Access to the territory and push backs

In 2025, 13,232 persons applied for international protection in Poland, out of which 11,129 were first time applicants.[1] According to the Border Guard statistics, 2,751 persons submitted an application at the Polish border crossing points placed at the EU external borders.[2] Excluding those who submitted applications at airports, there were 657 persons coming directly from the territory of Belarus, Russia or Ukraine.

Polish-Ukrainian border: The situation at the Polish-Ukrainian border crossing points has been subject to specific policies since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine (see Annex on Temporary Protection).

Polish-Belarus border: for conciseness, only developments on 2025 are reported in this update. For details on the situation in previous years, see previous updates to this country report available here.

In 2025, the authorities continued pushbacks at the Polish-Belarusian border. This applied both to foreigners crossing the border irregularly and to those presenting themselves at the official border crossing point in Terespol.

In 2025, the ban on entering the buffer zone – the area close to the border – was still in force. It has been extended several times, most recently on 6 March 2026 for a further 90 days.With access to the Polish-Belarusian border restricted, civil society organisations called on the Polish government to address the ensuing humanitarian crisis, because the restriction prevents the provision of humanitarian assistance to people seeking international protection.[3]

Based on reports from civil society organisations, in 2025 migrants reported the use of violence on both the Polish and the Belarusian sides. For example, according to the organisation We Are Monitoring, which collects data and testimonies of migrants who experienced pushbacks, in January 2025 migrants seeking protection reported violence, emphasising the brutality and ruthlessness of border guard officers in both countries.They reported physical and verbal violence, humiliation, intimidation, as well as theft and destruction of property, and described cases of use of pepper spray and being held in freezing conditions after being forced to remove their clothes.[4] Many individuals encountered at the border presented with multiple extensive lacerations caused by razor wire, as well as orthopedic injuries resulting from falls or jumps from the fence.[5] From January to the end of September 2025, We are Monitoring recorded a total of 2,872 requests for support from individuals. Among these were persons belonging to vulnerable groups: organisation recorded requests from 227 children, of whom 191 (84%) were traveling unaccompanied.[6] As of 10 December 2025, it is reported that at least 103 people have lost their lives at the Polish–Belarusian border, including 14 in 2025.[7]

Crucially, in 2025 the Law on Protection was amended and the changes introducing the term “instrumentalization” of the procedure and allowing the government to temporarily suspend the asylum procedure at the Belarusian border entered into force on 26 March 2025. On 27 March 2025 on the basis of the regulation, the right to apply for international protection at the Belarusian border was suspended for 60 days. The restriction was extended several times – most recently on 22 March 2026 and as of 26 April 2026 it remains in force until 20 May 2026 with a possibility of futher extensions. A more detailed description of the new provisions is provided in the section: Registration of the Asylum Application.

In practice, the new provisions result in applications from persons crossing the Polish-Belarusian border not being accepted. In accordance with the regulations, the suspension does not apply to persons belonging to certain categories of vulnerable individuals, including unaccompanied children. However, according to Grupa Granica, on the very first day the suspension of the right to asylum came into effect, a 17-year-old unaccompanied Somali boy was removed from a hospital near the border, despite belonging to a vulnerable group.[8]

The suspension of the right to international protection also applies at the only operational border crossing with Belarus, at Terespol. Since the introduction of the suspension of applying for international protection at official border crossings, it has become impossible for most people to submit applications at Terespol, with few exceptions, such as pregnant women or unaccompanied children. The Rule of Law Institute reported that the Border Guard at Terespol violated regulations requiring the acceptance of applications from vulnerable groups.[9] For most people, also those to whom the suspension of the right to asylum should not have been applied, the only chance to avoid being pushed back to Belarus in Terespol was to obtain an interim measure (see below).

International jurisprudence:

On 4 April 2024 the ECtHR issued a judgement in the case Sherov and others against Poland (complaint no 54029/17 and other). The Court held that by not accepting applications for international protection from Tajik nationals in 2016-2017 and repeatedly sending them back to Ukraine, Poland infringed article 3 and 13 of the ECHR and article 4 of the Protocol no 4 to the Conventions. The Polish Border Guard were of the opinion that the foreigners’ reasons to enter Poland were of economic and personal nature.

