Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:38:16.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From a Different Angle—Poland and the Mediterranean Refugee Crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Michałt Kowalski

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This Article aims at presenting and clarifying the Polish perspective towards the Mediterranean refugee crisis. Poland has not been directly affected by this crisis so far and this makes the Polish case significantly different from the European Union Member States that are directly affected by a large influx of people seeking protection. This Article briefly presents the Polish legal framework and its origins and analyzes the particular governmental (in)actions towards the Mediterranean refugee crisis, including references to the politicized debate on the issue. Also, the specific context of a potential future Ukrainian crisis is addressed. The Article finishes with concluding remarks and suggestions to employ temporary legal measures to address large movements of refugees and migrants, as such measures deal with the specificity of such movements in the best way that can be achieved.

Type
Special issue - Constitutional Dimensions of the Refugee Crisis
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 17 , Issue 6: Special issue - Constitutional Dimensions of the Refugee Crisis , 01 November 2016 , pp. 967 - 980
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by German Law Journal, Inc. 

References

1 In 2015, refugee status was granted in 203 Syrian cases. In 2014, it was granted in 115 Syrian cases. In previous years the number of Syrian applications was as follows: 2013: 255; 2012: 107; 2011: 12; 2010: 8; 2009: 7; 2008: 10; 2007: 6; TOP 5 – ochrona międzynarodowa [TOP 5 – International Protection], Urząd do Spraw Cudzoziemców, http://udsc.gov.pl/statystyki/raporty-specjalne/top-5-ochrona-miedzynarodowa/ (last visited Oct. 27, 2016).Google Scholar

2 “Member States are far from complying with their allocations under the Council Decisions. As we approach the halfway point of the duration of the Council Decisions, the rate of implementation of relocation stands at a mere 2%.” Commc'n from the Comm'n to the Eur. Parliament, the Eur. Council and the Council, Fourth Report on Relocation and Resettlement 2 (June 15, 2016) [hereinafter Fourth Report].Google Scholar

3 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137.Google Scholar

4 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Oct. 4, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.Google Scholar

5 Michałt Kowalski, International Refugee Law and Judicial Dialogue from the Polish Perspective, in International Law through National Prism (A. Wyrozumska, ed.) (forthcoming 2016).Google Scholar

6 Art. 56, Rozdziałt VII, Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.Google Scholar

7 Article 88 (initially Article 75) of the 1952 Constitution of the Polish People's Republic provided for the right to asylum for foreigners “persecuted for defending the interests of the working masses, struggling for social progress, defending peace, fighting for national liberation, or because of their scientific activity”, Art. 88, Rozdziałt VII, Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. The right was reformulated into ideologically neutral form in 1992 and subsequently survived in the new 1997 Constitution supplemented by the refugee status.Google Scholar

8 Act on granting protection to foreigners within the territory of the Republic of Poland, Journal of Laws 2012, item 680, as amended.Google Scholar

9 Council Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 13, 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection., and for the content of the protection granted (recast), 2011 O.J. (L 337/9).Google Scholar

10 Council Directive 2001/55/EC of July 20, 2001 on Minimum Standards for Giving Temporary Protection in the Event of a Mass Influx of Displaced Persons and on Measures Promoting a Balance of Efforts Between Member States in Receiving such Persons and Bearing the Consequences Thereof, 2001 O.J. (L 212/12).Google Scholar

11 Foreigners Act, Journal of Laws 2013, item 1650, as amended.Google Scholar

12 For extensive analysis see Kowalski, supra note 5.Google Scholar

13 The competent authorities for the refugee status determination procedure are: The Head of the Office for Foreigners (Szef Urzędu do Spraw Cudzoziemców) as the first instance and the Refugee Board (Rada do Spraw Uchodźcáw) as the appeal instance. A Refugee Board decision may be appealed to an administrative court. The judicial administrative procedure consists of two instances. The first instance is the Warsaw District Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie) and its judgments may be appealed (a cassation appeal) to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny). Whether the Refugee Board amounts to a court or tribunal within the meaning of the EU law remains unclear. The Board has not yet tried to submit a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the EU.Google Scholar

