UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
Asylum Information Database, National Country Report : Poland
31 December 2016 | Publisher: European Council on Refugees and Exiles | Document type: Country Reports |
Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification - Marriages of convenience and false declarations of parenthood
June 2012 | Publisher: European Migration Network (EMN) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
Pologne : suivi de ZZZ102893; information sur la réponse du gouvernement de la Pologne aux questions portant sur les droits de résidence
15 October 2008 | Publisher: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Document type: Query Responses |
Poland/Canada/Morocco: Whether a divorce granted in Canada would be recognized in Poland in the case of a Moroccan woman who married a Polish man in Poland; whether the Moroccan woman, who had temporary resident status in Poland before she married, would still be entitled to this status after being granted a divorce in Canada; whether it would be possible for the Moroccan woman, should she return to Poland, to renew her temporary resident status or to obtain permanent resident status, and the procedures for obtaining either status
8 August 2008 | Publisher: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Document type: Query Responses |
U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants World Refugee Survey 2007 - Europe
11 July 2007 | Publisher: United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants | Document type: Annual Reports |
Niedzwiecki v. Germany
Final judgment: 15 February 2006. Similar to: Okpisz v. Germany, Final judgment of 25 October 2005, Appl. No. 59140/00 Facts: The applicants in both cases are immigrants, in possession of residence permits for exceptional purposes. Their requests for child benefits were rejected as they were not in possession of unlimited residence permits or provisional residence permits, as required by law. In the Niedzwiecki case all appeals in the domestic proceedings were rejected. In the Okpisz case the applicant?s appeal was suspended after the Social Court of Appeal had referred some pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court. In a judgment of 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residential permit lacked sufficient justification. After that decision, the applicant?s appeal was again suspended pending the amendment of the applicable legislation. Complaint before the Court: The applicants complained that the German authority?s refusal of child benefits amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Legal Argumentation: The Court held that granting child benefits come within the scope of respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR and therefore Article 14 ? taken together with Article 8 ECHR ? is applicable. The Court found no ?objective and reasonable justification? for the applicants to be treated differently (para. 32 of Niedzwiecki v. Germany and para. 33 of Okpisz v. Germany) Therefore the Court found a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. 25 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland |
Okpisz v. Germany
Final judgment: 15 February 2006. Similar to: Niedzwiecki v. Germany, Final judgment of 25 October 2005, Appl. No. 58453/00 Facts: The applicants in both cases are immigrants, in possession of residence permits for exceptional purposes. Their requests for child benefits were rejected as they were not in possession of unlimited residence permits or provisional residence permits, as required by law. In the Niedzwiecki case all appeals in the domestic proceedings were rejected. In the Okpisz case the applicant?s appeal was suspended after the Social Court of Appeal had referred some pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court. In a judgment of 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residential permit lacked sufficient justification. After that decision, the applicant?s appeal was again suspended pending the amendment of the applicable legislation. Complaint before the Court: The applicants complained that the German authority?s refusal of child benefits amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Legal Argumentation: The Court held that granting child benefits come within the scope of respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR and therefore Article 14 ? taken together with Article 8 ECHR ? is applicable. The Court found no ?objective and reasonable justification? for the applicants to be treated differently (para. 32 of Niedzwiecki v. Germany and para. 33 of Okpisz v. Germany) Therefore the Court found a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. 25 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland |
Poland: Treatment of gays and lesbians
1 June 1998 | Publisher: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Document type: Query Responses |
Poland: Information from 1994 to present on the entitlements and restrictions conferred upon holders of permanent residence permits
1 October 1996 | Publisher: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Document type: Query Responses |
Poland: Information from 1994 to present on any updates to the 1962 Polish Citizenship Act pertaining to permanent resident status
1 October 1996 | Publisher: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Document type: Query Responses |