General (scope, time limits)
The Head of the Office for Foreigners is a state authority which is responsible for issuing the first-instance decisions on granting and withdrawing protection status, deciding on the responsible state under the Dublin Regulation and social assistance provided in the asylum procedure. The Head of the Office for Foreigners is also a second-instance authority in residence permit procedures.
As a rule, the time limit set in law for the Head of the Office for Foreigners to issue a decision on an asylum application is of 6 months.[1] This period can be prolonged to 15 months if: the case is of particular complexity; many asylum seekers are applying at the same time; the asylum seeker did not fulfil the obligation of presenting all the evidence and documents or attending the interview.[2] The case is considered of particular complexity when it requires several additional actions related to the credibility evaluation on the asylum claim (COI research, translation of documents submitted as evidence, approaching other authorities to establish identity, etc.).[3]
In 2024, the authority decided to prolong the examination on the basis of the Law on Protection in 2,455 cases. 5,765 decisions were issued within the 6 months-time limit (11,409 in 2024).[4] The Office stressed that there are no formal guidelines on what is considered as a complex and the decision in this regard is taken on an individual basis.[5] Deadlines in such cases are extended due to the need to translate and assess extensive evidence and to collect additional material, including requesting documents or explanations from the applicant. They may also be prolonged due to country-of-origin research or consultations with other authorities (e.g. security services, border guards, or law enforcement).[6]
In 2025, the average processing time for a decision on the merits was 202 days (131 in 2024). The longest processing time was 1,092 days (in comparison to 860 days in 2024) and the shortest time was 2 days.[7]
According to the law, if the decision is not issued within 6 months, the general provisions on the inaction of the administrative authority apply,[8] therefore the Head of the Office for Foreigners should inform the applicant in writing about the reasons for the delay and the applicant can submit a complaint to the second-instance authority. In practice, information about the reasons for the delay is provided in a very general way and complaints to the second-instance authority are rare. In case a decision on asylum application was not issued within the 6 months limit, the applicant can apply for a work permit on this basis (see Access to the Labour Market).[9] The Head of the Office for Foreigners then issues a certificate, which – together with a temporary ID – gives a right to work in Poland until the end of the procedure. The certificate is also valid for appeal proceedings and onward appeal court proceedings if the suspensive effect is granted.
However, as of 30 September 2025, pursuant to the Law on Assistance to Ukrainian Nationals, the running of statutory time limits for the handling of cases concerning the granting of international protection in proceedings conducted by the Head of the Office for Foreigners has been suspended until 4th March 2026.[10] The Act provides that, during this period, provisions on the inactivity of the authority do not apply, no fine may be imposed on the authority for protracted proceedings, and the cessation of procedural actions during this period may not constitute grounds for the use of legal remedies. If six months have elapsed from the date of submission of the application for international protection, a certificate entitling the applicant to work is still issued.
As of 31 December 2025, 8,931 persons’ cases were pending before the Office for Foreigners, compared to 6,939 in 2024.[11]
In 2023, NGOs intervened in cases where the applicants were deprived full access to the files of their case, as the Country of Origin information (COI) consulted was not included in the files.[12] Therefore, the applicant could not review this information and provide comments before the decision was issued, as is set in the administrative law.[13] There were no such cases reported in 2024.
Prioritised examination and fast-track processing
There is no legal basis for prioritising certain types of cases. According to the Office for Foreigners in 2022, the Office made efforts to prioritise applications of Afghan nationals as they were considered manifestly well-founded. On the contrary, the Office also tried to prioritise issuing negative decisions towards the applicants from Iraq who crossed the border irregularly.[14] More recent information is not publicly available as of April 2026.
