Застосування альтернатив затриманню іноземців у Польщі (2014-2015 рр.)
Ключові слова:
затримання, іноземці, неповнолітні без супроводу, Прикордонна служба, суд, ПольщаАнотація
У статті проаналізовано положення польського законодавства щодо запровадження альтернатив ув'язненню затриманих іноземців. Автори стверджують, що результати моніторингу цього питання підтверджують, що ці ініціативи не є «мертвим законом». Польська прикордонна служба регулярно звертається до нових заходів, які передбачені у зв’язку із процедурою затримання іноземців, і в більшості випадків альтернативні заходи досягають мети. Завдяки впровадженню альтернатив для затримання багато іноземців, у тому числі багато сімей з дітьми, уникли негативних наслідків позбавлення волі. Аналіз моніторингу судової практики показує, що деякі суди вважають можливим відкоригувати дії Прикордонної служби та застосовувати альтернативи затриманню. Той факт, що цей механізм застосовується рідко, на думку авторів, викликаний тим, що Прикордонна служба готує звернення щодо розміщення іноземця в охоронюваному центрі досить фундаментально.Застосовуючи законодавство про міграцію щодня і маючи більше часу, ніж суд, для підготовки запиту про розміщення іноземця в охоронному центрі, Прикордонна служба має явну перевагу перед судом. Суд, маючи дуже мало часу, доки справа за участі іноземного мігранта знаходиться у їхньому віданні, рідко може дозволити собі засумніватися в правильності звернення Прикордонної служби.Одна з проблем, що вимагає законодавчої ініціативи, полягає в тому, щоб запровадити заборону на адміністративне затримання неповнолітніх іноземців (включаючи неповнолітніх без супроводу).
Посилання
The current article includes findings of the monitoring published in Polish in the report «Applying alternatives to detention of foreigners in Poland in the years 2014-2015», which is also available on the website of the Rule of Law Institute: http://panstwoprawa.org/publication/ stosowanie-alternatyw-detencji- cudzoziemcow. More on the project activities also on the website of the Rule of Law Institute: http://panstwoprawa.org/project/monitoring-stosowania-alternatyw-do-detencji-cudzoziemcow. The project «Monitoring of applying alternatives to detention of foreigners» was financed under the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism’s the Citizens for Democracy Programme.
Sieniow T. Stosowanie detencji wobec cudzoziemców. Raport z monitoringu i rekomendacje // The use of detention of foreigners. Report from the monitoring and recommendations. – Lublin, 2013. The report develops and updates the analysis on the legal capacity in the area of international standards of protecting foreigners against arbitrary detention.
The number of district courts in Poland at the time of conducting the monitoring was changing (due to the so-called «Gowin reform») and amounted to around 300 courts. However, monitoring the number of cases on foreigners in so many small courts exceeded the overall framework of the current monitoring.
We would like to thank Iryna Kozak, Sylwia Paduchowska and Damian Buczek from the Rule of Law Institute for their research support and express our gratitude to the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, the Halina Nieć Legal Aid Centre, the Association for Legal Intervention and Caritas for sharing their perspective on the practice of detention in Poland.
In European Union law, the issues of returns of foreigners were harmonized in the so-called Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008).
The minimum standards of detention were harmonized on the EU level in Art. 15 of the directive 2008/115.
PICUM Position Paper on EU Return Directive, Brussels 2015. The report may be downloaded from the website: www.picum.org.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966, Journal of Laws of 1977, No. 38, Item 167.
The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees drawn up in Geneva on 28 July 1951, Journal of Laws of 1991, No. 119, Item 515.
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950, Journal of Laws of 1993, No. 61, Item 284, as amended.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326/02, 26.10.2012.
See: Detention Guidelines. Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers and Alternatives to Detention, UNHCR 2012, http://www.unhcr.org/publications/legal/505b10ee9/unhcr-detention-guidelines.html. See: Point 4.3. Alternatives to detention need to be considered, p. 22 and next.
Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast) OJ L 180, 29.6.2013. In accordance with the provisions of Art. 8.4 «Member States shall ensure that the rules concerning alternatives to detention, such as regular reporting to the authorities, the deposit of a financial guarantee, or an obligation to stay at an assigned place, are laid down in national law».
