Detention of vulnerable applicants

If a decision to release a third-country national from the detention centre is issued and the asylum applicant is a disabled, elderly, pregnant or single parent, the SG is obliged to organise their transport to the reception centre, and – in justified cases – provide food during the transport.[1] If the asylum applicants do not belong to these categories, no assistance to reach open centres is provided, regardless of the factual situation they are in.[2] In 2025, at least 254 (175 from Lesznowola, 78 in Przemysl, 1 in Kętrzyn) migrants benefited from both forms of support.[3]

Detention of persons with health conditions

According to the law, asylum applicants whose psychophysical state leads to believe that they are victims of violence or have a disability, as well as unaccompanied children, cannot be placed in detention centres. This is also the case for asylum applicants whose detention causes a serious threat to their life or health,[4] as under the law, an asylum applicant should be released if further detention constitutes a threat to their life or health.[5] This means that, for example, children, if they stay in Poland with parents or other legal guardians, can still be detained, as can pregnant women (see below Detention of children). In practice, persons with disabilities are sometimes detained.[6]

The provisions are absolute and do not allow for any exceptions, and have to be considered separately and independently of each other, but this is not a practice followed by the Border Guards and courts, according to National Preventive Mechanism (NPM).[7]

In the opinion of NGOs[8] and the Commissioner for Human Rights, problems with the identification of victims of torture and violence persists, and third-country nationals whose mental and physical condition indicates a possible danger to their life or health are still systematically detained.[9] Indeed, a poor mental condition is hardly ever accepted by courts as sufficient grounds to not detain or release an asylum applicant from detention.[10] Identification should be conducted before placement in detention and later on regular basis in detention. In 2025, the NPM recommended that each person placed in detention be checked as to whether they have experienced violence prior to their placement in the facility and that this be recorded in documentation. The NPM witnessed how, in Przemysl detention centre, the legally required examination of whether a third-country national’s mental health state could prove they were subject to violence did not take place.[11]

According to the Commissioner for Human Rights and NGOs, the authorities do not always release migrants who were subject to violence in their country of origin,[12] or at the Polish-Belarusian border, or people whose mental state detoriarated in detention.[13]

Additionally, the Border Guard continues to apply internal guidelines allowing deprivation of liberty of foreigners who have experienced violence (“Principles of Border Guard’s Procedure with Aliens Requiring Special Treatment.”). In 2019, the Border Guard updated the internal guidelines called “Rules of Conduct of the Border Guard towards foreigners requiring special treatment”. Based on these rules, only people who exhibit clear symptoms indicating that they have been subjected to severe forms of violence, and as a result, whose current psychophysical condition is significantly below average, are exempt from detention. Thus, the internal guidelines introduce additional restrictions not included in the Act of Foreigners and limits the prohibition of detention to victims of serious forms of violence. Moreover, the updated guidelines still do not solve the long-standing problem of the lack of an effective system for the identification of victims of violence.

This guidelines limit the requirement to examine detainees to only cases where they:

• Were in need of first aid assistance during the arrest;
• May be in a condition that threatens their life or health;
• Have declared that they require permanent or periodic treatment, the interruption of which would endanger their health or life;
• Are suspected of being carriers of an infectious disease.

In practice, the decision to conduct a medical examination is made by the Border Guard officer. However, there are serious doubts as to the ability of Border Guards officers to recognise if a third-country national has been subjected to violence, as not all of them are specialised in the identification of vulnerable asylum applicants. Moreover, these guidelines do not require that the officer have medical knowledge, nor do they set out the methods and criteria based on which the officer could assess whether a medical examination is necessary.[14] People who were placed in detention and stated that they had experienced violence during their detention were not automatically and immediately checked via a medical examination.[15] There are detained third-country nationals who, despite evident symptoms of PTSD, were not identified, or for whom the identification process takes a very long time, and during this time their mental state deteriorates due to their detention.[16]

The guidelines do not introduce a procedure to immediately release a victim of violence from a detention centre, as they foresee that this could only occur if it is established that prolongation of detention would cause a threat to the person’s life or health. The NPM recommends not using the guidelines prepared by the Border Guards as they are in contradiction with national law and international standards, including the Istanbul Protocol. In the opinion of the NPM, there should be two different documents introduced: a tool that could effectively identify foreigners who have experienced torture or other forms of violence and another one assessing third-country nationals’ health assessment concerning the potential risk for detained persons.[17] Nevertheless, the guidelines continued to be used in 2025.[18] The NPM described the use of the internal guidelines as a systematic violation of law.[19] During one of their inspections, the NPM also uncovered negligence and irregularities in the application of these rules.[20]

In 2018 and in 2022, the Commissioner for Human Rights recalled how the internal guidelines, based on which the identification is performed, do not clearly state that vulnerable persons, once identified, should be immediately released from detention.[21] Torture survivors stay in detention centres and even if they are identified at a later stage, they are not released from detention.[22] The Commissioner also underscored that the lack of accessible treatment and therapy in detention centres deepens the trauma.[23]

According to the HFHR,[24] the Polish authorities (BG and courts on their own motion) do not effectively identify victims of violence. Such identification should be done at the earliest possible stage while deciding on whether the person should be placed in detention. Additionally, the BG and courts should, on their own initative, check if there are any impediments to the application of the detention measure. In practice, asylum applicants who declare in their asylum application to have been subjected to torture, are still placed in detention centres and the identification is not carried out. Moreover, some courts placed victims in detention centres stating that there is no objection to such a decision since they will have access to psychological assistance in the guarded centre. The same opinion is presented in the SG guidelines, according to which, a foreigner will not be released if psychological assistance can be provided in the guarded centre.[25]

