The Law on Protection sets out the following alternatives to detention for asylum seekers:
- An obligation to report;
- Bail options (zabezpieczenie pieniężne);
- The obligation to stay in a designated place.
BG can use more than one alternative in the case of any foreigner.[1] Alternatives can be applied by the BG which apprehended the asylum seeker concerned or by the court (subsequent to a BG’s decision not to apply alternatives and who have submitted a motion for detention to the court).[2] An asylum seeker can be detained only if the alternatives to detention cannot be applied.[3] In practice, asylum seekers are placed in detention automatically (in 96 % of cases, courts disposed a detention order or its prolongation),[4] and alternatives to detention are either not considered, not properly justified or the reasons why they cannot be applied are not explained in detail.[5] In 2022, the Border Guard issued alternatives to detention to 165 asylum seekers and to 817 third country nationals (in total 982)[6] and the courts more often ( in 2.5 % cases) than in previous years decided not to place in detention and to apply or not an alternatives to detention (in 1.8 % of cases)[7]. In 2023, alternatives to detention were applied in cases of 240 asylum seekers and 1,941 returnees (in total 2,181 persons).[8]
Over the period 2017-2023 alternatives to detention were used as follows for migrants, including asylum seekers and returnees:[9]
| Alternatives to detention in Poland: 2017-2023 | |||||||
| Type of alternative | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
| Reporting obligations | 2,094 | 1,327 | 1,603 | 507 | 818 | 934 | 1,933 |
| Residence in a designated place | 1,818 | 1,058 | 1,522 | 476 | 233 | 281 | 280 |
| Bail | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Surrendering travel documents | 49 | 29 | 36 | 39 | 343 | 223 | 508 |
| Total | 3,965 | 2,415 | 3,164 | 1,023 | 1,397 | 1,444 | 2,725 |
Source: Border Guard: 14 January 2018; Border Guard, 14 and 25 January 2019, 17 January 2020, 5 February 2021, Instytut Nauk Prawnych, 2 February, Border Guard March 2022, 25 January 2023; Border Guard Headquarters, 21 March 2024.
According to Polish NGOs, courts examine the possibility of using alternatives to detention only in a superficial way.[10] Courts very often argue that it is not possible to impose an alternative to detention based on the risk of absconding and that asylum seekers had no money or no place to stay, ignoring the fact that asylum seekers have a right to live and receive financial assistance in open centres for foreigners managed by the Head of the Office for Foreigners.[11] The courts generally consider that irregular entry is a sufficient element to determine the existence of a risk of absconding, without conducting an individual assessment if not to evaluate whether alternatives to detention can apply.[12]
In 2021, Border Guard submitted the 5169 (in 2022 – 4,372) applications on placing or prolonging the migrant in detention. In 2022, in almost 2.5% (0.7% in 2021) of cases, district courts decided not to place or prolong detention but did not apply alternative measures. In 2022 in 1.8% (2019, 1.9%) the courts decided on alternatives to detention. In 2021, only in 0.3 % cases the courts decided to impose alternative measures. In the case of district courts (Sądy Okręgowe), in 86 % of detention cases, the courts upheld the first instance courts’ decisions on detention in the period from 2015 to 2022. In 2022, the number of appeals sent to second instance courts also rose significantly (up to 1,355) and 9.5 % of appeals were successful and in 18 % of cases, the second instance courts decided to release the foreigners and apply the alternatives to detention.[13]
[1] Article 88(3) of the Law on Protection.
[2] Articles 88(2) and 88b(2)-(3) Law on Protection.
[3] Article 88a(1) Law on Protection.
[4] Witold Klaus, Monika Szulecka, Dominik Wzorek, Detencja i jej alternatywy. Analiza orzecznictwa sądowego w sprawie umieszczania cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych, Wydawnictwo Instytutu Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości, 2024, pp. 51 and 153.
[5] Information provided by Legal Intervention Association Rule of Law Institute and Nomada Association, February 2023.
[6] Information provided by Border Guards Headquarters to HFHR, 25 January 2023.
[7] Witold Klaus, Monika Szulecka, Dominik Wzorek, Detencja i jej alternatywy. Analiza orzecznictwa sądowego w sprawie umieszczania cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych, Wydawnictwo Instytutu Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości, 2024, p. 51
[8] Information of Border Guards Headquarters, 21 March 2024.
[9] In practice, a person may be subject to more than one alternative measure.
[10] Witold Klaus, Monika Szulecka, Dominik Wzorek, Detencja i jej alternatywy. Analiza orzecznictwa sądowego w sprawie umieszczania cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych, Wydawnictwo Instytutu Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości, 2024, p. 97. The first and second instance court ignore the fact that the migrant could pay the bail, she had a place to live in Poland as she was living in Poland for 9 years.
[11] Information provided by HFHR in February 2023.
[12] Witold Klaus, Monika Szulecka, Dominik Wzorek, Detencja i jej alternatywy. Analiza orzecznictwa sądowego w sprawie umieszczania cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych, Wydawnictwo Instytutu Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości, 2024, p.165, 193.
[13] Witold Klaus, Monika Szulecka, Dominik Wzorek, Detencja i jej alternatywy. Analiza orzecznictwa sądowego w sprawie umieszczania cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych, Wydawnictwo Instytutu Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości, 2024, p. 51-53, 56.