Asylum and Migration. Glossary 3.0, EMN 2014, p. 25. Glossary is available on the website: https://emn.gov.pl/esm/publikacje/nasze-publikacje/slownik-esm.
Point 20 of the preamble to the directive 2013/33. A report on the use of alternatives to the detention of foreigners was prepared by the EMN (The use of detention and alternatives to detention in the context of immigration policies Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study 2014) and FRA (Paper: Alternatives to detention for asylum seekers and people in return procedures, FRA 2015). Apart from that, an invaluable source of information on alternatives to detention is the report prepared by the Odysseus Network – Philippe de Bruycker (ed.), Alice Bloomfield, Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi, Joanna Pétin, Alternatives to immigration and asylum detention in the EU. Time for implementation, 2015 (http://odysseus-network.eu/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/FINAL-REPORT-Alternatives-to-detention-in-the-EU.pdf). See also: There are alternatives. A handbook for preventing unnecessary immigration detention (revised version), International Detention Coalition 2015, http://idcoalition.org/publication/view/there-are-alternatives-revised-edition/; A. Edwards. Back to basics: The right to liberty and security of person and ‘alternatives to detention’ of asylum- seekers, stateless persons, and other migrants. UNHCR Legal and Protection Policy Research Series. – Geneva, 2011.
Act of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws 2016. 1836 – consolidated text [hereafter: Act on granting protection or AGP].
Act of 12 December 2013, Journal of Laws 2016. 1990 – consolidated text [hereafter: Act on foreigners or AF].
On the subject of using detention and alternative measures see: Detencja. Stosowanie detencji oraz środków alternatywnych do detencji w kontekście polityki imigracyjnej, Raport przygotowany przez Krajowy Punkt Kontaktowy Europejskiej Sieci Migracyjnej w Polsce [Detention. The use of detention and alternatives to detention in the context of migration policy. Report prepared by the National Contact Point of the EMN in Poland], Warsaw 2014, p. 37 and next. The Report is available on the website: https://emn.gov.pl/esm/publikacje/nasze-publikacje/stosowanie-detencji-ora/13139,Raport-krajowy.html. 19. Dąbrowski P. Komentarz do art. 317 ustawy o cudzoziemcach [Commentary to Art. 317 of the Act on foreigners], [in:] Ustawa o cudzoziemcach. Komentarz [Act on foreigners. Commentary], ed. J. Chlebny. – Warsaw, 2015, – P. 734.
The data presented and analyzed in this section comes from the department for foreigners of the Border Guard Headquarters.
Annual data for 2015 is available on the website: www.udsc.gov.pl.
Data provided at the consultation meeting in Supraśl (1-10 April 2015).
Data provided by the department for foreigners of the Border Guard Headquarters as of 19 April 2016.
In accordance with the data provided by the department for foreigners of the Border Guard Headquarters the number of foreigners who arrived in 2015 (1 051) and foreigners already detained in guarded centres as of 1 January 2015 (196) was 1 247 persons.
Art. 397 AF: «A minor foreigner residing within the territory of the Republic of Poland unattended may be placed in a guarded facility, provided that he/she has reached the age of 15 years old».
Art. 88a(3)(3) AGP provides that an applicant is not placed in a guarded centre nor in the arrest for foreigners in a situation when he/she is an unaccompanied minor.
In 2013 the Head of the Office for Foreigners issued decisions on granting refugee status to 19 369 foreigners, while 163 361 persons received the decision on either discontinuing the examination or rejecting the application. In 2014 the numbers were respectively 8 285 (decision on granting) and 5 556 (discontinuation). The data comes from the lists of figures on proceedings in migration cases in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015, available on the website: www.udsc.gov.pl.
In practice, the Border Guard usually obliges a foreigner to report every 2 weeks or once a month (a commonly used formula: «every first Thursday of the month»).