14 Obviously the reasons for cancellation decisions vary, but the disappearance of an applicant remains the highly dominant one.Google Scholar

15 Syryjczycy nie chcą do Polski [Syrians Dont't Want to Stay in Poland], Rzeczpospolita Daily (Sept. 16, 2015), http://www.rp.pl/.Google Scholar

16 Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of Sept. 22, 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, 2015 O.J. (L 248/80).Google Scholar

17 The Visegrad Group, known also as the Visegrad Four or V4, is a non-institutionalized forum of cooperation among the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia.Google Scholar

18 See, e.g., Joint Statement of the Heads of Governments of the V4 Countries, Warsaw, July 21, 2016. Interestingly enough, the upcoming United Nations high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly, to be held on September 19, 2016 is mentioned in the Statement in the context of “better cooperation [on migration and asylum issues] with our neighbors and other third countries and [… the need to] elaborate broader commitment at the international level.” Id. Google Scholar

19 Fourth Report, supra note 2, at 2.Google Scholar

20 Id. at 4.Google Scholar

21 Commc'n from the Comm'n to the Eur. Parliament and the Council, Towards a Reform of the Common European Asylum System and Enhancing Legal Avenues to Europe 11 (Apr. 6, 2016) COM(2016).Google Scholar

22 UNHCR Operational Update, May 14 – June 10, 2016. The data from the Polish Office for Foreigners shows that as of September 4, 2016 the number of Ukrainian applications in Poland reached 6.173; Bieżąca sytuacja dotyczaca Ukrainy [Current Situation regarding Ukraine], Urząd do Spraw Cudzoziemców (Sept. 4, 2016), http://udsc.gov.pl/statystyki/raporty-specjalne/biezaca-sytuacja-dotyczaca-ukrainy/ (last visited Sept. 14, 2016).Google Scholar

23 See generally UNHCR, Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons (June 2010), including the extensive source materials.Google Scholar

24 UNHCR, HANDBOOK ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING REFUGEE STATUS UNDER THE 1951 CONVENTION AND THE 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, para. 91 (1992). UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No. 4: “Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative” within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/GIP/03/04 (July 23, 2003); Hathaway, James C., The Michigan Guidelines on the Internal Protection Alternative (Apr. 11, 1999); G.S. Goodwin-Gill & J. McAdam, The Refugee in International Law 201–84, 345–54, 123–26 (3d ed. 2007).Google Scholar

25 See, e.g., the recent case law of the ECtHR referring to the changing situation in Somalia: Salah Sheekh v. The Netherlands, App. No. 1948/04 (Jan. 11, 2007); Sufi and Elmi v. The United Kingdom, App. Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07 (June 28, 2011); K.A.B. v. Sweden, App. No. 886/11 (Sept. 5, 2013); R.H. v. Sweden, App. No. 4601/14 (Sept. 10, 2015), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

26 See Kowalski, supra note 5, for an extensive analysis of the Polish case-law in this regard. Cf. Marta Szczepanik, Ewelina Tylec, Ukrainian Asylum Seekers and a Polish Immigration Paradox, 51 Forced Migration Rev. 71–73 (2016).Google Scholar

27 Urząd do Spraw Cudzoziemców, supra note 22, at 3-4.Google Scholar

28 Id. at 9.Google Scholar

29 Centrum Badania Opinii Społtecznej, Komunikat z baciań Nr 111/2016: Stosunek do przyjmowania uchodźców [Study Communiqué No. 111/2016: Attitude towards admittance of Refugees], Warszawa, July 2016.Google Scholar

30 UNHCR Operational Update, May 14 – June 10, 2016.Google Scholar

31 Note especially Article 2(d): “mass influx means arrival in the Community of a large number of displaced persons, who come from a specific country or geographical area, whether their arrival in the Community was spontaneous or aided, for example through an evacuation programme.” (emphasis added).Google Scholar