The ECtHR have already issued judgements concerning pushbacks,[10] but the facts of the cases referred to the period before the crisis at the border in 2021. These cases have not been properly implemented by the authorities[11] and the situation of persons in need of international protection have only deteriorated since the facts of these cases took place.

On 12 February 2025, there was a hearing of the case R.A. and Others v. Poland, complaint no 42120/21, which refers directly to the crisis that started in 2021 at the Polish-Belarusian border and was followed by legislative amendments sanctioning pushbacks. Namely, the case concerns 32 Afghan nationals who fled after the Taliban took power. In August 2021, they crossed the Polish-Belarusian border irregularly and were immediately trapped in the border zone, unable to move forward because of Polish authorities and unable to return due to Belarusian forces blocking their way. Their requests for international protection were ignored, leaving them stranded without food, water, medical assistance, or shelter for weeks until they were forcibly pushed back to Belarus.[12] They maintain that they were eventually returned from Belarus to Afghanistan, where they currently reside. The case was heard by the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR,[13] only one of ten cases against Poland ever examined by the Grand Chamber since Poland ratified the ECHR in 1993.[14] The judgement delivered in this case will give direction in deciding in 30 other cases against Poland, Latvia and Lithuania concerning the situation of persons seeking protection at the border which are pending before the ECtHR.[15]

In 2025, individuals crossing the Polish-Belarusian border with the intention of seeking international protection submitted requests for interim measures to the ECtHR. The increase in such applications is linked to the introduction of the suspension of the right to apply for international protection and the resulting heightened risk that foreign nationals may be returned to Belarus without an individual assessment of their situation.[16] In 2025, it was reported that not all interim measures granted by ECtHR were respected by authorities. In April 2025, SIP reported a case of applicants who attempted to cross the border at the Terespol border crossing with Belarus. They expressed the intention to apply for international protection and possessed documents indicating they belonged to a vulnerable group, on the basis of which their application should have been accepted despite the suspension of the right to apply for international protection. Nevertheless, they were pushed back to Belarus. Subsequently, they presented themselves at the border crossing again with an interim measure issued in their case. This measure was ignored by the authorities, and the applicants were turned back to Belarus once more.[17] SIP reported that a complaint in the case had been submitted to the ECtHR.[18] The Commissioner for Human Rights noted that the Border Guard considers individuals who present themselves at the Terespol border crossing without undergoing passport control as not formally on Polish territory, and thus outside Poland’s jurisdiction. In response, the Commissioner wrote to the Commander-in-Chief of the Border Guard, requesting assurances that interim measures will be respected by authorities. The Commissioner also recalled that in M.K. and Others v. Poland, the Court rejected the Border Guard’s claim that interim measures could not be applied to foreigners denied entry, and regretted that judgements of ECtHR have not been properly implemented by the Border Guard over the past eight years. In response, the Border Guards Headquarters stated that isolated cases of non-compliance with interim measures were due to delays in the Court sending its decision to grant the measure.[19]

Cases of non-compliance with interim measures also concerned foreigners crossing the border in an irregular manner – HFHR filed a complaint concerning a Sudanese national who had been hospitalised due to an arm injury and was removed from the hospital to Belarus, despite an interim measure having been issued in his case.[20]

Domestic jurisprudence: Two legal amendments introduced in response to the crisis at the Belarusian border in 2021 have been questioned as a result of litigation before domestic courts, but remain in force as of March 2026. The first one is Regulation on cross-border movement,[21] authorising the Border Guard to turn back third-country nationals to the border line solely based on a verbal instruction and the Law on Foreigners as amended in October 2021 (specifically Article 303b of the Law on Foreigners)[22] which allows the Border Guard to issue immediately enforceable ‘orders to leave the Republic of Poland’ with regards to third-country nationals apprehended after the irregular border crossing.

It is important to note that according to HFHR, the basis upon which the Border Guard decides which procedure is applied in a given case are unclear, as it is often not possible to understand whether it was considered the person fell under the regme of the Ordinance (Regulation) or the amended Law on Foreigners (Article 303b).[23] However, according to a report realised by ECRE, in 2022 the Regulation was more frequently used in cases of persons apprehended after an irregular border crossing.[24]

According to HFHR all judgments issued by the Voivodeship Courts in 2022-2024 on pushbacks are coherent and confirm that the way of returning migrants to Belarus by the Polish Border Guard was unlawful, regardless of whether the return was based on the Regulation or on the Law on Foreigners.[25] These judgements were also described in the HFHR and SIP third party intervention in the case R.A. and Others v. Poland presented before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR.[26] Nevertheless, still in 2025, this domestic case law appears to have had no influence on the practice of the relevant authorities.