According to the Commissioner for Human Rights,[26] before Border Guards submit the application to place or prolong the stay of a third-country national in detention before the court, physicians only issue an opinion on whether the person’s physical health at the time of the examination allows for a stay in the detention centre. Thus, the assessment does not include:

• danger to life and health through the risk of deterioration of the current state of health e.g., emerging or worsening of mental disorders due to re-traumatisation and stress caused by detention;
• the person’s mental health, as no psychological or psychiatric examination is carried out;
• the possibility that the person has been subjected to violence and the impact on physical and mental health (as there is no psychological / psychiatric examination or medical evaluation of injuries and their possible causes).

The Commissioner for Human Rights, in his letter addressed to the Presidents of Regional Courts, expressed his concerns about cases of third-country nationals placed in detention who were victims of violence and were in bad psychophysical condition. Furthermore, he underscored how the level of medical and psychological care was far from sufficient and contact with psychologists in detention centres was impossible, which might lead to the deterioration of foreigners’ health through secondary victimization.[27] For example, in 2024 in the detention centre in Krosno, only one psychologist was hired for 8 hours, once a week, while being responsible for 79-80 people in Krosno Odrzańskie.[28] In 2025 in Białystok, Przemyśl and in Biała Podlaska[29] there were two psychologists – one internal and one external (part time).[30] In the opinion of NPM in 2024, an additional psychologist should be employed in Biala Podlaska to address existing needs.[31]

In 2024 the Polish Migration Forum[32] higlighted that : NGOs face barriers to accessing people in need in detention centre; the number of hired psychologists and physicians in detention centres is insufficient;[33] psychologists do not know the languages of third-country nationals, which made it difficult or even impossible to establish proper contact. The Ombudsman expressed concerns regarding the fact that access to psychological assistance provided by the NGOs is significantly limited.[34]

In 2024 and in 2025 access to independent psychologists deteriorated, as none of the NGO provide psychological assistance in detention centres.[35]

Courts generally do not accept psychological opinions submitted by independent psychologists (e.g. from NGOs),[36] save in exceptional cases.[37] Courts rather rely on the short opinions (very often, a single sentence stating that there are no obstacles to prolonging stay in a guarded centre) of the detention centre physician.[38] There are doubts as to whether the physician actually conducts medical checks on individuals before issuing health certificates. As highlighted by the NPM, medical opinions in third-country nationals’ cases are very general or offer only a partial view of a third-country national’s state of health, completely failing to address the issue of potential experience of violence.[39] Physicians typically have general specialisations, which means they may lack the expertise to assess the mental state of a detained person.

If medical or psychological opinions, which are in a foreigner’s files, indicate that a foreigner has experienced violence, the documentation is not always handed over to the court. This results in the illegal placement of people who have experienced violence in detention centres and arrests for foreigners, and consequently leads to their secondary traumatisation.[40]

In practice, only courts of higher instance call on experts to determine applicants’ mental health state but this happens very rarely (once in 2021).[41] Practice shows that neither the Border Guard nor the courts take the initiative to assess if an asylum applicant is a victim of violence.

In its 2019 concluding observations, the UN Committee against Torture highlighted that there is insufficient capacity to identify asylum seekers who are victims of torture and lack of adequate protection and care for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in Poland. In the opinion of CAT,[42] Poland should introduce a principle in law that detention of asylum-seekers, and in particular children and vulnerable persons, should be a measure of last resort, for as short a period as possible and in facilities appropriate for their status. Furthermore, the CAT recommended that Polish authorities refrain from placing asylum seekers and in particular children in guarded centres and ensure the fast and appropriate identification of vulnerable persons including survivors of torture and ill-treatment, as well as sexual and gender-based violence, and provide them with adequate access to health care and psychological services.[43]

Moreover, the Committee was concerned that training on the provisions of the UNCAT and the Istanbul Protocol is not part of the training regiment of border guards, judges, forensic doctors and medical personnel engaged in the treatment of third-country nationals in detention, and recommended Poland remedy this.

The CPT reported on various shortcomings in detention centres. In particular, that few  regular visits were conducted by psychiatrists, the lack of clinical psychologists, delays in accessing specialised medical care, including dental and gynaecological care; lack of screening for possible traumatic mental disorders and signs of victimisation; the need to introduce a register of injuries found during admission and stay in a Border Guard facility; the need for specialised training for medical staff in documenting and interpreting injuries, including techniques for interviewing people who may have been mistreated; cases of breaches of medical confidentiality in situations where other foreign nationals were asked to participate in examinations for translation purposes.[44]

On 8 October 2024, the European Court of Human Rights communicated a case against Poland – M.A.E. v. Poland, Application No. 7463/23 – concerning an Egyptian citizen who spent more than six months in the Guarded Detention Center for Foreigners in Lesznowola in connection with pending procedures to oblige him to return to his country of origin and then to grant him international protection. Despite the applicant’s serious health condition (urological, gastrointestinal), requiring urgent surgery and causing constant pain, the applicant being a victim of physical violence and having provided evidence of this, he was placed in detention centre. No official procedure was carried out to determine whether the person was a victim of violence by the Border Guards. At no stage of the proceedings did the courts take into account the foreigner’s health problems, his poor psychophysical condition or the fact that he had experienced violence, and the courts did not take into account the requests to refer him to a specialist forensic doctor and a psychologist, as the foreigner’s psychophysical condition was typical of a person having experienced violence. There were also procedural violations of the right to defence in the case. The foreigner was not served with the commander’s requests to order and extend his detention, nor was he brought to court hearings, despite his requests to that effect. [45]

