Case Law

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

20 March 2007 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Persons with disabilities - Sexual and reproductive rights | Countries: Poland

The case summary in English has been prepared in the framework of the Knowledge-Based Harmonisation of European Asylum Practices Project (2010-2012), co-financed by the European Refugee Fund.

8 March 2007 | Judicial Body: Poland: Provincial (Voivodship) Administrative Court | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - Poland

The case summary in English has been prepared in the framework of the Knowledge-Based Harmonisation of European Asylum Practices Project (2010-2012), co-financed by the European Refugee Fund.

13 September 2006 | Judicial Body: Poland: Provincial (Voivodship) Administrative Court | Countries: Poland - Russian Federation

The case summary in English has been prepared in the framework of the Knowledge-Based Harmonisation of European Asylum Practices Project (2010-2012), co-financed by the European Refugee Fund.

14 December 2005 | Judicial Body: Poland: High Administrative Court | Countries: Poland - Viet Nam

27 October 2005 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: House of Lords (Judicial Committee) | Topic(s): Immigration law - Roma | Countries: Poland - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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 | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland

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 | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland

3 May 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility | Countries: Belarus - Poland

-

29 December 2004 | Judicial Body: Poland: Court of Appeal | Topic(s): Extradition | Countries: Poland - Russian Federation

Appeal against the decision of the Council for Refugees of 22 August 2003 No. RdU-449-1/S/2003.

28 May 2004 | Judicial Body: Poland: Provincial (Voivodship) Administrative Court | Topic(s): Expulsion - Illegal entry - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Poland - Sierra Leone