Personal interview
Personal interviews are conducted by the Office for Foreigners and are generally mandatory in a regular procedure, unless:
- A decision on granting refugee status can be issued based on evidence already gathered; or
- An applicant is not fit to be interviewed (e.g. due to health or psychological problems).[15]
In 2025 the Office for Foreigners conducted 3,382 interviews. There is no information available as to the number of cases in which a psychologist was present during the interview.[16]
As a rule, interviews are conducted individually. The Office has confirmed however that there are cases in which mothers had their infant children with them during the interview. The officers conducting interviews are trained in the area of identification of vulnerable persons and when preparing for interview they consider the situation of a particular social group (e.g. women) in the country of origin (e.g. the risk of forced marriage).[17] However, NGOs have expressed numerous concerns regarding the functioning in practice of identification mechanisms (See Identification of vulnerable applicants).
In practice, cases occur in which the personal interview is replaced by a written questionnaire sent to the applicant. SIP reported such a case, in which the decision was annulled by in October 2025 by the Reufgee Board due to the lack of a personal interview, as it limited the applicant’s ability to fully present their claims.[18]
In 2025 two unaccompanied children were heard during an interview.[19] In interviews with children, their curator is always present, as well as a psychologist who presents an opinion afterwards. UAM can name a grown-up to also be present. The interviews are held in the place where the child stays, not in the Office.[20]
If spouses are covered by a single application, the Office does not interview the husband in the presence of the wife, and vice versa. If spouses are not covered by a single application, a foreign national who wishes their spouse to be present at the interview must grant them a power of attorney for that purpose.[21]
Interpretation
Interpretation is ensured respectively by the Head of the Office for Foreigners (for the first instance proceedings) and the Refugee Board (for the appeal proceedings); i.e. they are responsible for securing interpretation and appointing interpreters. The interview should be conducted in a language understandable to the applicant. In the asylum application, the asylum applicant has to declare their mother tongue as well as any fluent knowledge of other languages. Applicants can further request the interviewer and/or interpreter to be of a specific gender.[22] In 2025, applicants submitted such requests, which were generally granted, particularly when justified by experiences of violence or sexual orientation; requests regarding the preferred nationality of interpreters were also usually approved.[23]
The contract established between the Office for Foreigners and interpretation services regulates quality, liability, and specifies the field (asylum). Interpretation is available in most of the languages spoken by asylum applicants in Poland. There is no information on how many cases in 2025 involved an interpreter during the interview, but this applied to the majority of cases, except for those conducted in Polish. Issues occasionally arose, including poor connection quality, communication difficulties between the interpreter and the applicant, and changes in the applicant’s preferred interview language, which sometimes resulted in rescheduling. The Office for Foreigners reported that in 2024 there were problems finding interpreter for the following languages:Berber, Amharic, Tigrinya, Somali, and Ndebele.[24]
There is no training for interpreters and cultural mediators are not provided in individual interviews.
In 2024, a specific case highlighted how important access to interpretation is. The Refugee Board annulled the decision of the Office for Foreigners refusing international protection to an applicant when it was discovered that his statement submitted at the time of applying for protection was translated by the Border Guard using internet.[25]
Recording and report
Audio or video recording is possible under national legislation if an applicant was informed about this fact and technical means allow for it,[26] but is not implemented in practice as there are no logistical arrangements in place to enable its use.[27] The law provides that a copy of the report (protocol) of the interview should be handed over to the applicant after a personal interview. In some cases, the applicants do not take or keep it, but they can ask for a copy at any stage of the proceedings.
The report is written in Polish and includes all questions and answers from the interview, but it’s not an exact word-for-word transcript. After the interview, the report is read to the interviewee in a language they understand, and they are allowed to make any necessary corrections before signing it. In 2025 the reports from the interview were made on computer, in exceptional cases they could be hand-written.[28]
However, NGOs have expressed concern that there is a repeated issue with this method of recording interviews. Frequently, it is only after the interview that the applicant reviews the interview report with someone fluent in both Polish and their native language, and inconsistencies in their testimony are discovered. However, any comments and clarifications made in the appeal or subsequent proceedings are generally not taken into account. It is very unlikely to successfully question the interview in the subsequent steps of the procedure. According to the Office for Foreigners, protocols are mainly prepared on the computer, not handwritten, except for interviews conducted outside the Office for Foreigners where there is no possibility to print the copy of the interview (prisons, foster care facilities).[29]
In 2025, remote interviews were conducted via the ZOOM application. It is possible to ensure the presence of a psychologist for interviews conducted remotely.[30] In 2024 the Office for Foreigners reported that applicants requested in-person interviews, often in connection with applications for release from detention. No objections were raised to conducting interviews remotely.[31]
Appeal
Appeal before the Refugee Board
Decisions of the Head of the Office for Foreigners in the regular procedure can be appealed to the Refugee Board within 14 calendar days. The decision (without a justification) as well as guidance on how to appeal is translated into the language that the applicant for asylum had previously declared as understandable; the substantiation of the decision is not translated. The applicant can submit the appeal in their language.