This is not the first such case before the ECtHR for Poland: in 2020, an application was stricken out following Poland’s unilateral declaration that the applicant had indeed been deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention and that she did not have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Poland undertook to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 9,000.[46]

Detention of children

According to the law, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under 15 should not be detained.[47] In practice, some unaccompanied children are placed in detention centres if they are deemed accompanied by unrelated adults[48] or when there are doubts as to their age. In the latter case, either an age assessment procedure was carried out and they were ruled to be adults,[49] or they their age was definitvely determined when the Border Guard managed to confirm their identity after receiving original identity documents or information from the Embassy of the country of origin confirming the applicant’s identity.[50] It can also occur when they were placed in detention as irregular migrants (which is possible under the law)[51] and only then apply for international protection.

Asylum-seeking and migrant children who are with members of their families can be placed in detention centres together with accompanying adults.[52] This continued in 2025.[53]

Detaining children is a regular practice.[54] Unaccompanied children (recognised as children), families with children are placed in Lesznowola detention centre since September 2023. In total, in 2024, 24 unaccompanied and 73 accompanied children were reported in the detention centre in Lesznowola.[55] In 2025, 24 unaccompanied children were detained. Per new legislation, since 1 January 2026, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under 15 years should no longer be detained.[56]

In 2024 and 2025, there were several cases of detention of unaccompanied children who were considered to be an an adult following age assessment. In one case, the second instance court released the child, raising doubts about the age assessment procedure followed. In the second case, the child was released by the Border Guards in Biała Podlaska, after 2 months of detention, as his identity was confirmed by the Embassy.[57]  Both of them won compensation cases for unjust detention in 2025.[58]

Moreover, the different branches of the Border Guards confirmed that due to age assessment procedures several detainees were recognised as children: 1 in Kętrzyn by x-ray method, 6 boys in Biała Podlaska by dental examination, 2 in Przemyśl and 7 in Lesznowola detention centre.[59]

The NPM as well as the Ombudsman for Children Rights[60] have critically assessed the age assessment procedure set up in Polish law, which is solely conducted in a medical way and in most of the cases only an X-ray of a wrist was performed. In their opinion, this procedure should be comprehensive, also taking into account psychological, developmental or environmental factors. The NPM recalls that all evidence, such as photos of identity documents, must be taken into account in each final age assessment and any doubts have to be resolved in favour a minor. Additionally, the age assessment certificate should include a description of the examination along with the error limit.[61]

Source: Letter of the Border Guard Office in Biała Podlaska, 8 March 2023, in Kętrzyn 8 February 2024, Krosno Odrzańskie 3 March 2023, in Przemyśl 10 March 2023, Border Guard Headquarters 18 March 2024.Lesznowola, 7 February 2025, Nadwiślanski BG Unit, 21 January 2026.

A protection of children in detention policy was put in place from 2018, when new guidelines were introduced – “Intervention procedures in case of hurting children in guarded centres for foreigners”. Within the framework of that policy, employees of guarded centres were trained in the new rules and identification of behaviour which should be considered abuse.[62] In 2021, there were 2 cases of abuse against children, one in Kętrzyn and one in Biała Podlaska.[63] In 2023-2025,[64] no similar cases were reported.

In 2024 the Commissioners for Human Rights and Children Rights,[65] and in 2019 the UN Committee against Torture (CAT), expressed concern regarding the detention of families with children and unaccompanied minors over 15 years old, which are still possible under Polish law.[66]

In January 2022, the Commissioner for Human Rights in his letter to the Presidents of the Regional Courts (Prezesów Sądów Okręgowych) expressed, among others, his concerns regarding the detention of families with children. He underlined that none of the detention centres were an appropriate place for children, and detention may have a negative and irreversible impact on development and psychophysical condition of a child, especially with a traumatic migration experience, as these facilities are not suitable places for children. According to the Commissioner, Border Guards rarely release children whose mental health deteriorated sharply after being placed in a detention centre and justified the hospitalisation.

In the opinion of the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Commissioner for Children’s Rights,[67] HFHR[68] and other NGOs in Poland, child detention should be forbidden by law in all cases because detention, regardless of children’s migration status and their parents’ decisions, can never be in the best interest of a child, violates the children’ rights and may have a negative effect on children and their further development.[69] The CPT recommended Poland avoid detaining families with children in guarded centres for foreigners and ensure that if children are exceptionally placed in a guarded centre, this is for the shortest possible period.[70]

As of 2025, in general, detention decisions still did not consider the best interest of the child and the individual situation of the child.[71] When placing a child in a guarded centre together with their parents, courts do not mention the children and their personal situation in the justification of the detention decision.[72] In addition, the courts order detention of families in guarded centres for the maximum period of time allowed, rather than for the shortest period possible.[73] Children’s detention is ordered automatically, without an individual assessment of their situation and needs. Children are not represented by their official legal representative. Detention is not considered as a measure of a last resort, and no assessment is conducted as to whether alternatives to detention could be applied.[74] Furthermore, justifications for the courts’ decisions were adapted from the BG application for placing or prolonging the detention. Moreover, courts and the Border Guard treat detention as a form of punishment for crossing the border illegally.[75]

National caselaw

On 4 November 2025, the Regional Court in Białystok (case no. III Ko 314/25) awarded compensation to a third-country national who had been unlawfully placed in detention for approximately one month despite being an unaccompanied minor. Although the individual possessed documents confirming his age, the authorities relied on a wrist X-ray examination, which ruled him to be an adult without any margin of error indicated in the results.