Another measure adopted in response to the border crisis in 2025 was the suspension of the right to seek asylum. The legality of this measure has been examined by the Voivodship Administrative Court in Białystok,[27] which held that the new provisions comply with the principle of proportionality and do not infringe upon the essence of the right to asylum. In its judgments, the court found that, in situations involving the instrumentalisation of migration, the state may introduce limitations to the principle of non-refoulement with regard to a foreign national who becomes part of a group aiming to destabilise the situation within the state. According to the court, such circumstances fall within the scope of Article 33(2) of the 1951 Geneva Convention. However, the judgments are not yet final. Consequently, the cases will be examined by the Supreme Administrative Court.

The District Court in Olsztyn took a different view, pointing to the incompatibility of the suspension with EU, national, and international law, in cases concerning foreign nationals placed in detention centres. The cases concerned individuals who had expressed their intention to apply for protection, but whose applications were not accepted by the Border Guard, which instead initiated return proceedings and placed them in detention on the basis of the return procedure. The Court ruled that such individuals should be treated as asylum seekers and therefore cannot be lawfully detained for the purpose of return, especially where no formal application has been registered. It also indicated that the relevant national provisions may conflict with EU and international law, including the principle of non-refoulement, and clarified that the refusal to accept an application does not deprive applicants of the safeguards guaranteed under EU asylum law.[28]

In 2025, the SIP reported the awarding of the first compensation for an obviously unlawful apprehension of a foreigner and pushback across the Polish-Belarusian border. The case concerned an Afghan citizen who was pushed back to Belarus in 2021.[29]

In 2025, HFPC reported that the court decided that the Prosecutor’s Office should investigate the pushback of an Afghan man from a hospital. The incident occurred in 2024. Initially, the Prosecutor’s Office had refused to open an investigation into the case.[30]

In 2025, the courts also delivered significant judgments concerning the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance at the Polish–Belarusian border. On 8 September 2025, the ‘Hajnówka Five’ were acquitted. The trial concerned five activists who were providing humanitarian assistance at the Polish–Belarusian border. They had been accused of facilitating illegal residence in Poland for the purpose of obtaining a benefit.[31] In the same month, a volunteer who had tried to assist a Somali man in submitting an application for international protection, who was pushbacked, was also acquitted.[32]

Official statistics: Of the persons coming from Belarus who managed to submit an application for international protection in 2025, the majority did so at the Terespol border crossing (408 persons). At the same time (2025), at the Polish-Belarusian border, the Border Guard reported 27,681 prevented attempts of illegal border crossing.[33] 25,115 formal refusals of entry were issued. 11,384 people were returned to Belarus on the basis of the Regulation on cross-border movement in 2025, while orders to leave Poland on the basis of the amended Law on Foreigners were issued towards 2,065 persons. Only 15 orders were appealed.

According to the recent HFHR’s report on persons missing at the border, from August 2021 to March 2024, 116 deaths were documented on the eastern border of the European Union (in four countries: Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland).[34]

Border monitoring. Official border monitoring is based on an agreement between UNHCR for Central Europe and the Border Guards Headquarters of 21 October 2009. The monitoring visits are to be conducted by the NGO Halina Niec Legal Aid  centre and should, according to UNHCR, take place once a month. The reports from these visits are not publicly available. UNHCR indicated that its monitoring activities are conducted at official border crossing points, Border Guard posts and registration centres along the Polish-Belarusian border.[35] The Border Guard confirmed that in 2025, UNHCR monitoring of border posts – especially on the external border – was performed regularly.[36] On the other hand, one of the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur to grant full access to the border area by Poland and Belarus to civil society organisations and independent monitoring mechanisms as “it is important to ensure that a strong and independent role is played by local civil society in both countries, as well as to allow international organisations to conduct in situ monitoring”[37] remained ignored and the situation actually worsened with the ban on entering the buffer zone reinstated in June 2024, still in force in 2025 (see supra). The situation at the border crossing point in Terespol after the ban on access to the border zone had been reintroduced was monitored by the Ombudsperson.[38] The Ombudsperson – together with the Ombudsperson for Children expressed concerns about the unaccompanied children crossing the border (see Legal representation of unaccompanied children).[39] In 2025, the Ombudsman reported conducting inspections of Border Guard facilities along the Polish-Belarusian border.[40]