The Refugee Board is an administrative body, consisting of twelve members, supported in their work by six employees, not involved in the decision-making process.[32] In the regular procedure, decisions are taken by three members. The procedure includes an assessment of the facts and there is a possibility of hearing applicants. The Head of the Office for Foreigners is not a party in these proceedings. The time limit set in law for the appeal procedure is 1 month.[33] The appeal has a suspensive effect.[34] Neither hearings nor decisions of the Refugee Board are made public.
In 2025, the average processing time for the Refugee Board to issue a decision in appeal proceedings was 94 days. For cases submitted by Ukrainian nationals it was 98 days. The longest processing time in 2025 was of 321 days and the shortest 1 day. There were no cases in 2025 where the Refugee Board decided to hear a witness and only 1 where it decided to hear the applicant (the same as in 2024).[35]
In 2025, appeals to the Refugee Board were submitted in the case of 2,078 applicants.[36] In 2025, the Refugee Board issued 1,070 decisions, affecting 1,410 persons.[37] As of 31 December 2024, there were 768 ongoing appeal cases before the Refugee Board initiated by appeals submitted in 2025.
Proceedings before the Refugee Board can have the following outcomes:
- annulling the first instance decision and directing the proceedings back to the first instance (138 applicants in 2025);
- overturning the decision and granting protection (cases of 19 applicants in 2025; 16 applicants were granted refugee status and 3 subsidiary protection);[38]
- upholding the first instance decision (1,075 applicants in 2024);[39]
- discontinuing the second instance proceedings (cases of 40 applicants in 2024).
The statistics clearly show that the chances of success of appeals are very low in practice (see Statistics).
NGOs point out that second instance proceedings conducted by this authority are often merely symbolic, and tend to unquestioningly uphold the conclusions made by the Head of the Office for Foreigners.[40]
When the negative decision or a decision on discontinuing the procedure for international protection is served (delivered), the person concerned has 30 days to leave Poland (unless they are in detention).[41] During these 30 days, their stay in Poland is considered legal.[42] Nevertheless, the Refugee Board also informs the Border Guard that the final negative decision on international protection has been served and the Border Guard are obliged to establish if there are legal grounds to initiate the return proceedings.[43]
Onward appeal
After the administrative appeal procedure before the Refugee Board, the decision of the latter can be further appealed to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw within 30 days.[44] There is no fee for the procedure. This onward appeal does not have a suspensive effect on a final administrative decision. However, asylum applicants can ask the court to suspend a decision for the time of the court proceedings, if the decision can cause irreversible harm. Therefore, a motion to grant suspensive effect has to be submitted together with the complaint.[45] The authority issuing the decision (in this case the Refugee Board) can also grant suspensive effect on their own decision ex officio or upon request.[46]
The court procedure is adversarial; both the Refugee Board and the asylum applicant are parties before the court. However, the court cannot decide on the merits (i.e. grant protection), but only annul the administrative decision or uphold it. The ruling of the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw can itself be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court by lodging a cassation complaint, based exclusively on the legal conditions foreseen in the law, also accompanied by a request for suspension of the administrative decision.