In a separate case, on 9 December 2025, the District Court in Siedlce (case no. II Ko 160/25) ruled in favour of a minor who had spent two months in the detention centre in Biała Podlaska, having been released by the Border Guard only after his identity and age were confirmed by their national embassy.

In a judgment of 10 April 2023, the Białystok Court of Appeal set the amount of compensation for an Afghan family for unjustified detention to PLN 20,000 (EUR 4,723) per person for 97 days. The Court of Appeal found that the family’s detention was justified only for the first month. According to the court, the stay in the guarded centre for foreigners became unjustified after the identity of Mr. and Mrs. K. was confirmed. The court emphasised that the family should have been released from the centre immediately on the day the identity of the parents was confirmed, even if the identification procedure of the children had not been completed at that time. The court also noted that in the case of children, the application of the measure of placement in a guarded centre for foreigners should be limited to exceptional cases. The court also indicated that the amount of PLN 6,500 (EUR 1,535) in compensation awarded by the District Court in Olsztyn was a symbolic amount. The Court of Appeal therefore found that the amount of PLN 20,000 (EUR 4,723) in compensation for each of the applicants would be an appropriate amount, taking into account the negative effects of detention.[76]

The Regional Court in Lublin[77] granted an Iraqi Kurdish woman and her two children PLN 135,000 (EUR  31,881) in compensation for unjustified deprivation of liberty in a guarded centre for foreigners. According to the court, extending the detention of the foreigners after 3 months from their placement in the centre was unjustified because during the first period of detention, the Head of the Office for Foreigners did not conduct any evidentiary activities with their participation. In particular, there was no hearing regarding the reasons for applying for international protection. At the same time, the foreigner did not obstruct the proceedings in any way. The court also referred, among others, to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 20 June 2023, file reference II KK 148/22, which notably indicated that ‘guarded centres are not used to intern foreigners for the duration of the consideration of applications for international protection or, in the event of a negative decision on such an application, to ensure effective enforcement of a possible decision to deport the foreigner. These centres cannot therefore be treated as transit camps allowing for the selection of the group of foreigners who will receive a permit to stay in Poland.’

In 2024, the Supreme Court, recognising cassation in the case of compensation for detention, has delivered one of the most important judgments in detention cases in recent years. The case concerned a single mother who was detained for 16.5 months with her young child. The Supreme Court clarifies that should be obvious but are often ignored by Polish courts: any rationale for detention must be proven and courts cannot rely solely ‘on presumptions’, for detention to be lawful it must be necessary in the particular case, detention of refugees does not have a repressive function, nor is the purpose of  its use to protect the borders of the Republic of Poland or the external borders of the European Union, let alone to combat the phenomenon of illegal immigration,  the welfare of the child often overlooked in refugee and detention procedures, and should be the overriding value.[78]

On 1 March 2023, the Court of Appeals of Warsaw upheld the judgment of the District Court of Warsaw, awarding a compensation in the amount of PLN 72,500 (EUR 17,121) to a family detained in guarded centre for 2.5 months. The court underlined that, according to ECtHR’s jurisprudence, a family should be placed in detention only after having conducted an assessment regarding the possibility of applying less severe measure. The Court rule that the initial decision of issuing the detention order ignored the best interest of a child principle, and evaluated that it had caused a deterioration in the family’s mental state, as well as   to attend school. Additionally,  it was noted that the detainees were stripped naked while being admitted to the detention centre, had limited access to the computer room, their phones were taken from them and they could not move freely in the detention centre.[79]

Cases before the European Court of Human Rights

On 8 January 2026, the ECtHR struck out of the list the cases of I.A. and Others against Poland and H.A and N.H. against Poland.[80] The applicants complained, under Articles 2 and 3 alone and in conjunction with Article 13 ECHR, that the Polish authorities had ignored their requests for international protection and that, instead, had pushed them back to the Belarusian side of the border. Since the Belarusian authorities forced them back towards the Polish side, the applicants were stranded in the border forest area without access to medical aid, food, water, and shelter and in harsh weather conditions including frequent rain and low temperatures. They also raised further complaints regardings violations of Art. 5(1)(f), Art. 5(4) and Art. 8(1) of the Convention. The Court received friendly-settlement declarations, signed by the parties, under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications, subject to payment by the Government.