It sometimes happens that even the courts which deal with migration cases on a regular basis may demonstrate a lack of understanding of the legal institutions. For instance, the District Court in Biała Podlaska, while refusing to grant the request of the Border Guard (quite accurately) on account of «the welfare of minor children, who attend public schools, identify with the place where they reside and their identity is rooted in the fact that they live in Poland», also added that «there is no way to hold it against a foreigner in accordance with Art 389(1)(3) AF … that the foreigner did not leave the territory of the Republic of Poland within the period of time specified in the return decision due to the fact that the return decision was issued without a time-limit». The ruling of the District Court in Biała Podlaska, II Criminal Department of 12 September 2015, Ref. No. II Ko 105/15. Therefore, even if the District Court in Biała Podlaska has problems with understanding the structure of issuing the return decision without determining the time-limit for voluntary return, can it be realistically expected that courts which receive a migration case once every few years should have a sound knowledge of migration laws?
Judgement of the CJEU in case Baszir Mohamed Ali Mahdi of 5 June 2014 (C-146/14 PPU), par. 44.
Case Mahdi, par. 45 and also cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation / Council and Comission, p. 337.
For example, see: the ruling of the District Court in Grójec II Criminal Division of 17 November 2015, Ref. No. II Ko 4124/15.
Instead of many compare the ruling of the District Court for Wrocław Fabryczna II Criminal Division of 23 April 2015, Ref. No. II Kp 665/15.
It often happens that courts point out to persons in the refugee procedure who are entitled to social benefits available to asylum seekers that they do not have a permanent place of residence or sufficient financial resources. Cf. the ruling of a District Court Szczecin Prawobrzeże and Zachód in Szczecin VI Criminal Division of 13 January 2016, Ref. No. VI Ko/Cu 10/16, in which the court stated that «There is no possibility of applying alternatives to detention indicated in Art. 88 par. of the act of 13 June 2013 as the foreigner has got no permanent place of residence on the territory of the Republic of Poland, as well as no financial means». As can be seen in the above example, the court in one single sentence: 1) was imprecise in referring to the legal basis for its decision (the court has not included the number of the paragraph); 2) gave a wrong date of the act; 3) provided arguments whose validity with regard to foreigners seeking international protection and having the right to stay in a reception centre where all basic life needs are taken care of can easily be refuted.
Art. 400 AF.
Art. 88a(3) AGP.
Cf. the judgement of the Supreme Court – Criminal Chamber of 4 February 2015, Ref. No. III KK 33/14 which on the grounds of the provisions of the Act on foreigners of 2003 as well as the Act on granting protection confirmed the obligation of releasing a foreigner from a guarded centre in case of a presumption that the applicant’s physical and mental shape indicate that they have been subjected to violence, as well as when their stay in a guarded centre would pose a threat to their life or health.
Sometimes, the existence of such an awareness can be inferred from the transcript of the personal interview («foreigner … unmarried, childless, of good health, without psychiatric, drug treatment or neurological record») although it is not reflected in the reasons for the ruling. Ruling of the District Court for the Capital City of Warsaw III Criminal Division of 20 March 2015, Ref. No. III Ko 350/15.
Ruling of the District Court in Bielsko Biała III Criminal Division of 3 March 2016, Ref. No. III Ko 35/16.
Ruling of the District Court in Biała Podlaska VII Criminal Division of 5 August 2016, Ref. No. VII Ko 109/15.
For example in the case of a Chechen applicant who in the course of a hearing in front of the court declared «I am generally in good health. I have been in detention so many times, also in Russia, that I will not be able to mentally survive detention». The District Court Lublin-Zachód ruled that «There are no sufficient premises to find that the foreigner's physical and psychological condition could justify a presumption that the foreigner has experienced violence», ruling of the District Court Lublin-Zachód of 8 April 2015, Ref. No. III Ko 737/15.
Art. 401(3) AF.
Act of 9 June 2011 concerning family support and foster care, Journal of Laws of 2015, Item 332, as amended.
Art. 203(1), AF: A court of law, in its ruling ordering to place a foreigner in a guarded centre or in a detention centre for foreigners, shall indicate the period of stay in a guarded centre or in a detention centre for foreigners, but not more than 3 months.
Article 89(1) of the AGP: The court renders a ruling to detain the applicant or the person on behalf of whom the applicant is acting in a guarded centre or a detention centre for the period of up to 60 days. 46. Art. 400 AF or Art. 88a(3) AF.
Act of 10 September 2015 amending the Act on granting protection to foreigners on the territory of the Republic of Poland and some other acts, Journal of Laws 2015.1607.
##submission.downloads##
Опубліковано
Як цитувати
Номер
Розділ
Ліцензія
Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