The Law on Foreigners separates asylum proceedings and return proceedings, which means that a return decision is not issued within the asylum procedure. Return proceedings are started after the final administrative decision refusing international protection is served (delivered) to the person concerned (in the case of detainees; while in the case of applicants who are not detained, they have 30 days to leave the territory). However, under the current legal framework, the return proceedings may lead to a return decision being issued before the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw examines the appeal against the final administrative decision refusing protection to the applicant.
Since 2019, as a result of the judgement in the case C-181/16 Sadikou Gnandi v. Belgium, the Voivodeship Administrative generally suspends the enforcement of the negative decision on international protection based on Article 46(5) of the Procedure Directive. This measure was taken to ensure that the return decision is not enforced until the end of the Court proceedings on international protection.[47] This trend is applicable only with regard to the first application for international protection. In case of subsequent applications, if the application is deemed inadmissible, the Court refuses to grant suspensive effect to such a decision.[48]
Compliance with EU law of administrative court proceedings in Poland has come under question, especially in light of the CJEU’s Alekszij Torubarov v. Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (C-556/17) ruling of 29 July 2019. The judgment states that the administrative court must have the authority to enforce final court judgments. These powers must include the possibility of issuing a judgment on the merits if a final judgment is not complied with in subsequent administrative proceedings. Yet, in Poland the law does not provide such a possibility –the administrative courts do not decide on the merits[49] If the complaint is upheld, the Court may only annul the contested decision of the Refugee Council along with the preceding decision of the Head of the Office for Foreigners. This means that the case will be reconsidered by the administrative authorities.[50] The guidelines set out in the Court’s reasoning are binding on them.[51]
As a rule, in the Polish system of administrative judiciary, the court reviews the legality of administrative decisions on the basis of the legal and factual state as of the date on which the final decision was issued. In cases concerning the granting of international protection, courts have, however, confirmed that an effective remedy before a first-instance court should entail a full examination of the case ex nunc, taking into account also the factual and legal circumstances that arose after the decision was issued by the administrative authority. The Supreme Administrative Court indicated that, although the Procedure Directive was not properly implemented, Article 46(3) can be directly applied by the courts.[52]
According to the statistics of the Refugee Board, in 2025 there were 375 (compared to 261 in 2024) complaints submitted to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw against all the decisions of the Refugee Board (i.e. decisions not only refusing protection). In 2025, the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw annulled the decision of the administrative authorities (either of the Refugee Board or both decisions of the first and second instance) in 29 cases (compared to 41 in 2025), and dismissed the complaint in 176 cases (167 cases in 2024). The success rate in onward appeal has been similarly low throughout the years.
In 65 cases in 2025 (compared to 60 cases in 2024) cassation complaints to the Supreme Administrative Court were lodged by the applicants. The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the judgment of the Voivodship Administrative Court as well as the administrative decision (solely of the Refugee Board or both instances) in 1 case in 2025 (compared to 3 cases in 2024). The cassation complaint was dismissed in 43 cases in 2025 (34 in 2024).[53]
Legal assistance
A State legal aid system was introduced in 2015 and it covers:
- Legal information, provided by the employees of the Office for Foreigners in cases concerning revocation of protection in the first instance; and
- Legal aid in the second instance is provided by advocates, legal counsellors and NGOs. It involves preparing an appeal and providing legal representation in the second instance in cases concerning:
- refusal of refugee status or subsidiary protection
- discontinuance of the procedure
- refusal of reopening the procedure,
- Dublin procedure,
- inadmissibility of the application
- revocation of protection status.[54]
In any type of decision mentioned above, issued by the first instance authority, the instruction on the right to free legal aid is included and is translated into the language understood by the applicant.[55]
The system is managed by the Head of the Office for Foreigners who contracts lawyers, legal counsellors and NGO lawyers. Legal aid is provided by legal counsellors, advocates and in 2024 3 NGOs: the Association for Legal Intervention (SIP), The Rule of Law Institute and the Halina Niec Legal Aid Centre.[56] For 2025 there are only 2 NGOs: SIP and the Rule of Law Institute. The list of legal counsellors and advocates who are available for 2025 is publicly available together with their contact details and is divided by the cities where they provide services.[57]
There is no specific training, but NGOs, in order to be put on the list, have to prove 2 years of experience in the provision of legal aid, as SIP reports in 2024.