In a judgment of 27 November 2025, the ECtHR examined the detention of a Russian national and her infant child in a guarded centre for approximately nine months pending their expulsion from Poland.The Court found that, although the detention was based on domestic law, it was not a measure of last resort as required under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. The Court highlighted that the detention centre in Biala Podlaska undoubtedly constituted a place of confinement similar, in many respects, to prisons or remand centres. The Court also stated that, as a matter of principle, the detention of young children in such facilities must be avoided, and that only short-term placement, in suitable conditions, could be compatible with the ECHR, provided that the authorities establish that they took this measure as a last resort, only after having ascertained that no other measure involving a lesser restriction of freedom could be implemented. Moreover, the Court was not persuaded that due consideration was given to the applicants’ state of mental health when assessing whether there were any viable alternatives to detention in a guarded centre. The Court further held that the applicants’ detention constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention, given its excessive duration, the applicants’ vulnerability, and the lack of sufficient justification. Accordingly, the Court found violations of Articles 5 § 1 (f) and 8 of the Convention and awarded the applicants, jointly, EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.[81]

On 10 January 2023, the ECtHR communicated the case V.M. and Others against Poland. The case concerns the ongoing detention in Biała Podlaska of an Armenian mother and her two children pending their asylum and deportation proceedings. The mother’s mental health deteriorated heavily after she had a miscarriage while in detention.[82] The case is still pending.

On 9 February 2023, the ECtHR[83] issued a judgment in R.M. and Others against Poland. The Court found that the 7-month detention of the family with children violated the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically the prohibition of unlawful detention and the right to family life. For the first time, the Court noted that failure to inform foreigners about the planned extension of their detention violated their right to a fair procedure. The ECtHR also admitted that the foreigners concerned by the case should know what information about their life, the legal and psychophysical situation is provided to the court – so that they have a chance to supplement it.[84]

In April 2023, the ECtHR communicated the case M.S.T. and Others against Poland. The applicants complained that their prolonged detention violated Article 3 of the Convention owing to the nature of detention as such, as well as to the prison-like conditions of the Guarded Centre in Kętrzyn, including room sizes of less than 4 m2 per person, lack of protection from the summer heat, restriction of outdoor activities, personal inspection upon admission to the centre violating the dignity of the applicants or failure to provide any privacy to conduct their private and family life. the lack of proper psychological and medical care for their mental and physical conditions. They also complain that detention was not a measure of last resort and that neither possibility to apply alternative measures nor the best interest of the child were not taken into account. The applicant also alleged  not to have had access to legal representation during the proceedings. They also underlined that court documents were translated into a language they did not understand, the failure to consider requests for evidence relevant to the case and, moreover, the failure to thoroughly examine the possibility of alternative measures to detention and the failure to take into account the best interests of the minor child when making judgments.[85]

On 16 May 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) communicated the case of Z.H.R. and Others v. Poland concerning detention of an Iraqi national and her two children in the Guarded Centre for Migrants in Lesznowola and later in Biała Podlaska. The family stayed in the centres for ten months in 2021-2022, despite the mother’s deteriorating mental state.[86]

On 10 July 2023, the ECtHR communicated the case M.H.D. and Others against Poland filed by the Iraqi nationals, a married couple with two minor children, who were detained in two detention centres: Lesznowola and, subsequently, in Kętrzyn for at least six months. They complain about the conditions of their detention in both detention centres, insufficient space in the room, limited time that they could spend outside. Additionally, the applicants who were victims of violence, complained that they were not provided with adequate psychological and medical care, they were twice subjected to personal checks and that they had to strip naked which was particularly humiliating and infringed their dignity. The applicants further complained that the centre was not adjusted to the needs of minor applicants – they indicate that a prolonged stay in the centre was unnecessary and harmful for the psychological development of the children who did not receive adequate medical treatment. Lastly, they complain, that the decisions ordering their detention lacked legal and factual grounds, the review of their appeals against their detention orders was limited in scope and the respective procedure lacked the necessary guaranties.[87]

In November 2019, a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee was submitted to challenge another case of child detention. It addressed the detention of an asylum-seeking family (a single father with two children) in the detention centre in Biała Podlaska for 10 months, following their Dublin-transfer to Poland in November 2018. In this case, the courts did not properly assess the children’s situation and their best interests. The District Court, prolonging the detention of the family, considered only the opinion of the Border Guard stating that there were no contradictions for the further children’s stay in the detention centre. Likewise, Border Guard refused to release the family even though the mental condition of the children was deteriorating. On 10 February 2021, the case was communicated to the Polish government.[88] The case is still pending as of January 2026.

[1] Article 89cb Law on Protection. Border Guard Unit in Przemyśl, 2026.

[2] RPO, ‘Commissioner for Human Rights asks about assistance for foreigners released from guarded centres. Border Guard response’, 7 February 2023, available in Polish here.

[3] Letter from Warminsko-Mazurski BG unit, 21 January 2026, Podlaski Border Guards Unit, 21 January 2026, Bieszczadzki Border Guards Unit, 16 February 2026,  Nadwislanski Border Guards Unit 21 January 2026.

[4] Article 88a(3) Law on Protection.In Kętrzyn 2 person were released on the basis of this provision in 2023, Border Guard Unit in Kętrzyn.

[5] Article 406(1)(2) Law on Foreigners.

[6] 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, 80, describes of a detention case of a person who was disabled (lack of one limb).

[7] Commissioner for Human Rights, Sytuacja cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych w dobie kryzysu na granicy Polski i Białorusi Raport z wizytacji Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur, [Situation of foreigners in the guarded centres in times of crisis on the border of Poland and Belarus], Report NPM, 15 June 2022, available in Polish here; Judgement Court of Appeals in Białystok (Sąd Apelacyjny w Białymstoku) Sygn. akt II AKa 136/23, 28 November 2023. National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture KMPT.572.3.2025. AG Report of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture on the visit to the Detention Center and Center for Foreigners in Przemyśl, 3 September 2025, available in Polish here, 29 and following. The visit took place in May 2025.

