decision.

The man’s application for international protection had not been accepted, due to the nationwide ban on asylum applications for people who entered Poland through Belarus which has been in place since August 2025. None of our appeals against detention were upheld, despite there being a presumption that our client had experienced violence in the past. In the meantime the Border Guard issued a return decision ordering his removal to the East African country, even though he faced a well-founded fear of persecution there. Following the dismissal of the appeal against the return decision, our team lodged a complaint with the Voivodeship Administrative Court (WSA) together with a request to suspend the enforcement of the decision, so that the applicant would not be deported before his case was examined. However, at the time of the deportation, the complaint had not even been transmitted by the Border Guard to the court.

Our team learned of the possibility of imminent deportation through an NGO monitoring deportations. Neither we nor the individual had received notice of this deportation and official confirmation from the authorities was impossible to obtain for several hours.

As soon as we heard about the risk of imminent deportation, we submitted a request for an interim measure to suspend the deportation from the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39. However, the measure was not granted. The Court noted significant doubts as to whether the individual faced any imminent risk of irreparable harm, because there was a lack of supporting evidence, since there was no official notice that our client would be deported.

The removal was subsequently carried out a short time later, in the early morning hours. By the time official information became available, the applicant had already been transported out of Poland.

In discussions with other practitioners, we have learned that the Court generally expects interim measure requests to be submitted at least one day in advance. However, in situations where legal representatives are informed of the possibility of a planned removal only hours before it takes place - and then only through informal channels without any official confirmation - earlier submission is simply not possible.

In practice, this highlights a recurring problem: in several cases, including this one, requests for interim measures can only be lodged a few hours before the planned deportation, or even after the deportation, as the lawyers only become aware of the planned removal shortly before or even after it occurs. Combined with the fact that information about the removal is often informal or incomplete, this creates a serious procedural obstacle to protecting clients’ rights effectively.

This case underscores two broader concerns. First, the fact that legal representatives were not informed of the planned removal seriously undermines the right to an effective remedy. Second, removals carried out while judicial remedies are still pending, before complaints and requests for suspension are transmitted to the courts, raise serious questions about access to justice in practice.

The situation is particularly urgent given reports of further deportation flights, including of vulnerable individuals, in the coming weeks. Cases like this highlight the need to address systemic obstacles to accessing interim measures and ensuring that the role of legal representation is meaningfully and effectively respected in relation to removal procedures.

*The country of origin has been withheld to protect the individual’s identity.