According to the statistics sent by the Office for Foreigners in 2025, applicants were assisted by legal counsellors or advocates in 193 cases (compared to 170 in 2025) and by NGO lawyers in 193 cases (compared to 71 in 2024). Considering the low number of individuals benefiting from the legal aid system out of the total of 2,078 appeals in 2025,[58] it appears that the system has little impact on the effective provision of free legal aid to applicants.
In 2025, the Office for Foreigners issued a warning against dishonest intermediaries operating in international protection procedures, emphasising that the procedure is free of charge and that intermediaries often falsely claim to guarantee a positive outcome or faster processing of applications.[59]
In 2023, when drafting the law implementing the state legal aid system, the forecast of expenses for 7 years (2016-2022) were estimated for 13,473 million PLN, but the actual cost for this period was 1,473 million PLN. Bearing in mind the costs covered within this budget (legal fees, travel costs, cost of translation), the system was drafted to provide services in approximately 2,303 cases per year, while in fact the services were provided in 276 cases on average per year.[60]
The Association for Legal Intervention (SIP), one of the few NGOs providing legal aid within this system, is also of the opinion that assisting only in the second instance is not sufficient. Evidence considered to decide on the case’s merits is mostly gathered in the first instance proceeding – that is when the applicants are interviewed, country of origin information is collected and witnesses can be heard, but in this phase of the proceedings free legal assistance is not provided (i.e. private lawyer can be arranged, but it means the applicant bears the costs). SIP provided examples of cases in which some evidence from the country of origin was presented in the appeal but was not taken into account by second instance authorities, who argued the applicants should have presented them at the first instance. The argument, that the applicant had not been advised by the lawyer on what evidence can be relevant to the procedure was not considered.[61]
There is also a separate free legal aid system for administrative court proceedings (onward appeal). Representation before administrative courts can be provided only by professional legal representatives (lawyers, legal counsellors). There is a general possibility to apply for a cost-free professional legal representation before these courts on the same rules that apply to Polish citizens (i.e. insufficient financial resources). There is a form, in Polish, available in the court or on the court’s website (not in the offices of administrative authorities examining the claim), however as of 2024 applicants are not informed on this in the first instance decision. In 2025, the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw (examining all the complaints against decisions regarding international protection) granted free legal assistance in 41 cases where such assistance was requested and refused to grant assistance in 42 cases.[62] For comparison, in 2024 the court granted free legal assistance in all cases in which it was requested.
For information on access to legal assistance in detention see the section on Legal assistance in detention.
Before the system of legal aid was created in 2015, legal assistance had been provided by NGOs under the European Refugee Fund (ERF)-funded projects. Many NGOs, with qualified lawyers, continued to provide free legal assistance in the proceedings (including the first instance), but this assistance is not provided on a large scale nor is it stable, since it often depends on short-term funding within projects. Due to the lack of funding, NGOs generally lack resources and cannot assist applicants on a wider scale covering e.g. the presence of a lawyer during any interview. In 2025, NGOs reportedly faced financial constraints related to reductions in USAID funding, which could also have affected their capacity to provide legal assistance.[63]
In August 2021, many NGOs moved to the border zone to provide legal and humanitarian assistance there (see Access to the territory and pushbacks). The introduction of a state of emergency on 2 September 2021 limited this assistance. It is also worth noting that when the ECtHR extended interim measure in the case of R.A. and others v. Poland (application no. 42120/2), which was heard by the ECtHR Grand Chamber in February 2025, it requested that the Polish authorities allow the applicants’ lawyers to establish the necessary contact with their clients. The ECtHR also indicated that, if the applicants are on Polish territory, they should not be sent to Belarus. Poland did not comply with the measure and provided the ECtHR with its position maintaining that, although it understands the humanitarian aspect of the Court’s position, it cannot violate the integrity of the neighbouring country where the migrants are situated. Moreover, Poland suggested that the applicants’ legal representatives go to the nearest border-crossing point in order ‘to cross the Polish–Belarusian border in accordance with the law and, when on the territory of Belarus, go to the camp where the complainants are staying’.[64]
The reintroduction of a ban on entry into the buffer zone near the Polish-Belarus border (see Access to the territory and pushbacks) certainly affected negatively the possibility of providing legal assistance to persons at the border. However, even before reintroducing the ban, pushbacks occurred so rapidly that legal representatives often did not have the chance to respond, e.g. by presenting their power of attorney, and only found out about the pushback afterwards.[65] The ban remained in force in 2025, meaning that these constraints continued to affect access to legal assistance.