[8] SIP, Report 2023, We have an impact! Summary of the most important SIP activities, 2024, available here; SIP, Iraqi Refugee Receives PLN 50,000 Compensation for Unlawful Detention in Guarded Center, available here; Polish Migration Forum, A report on the psychological assistance of the Polish Migration Forum Foundation for people in guarded centers for foreigners, 17 June 2024, available in Polish here.

[9] Commissioner for Human Rights, Sytuacja cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych w dobie kryzysu na granicy Polski i Białorusi Raport z wizytacji Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur, [Situation of foreigners in the guarded centres in times of crisis on the border of Poland and Belarus], Report NPM, 15 June 2022, available in Polish here; Commissioner for Human Rights, Krajowy Mechanizm Prewencji KMP.572.6.2023.MD, Raport Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur z wizytacji Strzeżonego Ośrodka i Aresztu dla Cudzoziemców w Przemyślu, 12 January 2024, available in Polish here; SIP, ‘PLN 50,000 compensation for wrongful detention in a guarded center for an Iraqi refugee’, 11 September 2024, available in Polish here; Regional Court in Łódź, XVIII Ko 30/23, 15 May 2024, mentioned in SIP, ‘PLN 12,000 for 53 days of illegal detention in a guarded center for foreigners’, 24 June 2024, available in Polish here; Judgment of the District Court in Olsztyn, 28 March 2024, ref. no. II KO 298/23;  Regional Court in Olsztyn, file number VII Kz 34/24, 9 February 2024, as mentioned in SIP, ‘The court releases from detention and takes into account the opinion of a psychologist from outside the SOC’, 28 February 2024, available in Polish here; Olsztyn Regional Court, file number VII Kz 509/23, 24 November 2023, as reported in SIP, ‘A foreigner after experiencing violence released by the court from a guarded center’, 16 January 2024, available in Polish here. National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture KMPT.572.3.2025. AG Report of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture on the visit to the Detention Center and Center for Foreigners in Przemyśl, 3 September 2025, available in Polish here, 30. The visit took place in May 2025.

[10] Commissioner for Human Rights, Sytuacja cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych w dobie kryzysu na granicy Polski i Białorusi Raport z wizytacji Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur, [Situation of foreigners in the guarded centres in times of crisis on the border of Poland and Belarus], Report NPM, 15 June 2022, available in Polish here.

[11] National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture KMPT.572.3.2025. AG Report of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture on the visit to the Detention Center and Center for Foreigners in Przemyśl, 3 September 2025, available in Polish here, 34. The visit took place in May 2025.

[12] EU Fundamental Rights Agency, Migration: Key fundamental rights concerns – January 2021- June 2021, FRA Bulletin 2, available in English here, 23. Judgement Court of Appeals in Białystok (Sąd Apelacyjny w Białymstoku) Sygn. akt II AKa 136/23, 28 November 23.

[13] Commissioner for Human Rights, Sytuacja cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych w dobie kryzysu na granicy Polski i Białorusi Raport z wizytacji Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur, [Situation of foreigners in the guarded centres in times of crisis on the border of Poland and Belarus], Report NPM, 15 June 2022, available in Polish here; Commissioner for Human Rights, Krajowy Mechanizm Prewencji KMP.572.7.2023.KK, Raport Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur z wizytacji Strzeżonego Ośrodka dla Cudzoziemców w Białej Podlaskiej, 4 January 2024, available in Polish here.

[14] Commissioner for Human Rights, Sytuacja cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych w dobie kryzysu na granicy Polski i Białorusi Raport z wizytacji Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur, [Situation of foreigners in the guarded centres in times of crisis on the border of Poland and Belarus], Report NPM, 15 June 2022, available in Polish here.

[15] 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 in Polish here. 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, 81.

[16] RPO, Foreigners in administrative detention. Results of the KMPT monitoring in guarded centres for foreigners in Poland, March 2021, available in Polish here, 43; 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, 81.Information provided by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, March 2026.

[17] Commissioner for Human Rights, Sytuacja cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych w dobie kryzysu na granicy Polski i Białorusi Raport z wizytacji Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur, [Situation of foreigners in the guarded centres in times of crisis on the border of Poland and Belarus], Report NPM, 15 June 2022, available in Polish here.

[18] Information provided by HFHR, February 2025. National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture KMPT.572.3.2025. AG Report of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture on the visit to the Detention Center and Center for Foreigners in Przemyśl, 3 September 2025, available in Polish here, 29. The visit took place in May 2025.

[19] National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture KMPT.572.3.2025. AG Report of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture on the visit to the Detention Center and Center for Foreigners in Przemyśl, 3 September 2025, available in Polish here. The visit took place in May 2025.

[20] National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture KMPT.572.3.2025. AG Report of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture on the visit to the Detention Center and Center for Foreigners in Przemyśl, 3 September 2025, available in Polish here, 29. The visit took place in May 2025.

[21] Commissioner for Human Rights, Sytuacja cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych w dobie kryzysu na granicy Polski i Białorusi Raport z wizytacji Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur, [Situation of foreigners in the guarded centres in times of crisis on the border of Poland and Belarus], Report NPM, 15 June 2022, available in Polish here.

[22] Information provided by the HFHR, January 2023.

