Legal Focus: New Law in Poland

Proposed New Law

The new law, which provides for the possibility of temporary restrictions on the right to asylum, was passed on 27 March 2025, with broad support from all major political parties.

  • It was passed by the Sejm (the lower house of Parliament) on 21 February: link
  • It was then passed by the Senate (the upper house of the Parliament) on 13 March without any amendments: link
  • The law was ratified by the President on 27 March.

Key provisions of the law:

  • It enables the Council of Ministers to introduce a regulation restricting the right to apply for international protection, at the request of the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration.
  • Restrictions can be applied for 60 days, but may be renewed indefinitely.
  • The scope of restriction is determined in the regulation, and applies only to specific border areas.
  • Exemptions include:
    • Unaccompanied minors
    • Pregnant women
    • People requiring special treatment
    • People at risk of serious harm
    • Citizens of the instrumentalizing state (e.g. Belarus)
  • However, if "direct coercive measures" were used, even vulnerable persons may be excluded—raising serious concerns about abuse of this clause.

Immediately following ratification, the Council of Ministers suspended asylum applications at the Poland-Belarus border for 60 days. This suspension has since been renewed for a further 60 days.


Opposition to the New Law

Many objections were raised during the legislative process, stating that the law is unconstitutional and violates human rights. Unfortunately, these were largely ignored.

  • UNHCR
  • The Polish Ombudsman for Children
  • NGOs including Save The Children Poland, the Association for Legal Intervention (SIP), and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR)
  • The two Polish Bar Associations: the Polish Bar Council (NRA) and the National Bar of Attorneys-at-Law (KIRP)

The objections can be found (in Polish): here and here. A summary of the key objections is below.

The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights also called for the law to be rejected: link.

ELIL has 35 pending legal cases before Polish and European courts in relation to refugees who have been denied the opportunity to apply for asylum.


The Restricted Zone

Alongside the new law, authorities extended and expanded the restricted border zone by an additional 17 km and for a further 90 days. NGO access remains prohibited.


Actions of the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman issued legal opinions against both the new law and the buffer zone. He argued that both contradict constitutional protections and international law, pose serious human rights risks, and may intensify the humanitarian crisis at the border. Access full opinions here and here.


Positions with regards to the proposal of the Polish government to foresee in the national law a possibility to stop receiving temporarily asylum applications

  1. UNHCR: Emphasizes compliance with international standards (1951 Refugee Convention). Warns against legal amendments that restrict access to asylum.
  2. KIRP: Raises concerns about rule of law and access to justice. Warns of negative impact on legal representation and legal safeguards.
  3. HFHR: Flags risks to procedural fairness, legal aid, and disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups. Calls for respect for human rights law.
  4. NRA: Highlights the threat to legal profession independence and fundamental rights. Emphasizes the need to uphold democratic and judicial standards.

More on the legislative procedure: link

Case studies

Case study 1

On 27 March 2025, our client, a 17 year old Somali national, was in the hospital in the town of Hajnówka. He requested to apply for asylum but, under the provisions of the new law, this request was rejected. He was removed from the hospital and forcibly returned to Belarus.

The notable elements of this case are as follows:

  • The individual arrived in hospital and was referred to ELIL by an NGO there. We took the power of attorney and informed the border guards we were representing him.

  • After being in the hospital for five hours, the border guards returned. The doctors and NGO workers thought that the border guards were transporting him to a different hospital for an X-ray, but instead they drove him back to Belarus. This was done without informing us, his legal representatives.

  • We were informed by the border guards subsequently that he had been immediately issued with a decision requiring him to leave the territory of Poland.

  • This process raises numerous serious concerns:

    • According to the law, this decision should have been taken at the border, not after he had already entered Poland and been hospitalised.

    • He was returned back to Belarus without being allowed to apply for asylum. We have not received any official document confirming a refusal of his asylum application or justification as to why he was not allowed to apply for asylum. We are still awaiting further details and have lodged a case at the relevant Administrative Court to request this documentation.

    • He was already in the hospital of Hajnówka – outside the buffer zone and more than 25 kilometers from the border – when he requested to apply for asylum. This raises serious concerns, as it indicates the law is being applied not just at the border but also in locations far from the border (even, in this case, a hospital).

    • The law states that exceptions will be made for vulnerable individuals, including those in poor health. Our client was in hospital in a critical condition, with severe dehydration and unable to eat properly (having not eaten or drunk anything but muddy water for many days). He was found by the border guards in the forest in a very weak state, vomiting and lying motionless.

    • He claimed to be an unaccompanied child and there is uncertainty about his age (with the birthdate on his passport differing from the birthdate he told the border guards). However, the border guards refused to investigate or verify this and refused to share any information with our lawyer (despite our stated intention to provide legal representation).

  • We believe that this constitutes a major overreach of the powers under the new law. Even under the new law, he should have been allowed to apply for asylum. The authorities disregarded his vulnerable condition, failed to assess whether he was a child and removed him despite the fact that he was already in a hospital outside the buffer zone, more than 25 kilometers inside Poland when he declared his intention to seek asylum (and not at the border as required by the new law).

  • This case suggests that the new law is being used to justify blanket denial of the right to apply for asylum at the border, even to those in desperate situations.

 

Case Study 2

Summary: on 8 April, our client, a 17 year old boy from Mali, was in hospital in Hajnówka. He requested asylum and we obtained emergency interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to require Poland to consider his asylum application and prohibit them from returning him to Belarus. Despite this, he was removed from hospital and forcibly returned to Belarus later the day, in violation of the court’s order.

The notable elements of this case are as follows:

  • A 17 year old boy from Mali was taken by ambulance to the hospital in Hajnówka in the morning of Tuesday 8 April, having spent 10 days in the forest.

  • He said he wanted to apply for asylum and so we were informed and immediately took a power of attorney to represent him. We informed the Border Guard that we were representing him, that he was an unaccompanied child, vulnerable and wanted to apply for asylum.

  • At 11.00, we were told that, as he did not have a passport, he had been taken to Białystok hospital for a bone x-ray to determine his age.

  • Given what had happened in the previous case, we were worried that this individual would also be quickly forcibly returned to Belarus.

  • In light of this concern, we lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights for emergency interim measures under Rule 39, requesting that the Court prohibit Poland from deporting him so that his request for asylum could be considered.

  • We called the Border Guard again at 15.00 and were informed that he was being returned to Hajnówka from Białystok. They re-assured us and said that they would keep us updated. They did not inform us as to whether an age assessment had taken place or what the results were.

  • At 18.21, we received a positive decision from the European Court of Human Rights, accepting our request. The order from the Court stated that the individual should not be removed from Poland and his asylum claim should be assessed. This decision was sent by the Court to us and to a special department in the Polish Ministry of Justice who are obliged to inform the Border Guard.

  • We emailed the Border Guard a copy of the Court order to be certain they received. Unfortunately, they subsequently informed us that the individual had been deported at 18.40 (so, 20 minutes after the Court issued its order). The Border Guard said it had not seen the order and that it was now too late as “time cannot be turned back”.

  • We are continuing this case at the ECHR and, as part of this, the Polish authorities have provided their justification, namely that when they interviewed the individual he said he was 18 and was an economic migrant. However, this interview was done without his lawyer or anyone else present, despite us having informed the border guards that we were his legal representative. We have repeatedly asked for copies of the interview, the age assessment and their decision regarding this case but, so far, nothing has been provided.