One Month On: Legal Ambiguity, Human Rights Risks, and Other Concerns on the Implementation of Poland’s Temporary Suspension of Asylum at the Belarusian Border

Legal Ambiguity and Concerns Over Territorial Scope

April marks the first full month of the regulation suspending the possibility of applying for international protection at the border between Poland and Belarus. At the time the regulation was published, on March 27, 2025¹, experts and human rights advocates raised concerns about the territorial scope of the suspension². The vague wording—the suspension [which] […] applies at the state border with the Republic of Belarus³—did not clearly specify how far from the borderline the ban on applying for protection would be in effect. In response to journalists’ inquiries, the Ministry of the Interior and Administration stated that the legal provisions are not formulated in a way that designates any specific area where the restriction applies, and that the decisive factor will be the factual circumstances of each case, i.e., the ability to confirm the circumstances [of border crossing]. It is to be expected that in practice, such cases will occur in the immediate vicinity of the border.⁴ This response suggests there may be a risk of arbitrary decisions when it comes to the fate of people crossing the border. So far cases documented by the civil society in April and first days of May seem to support that concern.

Discretion in Practice: Case Examples Highlighting Inconsistencies

On April 22, the Maritime Branch of the Border Guard reported that it had accepted asylum applications from five Somali men near Szczecin, close to the German border. The men were apprehended after local residents reported them to the Border Guard. In their case, no legal assistance was needed for them to submit their applications for international protection.⁵

In another case, this time in the Podlaskie region, an employee of a non-governmental organization and legal representative of one of the migrants was informed by a Border Guard officer that the man would only be allowed to submit an application for international protection after being transferred to a guarded detention center.⁶ The man was among those who, after crossing the so-called “green border” from Belarus, requested assistance from the civil society.

Thanks to the coordinated efforts of the activists and iNGOs involved in the intervention, he was granted an interim measure by the European Court of Human Rights, which prevented him from being pushed back to Belarus. However, due to the lack of a legal basis to accept his asylum application on the spot (according to the current interpretation of the law by the Border Guard), he was sent to a detention center for the initiation of return proceedings.

Interim Measures from the European Court of Human Rights

The man mentioned above is one of 12 people who, between March 27 and May 12, 2025, were successfully protected from being pushed back after crossing the border irregularly, thanks to interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).⁷ The Court granted these 12 measures after concluding that sending the individuals back to Belarus could pose a real risk of violating their right to life or their right to be free from torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment.

Medical Facilities as Points of Uncertain Protection

Notably, 11 of these individuals were in hospitals in Hajnówka or Białystok while they waited for the Court’s decision. At the same time, according to the Association for Legal Intervention, in the case of two people who tried to apply for protection at the official border crossing in Terespol, and had already been granted interim measure, Poland failed to comply with the Court’s ruling.⁸

The average waiting time for a decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on interim measures was in this period typically between several hours and one to two working days. However, while awaiting the decision, individuals remain at risk of being returned to Belarus, even while receiving medical care in hospitals.

For example on April 11, Grupa Granica reported that a young man from Mali, who had been hospitalized, was pushed back to Belarus. He had been brought to a hospital in Hajnówka by ambulance, where medical staff noticed signs of confusion—he repeatedly asked where he was and which country he was in. He told them he was 17 years old and wanted to apply for international protection. He signed a power of attorney with a legal representative from European Lawyers in Lesvos and expressed his intention to seek asylum.

Since he had no documents and had declared himself a minor, he was scheduled for an age assessment the next day.⁹ However, the following morning, around 11 a.m., Border Guard officers discharged him from the hospital. The legal representative sent all the necessary documents to the Border Guard post in Białowieża and asked for information about the boy’s situation.

Worried that he might be pushed back, the legal representative requested an interim measure from the ECHR. With no response from the Border Guard, she called the post around 3 p.m. and was told that the boy was already on his way back from Białystok. The officer assured her that she would be kept updated about what was happening. However, no one followed up with her, and she received no information about the results of the age test or what steps were being taken next.

Later, around 6:30 p.m., the ECHR issued a decision in favor of the boy, prohibiting Poland from sending him back to Belarus. The legal representative emailed the decision to the Border Guard post around 7:00 p.m. and called again, but the officer refused to provide any information, advising her to call later.