Readmission agreements. Poland signed the readmission agreements with the EU Member States (both bilateral and multilateral). There were no new agreements signed in 2024.[41] In 2024 421 persons were readmitted to Poland and 926 persons from Poland to other countries.[42]

Legal access to the territory

There are no means (for example, in the form of corridors or resettlement or relocation) beyond family reunification to legally access the Polish territory for persons with protection needs. Foreigners with protection needs may apply for humanitarian visa, however obtaining one is difficult. They are issued mainly to citizens of Belarus.

The Polish government announced on 1 June 2023 that it will not cooperate with the mandatory migrant relocation scheme proposed in the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum.[45] In April 2024, the new government expressed its support for this position.[46] In February 2025, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk reiterated his opposition to the Pact on Migration and Asylum; stating his government would not implement the Pact if it involved mandatory migrant quotas.[47] In November 2025, the European Commission announced that Poland is among the countries at risk of migratory pressure. As a result, Poland will be included among the Member States granted priority access to the EU Migration Support Toolbox. Furthermore, as a country facing a significant migratory situation due to the cumulative pressures of the past five years, Poland will have the possibility to request that the Council grant a full or partial deduction from its contributions to the Solidarity Pool for the upcoming year.[48]

[1] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 10 April 2026.

[2] Information provided by the Border Guard, 25 February2025.

[3] Norwegian Refugee Council, Poland: Urgent action needed for refugees trapped in Europe’s ‘death zone’, 10 July 2024, available here.

[4] We are Monitoring, Grupa Granica, ‘Styczeń 2025 – raport z granicy polsko – białoruskiej’ available here.

[5] We are Monitoring, Grupa Granica, ‘Maj 2025 – raport z granicy polsko – białoruskiej’ available here.

[6] We are Monitoring, Grupa Granica, Save the Children, ‘Children at the Polish-Belarusian Border January-September 2025’, available here.

[7] We are Monitoring, ‘Lista Zmarłych’, 10 December 2025, available here.

[8] We are Monitoring, Grupa Granica, Save the Children, ‘Children at the Polish-Belarusian Border January-September 2025’, available here.

[9] The Rule of Law Institute, ‘Notice of the RLI to the Commander of the BG Unit in Terespol of 27 march 2025’, available here.

[10] M. Łysienia, Pushbacki w Polsce w ocenie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka, Laboratorium Migracji, 11 August 2023, available in Polish here.

[11] Information about the expert meeting, 29 March 2024, available here.

[12] SIP, ‘Sprawa R.A. i inni przeciwko Polsce – co jest stawką?’, 19 February 2025, available in Polish here.

[13] ECtHR, ‘Grand Chamber hearings concerning Latvia, Lithuania and Poland’, 12 February 2025, available here.

[14] SIP, ‘R.A. and Others v. Poland – What’s at Stake?’, 19 February 2025, available here.

[15] HFHR, ‘Interweniujemy przed ETPC w sprawach pushbacków na granicy z Białorusią’, 30 October 2024, available in Polish here.

[16] HFHR, ‘Communication from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights concerning the execution of the ECtHR judgement in the case M.K. and others v. Poland, application no.40503/17, 9 October 2025, available here.

[17] SIP, ‘Poland defies Strasbourg Court decision and pushes refugees back to Belarus’, ‘, 18 April 2025, avaialble here.

[18] SIP, ‘Application to the ECtHR Regarding the Pushback of Refugees to Belarus at the Terespol Border Crossing’, 11 September 2025, available here.

[19] Human Rights Commissioner, ‘Niewykonywanie środków tymczasowych ETPC wobec migrantów. Kolejne pismo do KG SG’, 28 August 2025, available in Polish here.