In 2024, the issue of foreigners’ access to their established legal representatives was highlighted in the Ombudsperson’s submission letter to the Chief Commander of Border Guards.[66] The Ombudsperson indicated that representatives of foreigners are not allowed to participate in proceedings conducted against their clients by Border Guards, nor are they delivered letters and decisions concerning them. Often this is due to the Border Guards questioning the validity of the powers of attorney provided, but there have also been cases where a representative was not allowed to participate in proceedings when the content and form of the power of attorney were not contested. Not allowing representatives to participate in proceedings and not serving them with the decisions or orders of the authority, results in not respecting the rights of the foreigner in the proceedings and limiting their access to the appeal procedure in case of pushback.[67]
[1] Article 34(1) Law on Protection.
[2] Article 34(2) Law on Protection.
[3] Letter from the Office for Foreigners to HFHR, 19 February 2025.
[4] Letter from the Office for Foreigners to HFHR, 10 April 2026.
[5] Letter from the Office for Foreigners to HFHR, 19 February 2025.
[6] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 10 April 2026.
[7] Letter from the Office for Foreigners to HFHR, 10 April 2026, 19 February 2025.
[8] Articles 36-38 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings.
[9] Article 35 Law on Protection.
[10] Article 100da Law on Assistance to Ukrainian Nationals.
[11] Letter from the Office for Foreigners to HFHR no BSZ.WKSI.069.1.2024/RW, 16 February 2024.
[12] SIP, Cudzoziemcy(-mki) w procedurze uchodźczej nie mają pełnego dostępu do akt w swojej sprawie – interweniujemy, 11 August 2023, available here.
[13] Article 10(1) of the Code of Administrative Proceedings
[14] Letter from the Office for Foreigners to HFHR no BSZ.WKSI.0656.3.2022/RW, 26 January 2022.
[15] Article 44(1) and (2) Law on Protection.
[16] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 10 April 2026.
[17] Letter from the Office for Foreigners to HFHR no BSZ.WKSI.069.1.2024/RW, 19 February 2025.
[18] SIP, ‘Brak osobistego przesłuchania podstawą uchylenia decyzji o odmowie udzielenia ochrony’ 5 February 2026, available in Polish here.
[19] Information provided by the Office for Foreingers, 10 April 2026.
[20] Letter from the Office for Foreigners to HFHR no BSZ.WKSI.069.1.2024/RW, 19 February 2025, Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 10 April 2026.
[21] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 10 April 2026.
[22] Article 44(4)2 of the Law on Protection.
[23] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 10 April 2026.
[24] Letter from the Office for Foreigners, 19 February 2025.
[25] SIP, ‘Brak tłumacza podstawą do uchylenia negatywnej decyzji ws. ochrony międzynarodowej’, 10 August 2025, available here.
[26] Article 44(5) of the Law on Protection.
[27] No cases in 2025 as the the Office for Foreigners indicated that it is not currently possible. Information provided by the Office for Foreingers 10 April 2026.
[28] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 10 April 2026.
[29] Letter from the Office for Foreigners to HFHR, 19 February 2025.
[30] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 10 April 2026.
[31] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 10 April 2026.
[32] Information provided by the Refugee Board, 27 August 2015.
[33] Article 35(3) Code of Administrative Proceedings.
[34] Article 130(1) and (2) Code of Administrative Proceedings.