The next morning, when she called again, she was told that the ECHR decision had arrived too late—the boy had already been pushed back to Belarus. The officer expressed regret, stating, “Unfortunately, time cannot be turned back.”

Shortly after, the boy reached out to Grupa Granica from Belarus, saying that before being pushed back across the border, Polish officers had beaten him. He reported: “Polish police officers beat me and broke my foot and finger.”¹⁰

This case is one of three similar incidents recorded so far involving individuals hospitalized in the Podlaskie region. In each case, the ECHR issued interim measures, but the decisions were delivered to the Border Guard only after the individuals had already been pushed back to Belarus.

Situation at the Terespol Border Crossing

The suspension of the right to international protection also applies to the only open for passenger traffic border crossing between Poland and Belarus – the Brest-Terespol border, which since the 1990s has been a main escape route for citizens of former Soviet Union countries fleeing persecution.

As lawyers supporting individuals reaching the Belarusian city of Brest point out, on the first day of the new regulations, individuals claiming to have experienced political repression (including torture) were turned away at the border crossing, despite declaring to Polish authorities that they feared persecution if returned to their home countries. Over the next few days, there were also documented cases of refusals to accept asylum applications from a citizen of a Central Asian country, who had been living in the Russian Federation in recent years and had documentation regarding the violence he had suffered at the hands of Russian authorities. He also reported receiving threats of being drafted to the Russian army and sent to the front in eastern Ukraine. In the case of two women traveling together from the Caucasus, an application was accepted from one who was pregnant, while the other, traveling with a young child, was told to get out of the car and return to Belarus.¹¹

Due to geographical and geopolitical reasons, for citizens of Russia and Central Asian countries, the escape route from areas where they face danger often passes through Poland. Additionally, Russia, to which around 10% of Tajikistan’s citizens have been migrating seasonally for work in recent years due to economic collapse, has intensified its persecution of migrants over the past year.¹² This affects both those migrating seasonally or permanently for economic reasons, as well as those who left Tajikistan due to political repression. The pretext for this persecution was initiated by the media reports from the spring of 2024, that reported that several men from Tajikistan claimed responsibility for a deadly attack at the concert near Moscow.¹³

For women arriving at the border crossing in Brest-Terespol, one of the key reasons for their flight is the widespread domestic violence, which has been intensified by deliberate actions of the Russian authorities. These include the decriminalization of domestic violence and the lack of systemic support for its victims.¹⁴ In recent years, a significant number of women seeking international protection in Terespol have come from the North Caucasus region, which is part of Russia.¹⁵

Government’s Future Plans Regarding the Suspension of the Right to Apply for Protection

On May 6, 2025, Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced at a press conference that the government plans to extend the suspension of the right to apply for international protection beyond the initial 60-day period. He stated that, over a month into the suspension, pressure on the border has not decreased, and that the suspension is intended to apply to those who cross the border illegally.¹⁶ This may seem surprising in the context of the content of the Council of Ministers’ request for the Sejm’s consent to extend the restriction on the right to submit an application for protection, which was submitted to the Sejm on the same day. The request states that the extension of the suspension would apply to the same territorial scope as before – thus affecting not only those who cross the border irregularly, but also those who present themselves at a border crossing.¹⁷

Summary of findings:

This initial assessment of the first month of implementation of the new regulation as expected, confirms previous significant concerns:

Access to international protection is effectively blocked for those crossing the border between the two countries both irregularly and through the border crossing. The few individuals who succeeded in applying for asylum were predominantly hospital patients who had received interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) granting them temporary protection from pushbacks.

Despite the very efficient work of the ECHR, in at least three cases individuals had been discharged from hospitals in Hajnówka and Białystok and pushed back before the rulings reached the Polish Border Guard. In one case the delay was only about 20 minutes.

The existence of an effective mechanism for identifying individuals belonging to vulnerable groups—who, according to the regulation, should be exempt from its application—appears doubtful. This confirms concerns that the exceptions set out in the regulation are not being effectively applied in practice.

The suspension also impacts the Brest–Terespol road crossing—historically a vital route for political dissidents and women fleeing domestic violence from post-Soviet states. Civil society actors have documented cases of individuals being denied the opportunity to apply for asylum at this crossing, despite clear indicators of vulnerability. At least one incident was reported where an ECHR interim measure was not respected by the Polish authorities at the crossing.