[20] HFHR, ‘Communication from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights concerning the execution of the ECtHR judgement in the case M.K. and others v. Poland, application no.40503/17, 9 October 2025, available here.

[21] Ordinance of the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration of 20 August 2021 amending the Ordinance on Temporary Suspension or Restriction of Border Traffic at Certain Border Crossings (Journal of Laws 2021, item. 1536).

[22] Article 303b in conjunction with Article 303(1)9a of the Law on Foreigners, introduced by the Law of 14 October 2021 amending the Law on Foreigners and other Acts of Law (Journal of Laws 2021, item. 1918).

[23] HFHR, Legal brief on judgements in cases involving expedited returns of migrants to Belarus, December 2022, page 1, footnote 1, available (EN) here.

[24] ECRE, Seeking refuge in Poland. A fact-finding report on access to asylum and reception conditions for asylum seekers, February 2023, page 11, available (EN) here.

[25] See judgements of Voivodeship Administrative Court in Bialystok, no II SA/Bk 71/24, II SA/Bk 72/24, II SA/Bk 145/23, II SA/Bk 244/23, no II SA/Bk 492/22, 493/22 and 494/22. Judgment of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw no IV SA/Wa 420/22 of 26 April 2022, judgement no IV SA/Wa 471/22 of 27 April 2022, judgment no. IV SA/Wa 615/22 of 20 May 2022; judgment no IV SA/Wa 772/22 of 27 May 2022.

[26] See HFHR and SIP third party intervention in the case R.A and Others v. Poland, available here.

[27] See judgements of Voivodeship Administrative Court in Bialystok, no II SA/Bk 1221/25.

[28] See judgements of , District Court in Olsztyn – decisions of 9 January 2026, case no. VII Kz 557/25, 16 January 2026 case no. VII Kz 13/26, and 13 February 2026 case nos. VII Kz 51/26, VII Kz 55/26, VII Kz 58/26. SIP, ‘The Regional Court in Olsztyn: suspension of the right to asylum is unlawful’ 17 February 2026, available here.

[29] SIP, ‘First Compensation Awarded for an Illegal Pushback’, 12 November 2025, available here.

[30] HFPC, ‘Sąd zadecydował, że prokuratura musi zbadać sprawę pushbacku’, 2 June 2025, available here.

[31] HFPC, “Piątka z Hajnówki uniewinniona” 8 September 2025, available in Polish here.

[32] HFPC, “Bartosz, wolontariusz udzielający pomocy na granicy polsko-białoruskiej, uniewinniony!” 26 May 2025, available in Polish here.

[33] This is not the number of persons, please note that some attempts are repeated.

[34] HFHR, Disappearances on the Polish-Belarusian border. Pushbacks as a factor in enforced disappearances in Poland, 2024, available here.

[35] ECRE, Seeking refuge in Poland. A fact-finding report on access to asylum and reception conditions for asylum seekers, February 2023, available (EN) here page 16.

[36] Information provided by the Border Guard, 7 March 2025.

[37] Visit to Poland – Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, Felipe González Morales, 21 April 2023, available (EN) here.

[38] RPO, Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich październik – grudzień 2024 r, available in Polish here.

[39] RPO, Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich październik – grudzień 2024 r, available in Polish here.

[40] RPO, Wizytacja placówek Nadbużańskiego Oddziału Straży Granicznej przy granicy polsko-białoruskiej, 21 August 2025, available in Polish here.

[41] The Border Guard Headquarters’ letter to HFHR, 21 March 2023.

[42] Information provided by the Border Guards, 7 March 2025.

[43] Agreement related to the readmission of persons in an irregular situation, Brussels, 29 March 1991.

[44] European agreement on transfer of responsibility for refugees, Strasburg, 16 October 1980.

[45] Euractiv, Poland opposes EU Commission’s migrant relocation scheme, 1 June 2023, available here.

[46] Euractiv, Tusk vows to ‘protect’ Poland against EU migrant relocation, 11 April 2024, available here.

[47] Jorge Liboreiro, ‘Poland will not implement Migration Pact, Donald Tusk tells Ursula von der Leyen’ (Euronews, 7 February 2025), available here.

[48] European Commission, ‘Commission launches first Annual Migration Management Cycle under the Pact on Migration and Asylum’, 11 November 2025, available here.