[35] Information provided by the Refugee Board, 19 January 2025.
[36] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 10 April 2026.
[37] Information provided by the Refugee Board, 19 January 2025.
[38] The figures differ slightly from those provided by the Office for Foreigners. According to the information provided by the Office for Foreigners there were 14 applicants who were granted refugee status by the Refugee Board and 2 granted subsidiary protection.
[39] According to the information provided by the Office for Foreigners, the number of upheld decision was 1,033
[40] HFHR, Input by civil society organisations to the EU Agency for Asylum Report 2023, available in English (EN) here, 13.
[41] Article 299(6)1b Law on Foreigners.
[42] Article 299(7) Law on Foreigners.
[43] Article 299(10) and (11) Law on Foreigners
[44] Regulated in the Law of 30 August 2002 on the proceedings before administrative courts, Journal of Laws 2012 pos. 270 (ustawa z dnia 30 sierpnia 2002 r. Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi, Dz.U. 2012, poz. 270).
[45] Article 61(3) of the Law on proceedings before administrative courts.
[46] Article 61(2)1 of the Law on the proceedings before administrative courts.
[47] Legal Intervention Association (SIP), Raport SIP w działaniu, Prawa cudzoziemców w Polsce w 2020 r. [Report SIP in action. Rights of foreigners in Poland in 2020], available (PL) here, 28.
[48] Legal Intervention Association (SIP), Raport SIP w działaniu, Prawa cudzoziemców w Polsce w 2020 r. [Report SIP in action. Rights of foreigners in Poland in 2020], available (PL) here 28.
[49] P. Iżycki, O merytorycznym orzekaniu sądów administracyjnych w świetle standardu europejskiego – refleksje na gruncie wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z 29.07.2019 r., C-556/17, Alekszij Torubarov przeciwko Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal [On Administrative Courts’ Adjudication on the Merits of Cases in the Light of the European Standard: Reflections Concerning the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 July 2019, C-556/17, Alekszij Torubarov v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal], Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 4/2020, abstract available here.
[50] Article 145(1) of the Law on the proceedings before administrative courts.
[51] Article 153 of the Law on the proceedings before administrative courts.
[52] Supreme Administrative Court, II OSK 1753/21, judgement of 5 July 2022, summary by SIP available here.
[53] Information provided by the Refugee Board, 19 January 2026. This data may be not fully coherent because of delays in transferring information on judgements.
[54] Article 69c-69m Law on Protection.
[55] Article 53(1) and 54e(1) Law on Protection.
[56] The list of legal counsellors, advocates and NGOs is available on the OFF website here.
[57] The Office for Foreigners, cost free legal aid, list of service providers, available here.
[58] Information provided by the Office for Foreigners, 3 February 2022.
[59] The Office for Foreigners, ‘Ostrzeżenie przed nieuczciwymi pośrednikami’, 4 March 2025, available in Polish here.
[60] Monitoring wdrażania ustawowej pomocy prawnej, Seminar “Access to State-Funded Legal Assistance in Asylum and Return Procedures in Poland”, 14 December 2023, UNHCR Warsaw Office.
[61] SIP, Raport SIP w działaniu, Prawa cudzoziemców w Polsce w 2019 r., [Report SIP in action. The Rights of the foreigners in 2019.], available (in Polish) here. The findings remain relevant as of the end of 2025.
[62] Information from the Voivodeship Administrative Court, 11 March 2026.
[63] tvn24, ‘UNHCR zamyka biura w Polsce, organizacje pozarządowe toną. To efekt Trumpa’, available in Polish here.
[64] Fundamental Rights Agency, Migration: Key fundamental rights concern, Quarterly Bulletin 3, available (EN) here.
[65] SIP, ‘Current situation on the Polish-Belarusian border – statement by Grupa Granica’, 11 July 2024, available here.
[66] Ombudsperson, XI.543.423.2024.JK, 9 September 2024, available in Polish here.
[67] HFHR, Input by civil society organisations to the Asylum Report 2025, available here.