Przypisy / Footnotes

1
Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 27 March 2025 on the temporary restriction of the right to submit an application for international protection (Journal of Laws 2025, item 390).
2
Opinion of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights on the Regulation of the Council of Ministers concerning the restriction of the right to international protection, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, 27 March 2025. https://hfhr.pl/aktualnosci/rozporzadzenie-zawieszajace-prawo-do-ochrony-miedzynarodowej [accessed: 19.05.2025].
3
ibid.
4
A. Kiełczykowska, Granica z Białorusią zamknięta na wnioski azylowe. Terespol bez wyjątków, “Bankier”, 11.04.2025, https://www.bankier.pl/wiadomosc/Granica-z-Bialorusia-zamknieta-na-wnioski-azylowe-Terespol-bez-wyjatkow-8923308.html [accessed: 19.05.2025].
5
Kurier Szczeciński, Somalijczycy zatrzymani koło Buku złożyli wnioski o ochronę międzynarodową, 22.04.2025, https://24kurier.pl/aktualnosci/wiadomosci/somalijczycy-zatrzymani-kolo-buku-zlozyli-wnioski-o-ochrone-miedzynarodowa/ [accessed: 19.05.2025].
6
WAM operational data.
7
up until 12th of May.
8
Association for Legal Intervention, Polska nie zastosowała się do decyzji Trybunału w Strasburgu i zawróciła uchodźców do Białorusi, 18.04.2025, https://interwencjaprawna.pl/polska-nie-zastosowala-sie-do-decyzji-trybunalu-w-strasburgu-i-zawrocila-uchodzcow-do-bialorusi/ [accessed: 19.05.2025].
9
A method most commonly used by the Polish Border Guard is the bone x-ray: it is not compliant with the EASO age assessment recommendations.
10
Grupa Granica, https://www.facebook.com/grupagranica/posts/pfbid02sQ26C7WuELePEY8nBUb3MyUK2dcZbtCZMxpUNkF2uw9GmLgc2E2NDmT1jZ5qmN7gl?rdid=UQcgzbwf3XkvskCB# [accessed: 19.05.2025].
11
Z. Kaciupska, T. Sieniow, Zawieszenie prawa do azylu – realia prawne i konsekwencje dla rozwoju sytuacji na granicy polsko-białoruskiej, paper presented at the 25th seminar of the Researchers at the Border group, 12–13 April 2025.
12
M. Popławski, Tadżykistan: migracyjny wentyl bezpieczeństwa, Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich, 4.06.2024, https://www.osw.waw.pl/pl/publikacje/analizy/2024-06-05/tadzykistan-migracyjny-wentyl-bezpieczenstwa [accessed: 19.05.2025].
13
P. Sauer, ‘I noticed nothing strange’: suspect’s colleagues express shock at Moscow attack, “Guardian”, 26.03.2024, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/26/moscow-concert-hall-attack-tajik-gunmen-russia [accessed: 19.05.2025].
14
J. E. Johnson, Russia’s Authoritarian Policymaking: The Politics of Domestic Violence after Partial Decriminalization, “Problems of Post-Communism”, Volume 71, 2024 – Issue 6, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10758216.2023.2274074, [accessed: 19.05.2025].
15
M. Szczepanik, Republika strachu. Prawa człowieka we współczesnej Czeczenii, Helsińska Fundacja Praw Człowieka, 2019, https://hfhr.pl/upload/2025/02/czeczenia-raport-prawa-czlowieka.pdf [accessed: 19.05.2025]. I. Kaliszewska, The Situation of Women in the North Caucasus (Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia), Office for Foreigners, 2019, https://www.gov.pl/attachment/03e0dc75-96f1-497d-ba53-e1ec00fdcb4a [accessed: 19.05.2025].
16
Statement by D. Tusk before the Council of Ministers meeting, 06 May 2025, time: 9:30 min, YouTube platform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkh-PYt_0ac [accessed: 19.05.2025].
17
Request for the approval of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland to extend the temporary restriction of the right to submit an application for international protection at the state border with the Republic of Belarus, 6 May 2025, Sejm document no. 1225.