[23] Commissioner for Human Rights, Raport Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur z wizytacji Strzeżonego Ośrodka dla Cudzoziemców w Bialej Podlaskiej, 7 January 2019, available in Polish here.

[24] Information of HFHR, March 2024.

[25] “Rules of BG proceedings with foreigners who need special treatment (algorithm)”, 2015.

[26] RPO, Foreigners in administrative detention. Results of the KMPT monitoring in guarded centres for foreigners in Poland, March 2021, available in Polish here, 43.

[27] Commissioner for Human Rights, Letter to the Regional Courts, 25 January 2022, available here.

[28] Nadodrzański BG Unit, 25 February 2025.

[29] Commissioner for Human Rights, Krajowy Mechanizm Prewencji KMP.572.7.2023.KK, Raport Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur z wizytacji Strzeżonego Ośrodka dla Cudzoziemców w Białej Podlaskiej, 4 January 2024, available in Polish here.

[30] Letter from the Podlaski and Nadbużański Border Guards, 21 and 19 January 2026.

[31] Commissioner for Human Rights, Krajowy Mechanizm Prewencji KMP.572.7.2023.KK, Raport Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur z wizytacji Strzeżonego Ośrodka dla Cudzoziemców w Białej Podlaskiej, 4 January 2024, available in Polish here.

[32] Polish Migration Forum, A report on the psychological assistance of the Polish Migration Forum Foundation for people in guarded centers for foreigners, June 2024, available in Polish here.

[33] Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The centre for foreigners in Wędrzyn does not meet the standards for the protection of their rights. Conclusions after the third visit of the BRPO’, 24 January 2022, available in Polish here; Polish Migration Forum, A report on the psychological assistance of the Polish Migration Forum Foundation for people in guarded centers for foreigners, June 2024, available in Polish here.

[34] Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Psychological assistance in guarded centres for foreigners – also from NGOs’, 25 April 2023, available in Polish here; Polish Migration Forum, A report on the psychological assistance of the Polish Migration Forum Foundation for people in guarded centers for foreigners, June 2024, available in Polish here.

[35] SIP, We have an impact! Summary of the most important SIP activities in 2023, 2024, available in English here.

[36] Information provided by Legal Intervention Association, HFHR, January 2023.

[37] Foreigner released by court from guarded centre after experiencing violence, 24 November 2023, available in Polish here, and see SIP, ‘Cudzoziemiec po doświadczeniu przemocy zwolniony przez sąd ze strzeżonego ośrodka’, 16 January 2024, available in Polish here.

[38] SIP, Raport SIP w działaniu, Prawa cudzoziemców w Polsce w 2020 r. [Report SIP in action. Rights of foreigners in Poland in 2020], available in Polish here.

[39] National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture KMPT.572.3.2025. AG Report of the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture on the visit to the Detention Center and Center for Foreigners in Przemyśl, 3 September 2025, available in Polish here. The visit took place in May 2025.

[40] SIP, Raport SIP w działaniu, Prawa cudzoziemców w Polsce w 2020 r. [Report SIP in action. Rights of foreigners in Poland in 2020], available in Polish here; 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.

[41] UN Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 22-24 July 2019, available here.

[42] UN Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 22-24 July 2019, available here.

[43] UN Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Poland, 22-24 July 2019, available here.

[44] CPT, Report to the Polish Government on the visit to Poland carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) f 21 March to 1 April 2022, 22 February 2024, available here.

[45] SIP, ‘ECHR communicates our client’s case regarding detention in a guarded facility’, 12 November 2024, available in Polish here.

[46] ECtHR, “A.A. against Poland” Application, no. 47888/19, lodged on 29 August 2019, available here.

[47] Article 397 Foreigners Act.

[48] Commissioner for Human Rights, Sytuacja cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych w dobie kryzysu na granicy Polski i Białorusi Raport z wizytacji Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur, [Situation of foreigners in the guarded centres in times of crisis on the border of Poland and Belarus], Report NPM, 15 June 2022, available in Polish here, 21; SIP, 8 May 2024, ‘A teenager from Egypt locked up in a guarded center – we file a complaint with the ECHR’, available in Polish here.

[49] Regional Court in Suwałki, II KZ 146/24, decision 2 July 2024; case of HFHR, May 2024, District Court in Grójec, releasing the children from detention; Regional Court in Grójec, decision of 16 October 2024, file reference II Ko 3183/24; Regional Court in Grójec, decision of 9 October 2024, file reference II Ko 3184/24. Information provided by HFHR, January 2026; SIP, ‘Unaccompanied Somali minor released from guarded centre’, 15 December 2023, available here; HFHR, ‘Somali girl released from immigration detention – a court finds that the authorities misjudged her age’, 1 August 2023, available here; Regional Court in Suwałki, II KZ 146/24, decision 2 July 2024; case of HFHR, May 2024.

[50] Information provided by Warminsko-Mazurski, Nadwislanski, Bieszczadzki and Nadodrzański Border Guards Unit 2025, 15 minors were reported to by placed in detention centres for adults.

[51] BG in Krosno Odrzańskie, 3 March 2023.Information from HFHR, January 2025.

[52]  Although it happens in practice that some members of the family are placed in the reception centre and some in the detention centre. See for instance, T. Sieniow, ‘Wnioski z monitoringu wraz z rekomendacjami’, 59.

[53] Information provided by SIP, HFHR in 2025.

[54] 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, 207-208.

[55] Letter from Nadwislanski Border Guards Unit, 21 January 2026.

[56] Article 397 Foreigners Act

[57] Regional Court in Suwałki, II KZ 146/24, decision 2 July 2024; case of HFHR, May 2024.

[58] Regional Court in Białystok, Regional Court in Siedlce in December 2025.

[59] Information provided by Bieszczadzki Border Guard Unit 16 February 2026, Warminsko-Mazurski Border Guard Unit 21 January 2026, Nadbużański Border Guard Unit 19 January 2026, Nadwiślanski BG Unit, 21 January 2026.

[60] RPO, ‘The Human Rights Ombudsman and the Children Rights Ombudsman  jointly appeal to the Prime Minister. This concerns migrating unaccompanied children’, 5 November 2024, available in Polish here.

[61] Commissioner for Human Rights, Sytuacja cudzoziemców w ośrodkach strzeżonych w dobie kryzysu na granicy Polski i Białorusi Raport z wizytacji Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur, [Situation of foreigners in the guarded centres in times of crisis on the border of Poland and Belarus], Report NPM, 15 June 2022, available in Polish here; Commissioner for Human Rights, Krajowy Mechanizm Prewencji KMP.572.7.2023.KK, Raport Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur z wizytacji Strzeżonego Ośrodka dla Cudzoziemców w Białej Podlaskiej, 4 January 2024, available in Polish here.

[62] CoE Committee of Ministers, Communication from Poland concerning the case Bistieva and others v. Poland (application No. 75157/14), 14 June 2019, available here.

[63] Information provided by different Border Guard Units in Białystok, Kętrzyn, Przemyśl, Lesznowola and FIPP, 2022.

[64] Information from Nadwiślański Border Guard Unit, 7 February 2025.

[65] Commissioner for Children Rights and for Human Rights, ‘The Ombudsman and the Ombudsman jointly appeal to the Prime Minister. This concerns migrating unaccompanied children’, 5 November 2024, available in Polish here.

[66] The CPT visited 3 detention centres in Poland in 2022 – in Wędrzyn, Biała Podlaska and Białystok: CPT, Report to the Polish Government on the visit to Poland carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 21 March to 1 April 2022, 22 February 2024, available here.

[67] Commissioner for Child’s Rights, “Wystąpienie do Prezesa Rady Ministrów, 3 December 2018, available in Polish here.

[68] HFHR, ‘Migrant children should not be detained in guarded centres. HFHR intervenes in ECtHR proceedings in connection with the detention of children’, 21 June 2023, available in English here.

[69] HFHR, “Rights of persons deprived of liberty-fundamental legal and practical issues. HFHR perspective”, July 2018, available here. Commissioner for Children Rights and for Human Rights, ‘The Ombudsman and the Ombudsman jointly appeal to the Prime Minister. This concerns migrating unaccompanied children’, 5 November 2024, available in Polish here.

[70] CPT, Report to the Polish Government on the visit to Poland carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 21 March to 1 April 2022, 22 February 2024, available here.

[71]  Information provided by HFHR and SIP, January 2025, available here; 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, 208.

[72]  HFHR, Poland submissions on ending immigration detention of children to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, May 2020, available here; SIP, Information on the observance of human rights under the UN procedure of the Universal Periodic Review, March 2022, available here. 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, 109.

[73]  Information provided by SIP, January 2025.

[74]  SIP, ‘Another intervention before the ECHR concerning the detention of migrants in Poland’, 20 October 2023, available in English here and here.

[75]  HFHR, Research on the applicability of the best interests of the child principle as the primary consideration in detention decisions as well as the alternatives to detention, 2017; SIP, Information on the observance of human rights under the UN procedure of the Universal Periodic Review, March 2022, available here; 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, 121.

[76] SIP, ‘100 thousand złoty of compensation for unfair detention for a family from Afghanistan’, file reference II Aka 192/23, 9 August 2024, available in Polish here,

[77] Judgment of 29 April 2024, file reference IV Ko 895/23, SIP Newsleter nr 14.

[78] Jugement on behalf of the Republic of Poland of the Supreme Court in a case filed by R. Z. and S. Z. regarding compensation for unjust placement in a guarded centre for foreigners, 20 June 2023, available in Polish here.

[79] SIP, ‘Compensation for unjustified detention of family of three, victims of violence’, 25 April 2023, available in Polish here.

[80] Applications nos.53181/21 and 53566/21, available here in English: https://bit.ly/4jJgrhM.

[81] ECtHR, K.G. and S.G. v. Poland (Application no. 62466/19), 27 November 2025, available here.

[82] ECtHR, Application no. 40002/22 V.M. and Others against Poland, lodged on 10 August 2022 communicated on 10 January 2023, available here.

[83] ECtHR, M.R and others against Poland, Application No 11247/18, lodged on 26 February 2018, available here.

[84] ECtHR, Application no. 11247/18, Judgment, 9 February 2023, M.R and others against Poland, available in French here.

[85] ECtHR, Application 404464/22, M.S.T. and Others against Poland, communicated 5 April 2023, available here.

[86] ECtHR, Application, Z.H.R. and others v Poland, communicated 16 May 2023, available here.

[87] ECtHR, Application no. 22399/22, M.H.D. and Others against Poland, communicated on 10 July 2023, available here.

[88] HFHR, Pierwsza sprawa z Polski dotycząca detencji cudzoziemców przed Komitetem Praw Człowieka ONZ, available in Polish here.