Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

​​

23/07/2020
The ECtHR ruled on repeated collective expulsions to Belarus and refusal to accept asylum applications at the Polish border from Chechen applicants.
23/07/2020
The ECtHR ruled on repeated collective expulsions to Belarus and refusal to accept asylum applications at the Polish border from Chechen applicants.

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA Information and Analysis Sector (IAS)
Other Source/Information
Type
Judgment
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter); European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); Other EU legislation; Recast Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection) (recast APD) and/or APD 2005/85/CE; Recast Qualification Directive (Directive 2011/95/EU on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as BIP for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection)(recast QD)/or QD 2004/83/EC; Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
Reference
Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], M.K. and Others v Poland, Applications nos. 40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17, 23 July 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=1149
Case history
Other information
  • Follow-up jurisprudence:

Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], T.Z. and Others v Poland, No 41764/17, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1013JUD004176417, 13 October 2022. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.

  • Implementation of the M.K. and Others judgment:

Council of Europe Committee of Ministers decision CM/Del/Dec(2025)1545/H46-29 adopted at its 1545th meeting (2-4 December 2025).

As regards general measures, the Committee:

"3.         noted with interest that the authorities submitted a copy of a declaration form regarding the wish to apply for international protection; underlined that to enable the Committee to assess its impact, it remains important that the authorities provide information on: (i) the practice of its use and the procedures applied; (ii) whether the form is distributed only to the foreigners at risk of being subjected to refusal of entry or also to those who illegally crossed the border and are subjected to return; and (iii) languages in which it is available; invited them again to indicate whether they envisage any other measures to ensure that statements of foreigners wishing to apply for international protection are not misinterpreted;

4.         noted with interest that the provision granting the Head of the Aliens Office discretionary power not to examine applications for international protection filed by foreigners who entered the Polish territory in irregular manner was repealed on 27 March 2025 and that it was used only in five cases between 2021 and 2025;

5.         noted the 2025 amendments to the Act on granting protection to Aliens providing for the possibility to temporarily suspend the right to apply for international protection and its application at the border with Belarus; invited the authorities to provide information about the application of statutory exclusion of certain categories of persons from the suspension, including how the intention to apply for international protection and the circumstances justifying the existence of exceptional circumstances and their assessment are recorded to ensure that they are not misinterpreted;

6.         urged the authorities to reconsider the need for adoption of measures to give automatic suspensive effect to appeals against decisions refusing entry to the country with regard to persons in situations similar to that of the applicants’: where foreigners allege that their claims for international protection have been disregarded or in other way compensate for its lack; and provide the Committee with detailed analysis in this respect without further delay;

7.         noting the statistics provided by the authorities to clarify the situation at the border with Belarus and called on them to provide outstanding data on: (i) the number of orders to leave the territory issued at that border; (ii) the number of persons who were expelled to Belarus under the Regulation of the Ministry of Interior and Administration of 20 August 2021; and to supplement it with further statistics on: (iii) the overall number of applications for international protection submitted at the border with Belarus since 27 March 2025; and (iv) the number of applications considered as exceptionally allowed due to the applicants fulfilling the conditions provided in Article 33b § 2 of the Act since 27 March 2025;

8.         invited the authorities to comment on the two situations referred to by the Helsinki Foundation in which interim measures were allegedly not implemented, and on measures implemented to ensure non-repetition; invited them also to reaffirm their commitment to ensuring compliance with the Court’s interim measures, and to present more detailed information about domestic procedures for implementing interim measures which have been included in the draft Act on the execution of the rulings of the European Court, and the time-table for its foreseen adoption;

9.         called the authorities to provide all the above information and clarifications by the end of June 2026."

Abstract

According to the ECtHR's Press release:


The case concerned the repeated refusal of Polish border guards on the border with Belarus to admit the applicants, who had come from Chechnya and had asked for international protection.


The Court found in particular that the applicants had repeatedly arrived at the Terespol border crossing between Poland and Belarus and had made it clear, despite the Polish authorities' statements to the contrary, that they wished to seek international protection.


Instead, the border guards had returned them consistently to Belarus, without a proper review of their applications. Furthermore, the Government had ignored interim measures issued by the European Court to prevent the removal of the applicants, who had argued that they were at a real risk of chain-refoulement and treatment contrary to the Convention.


The Polish State had demonstrated a consistent practice of returning people to Belarus in such circumstances, a policy which amounted to collective expulsion. Given the authorities' refusal to implement the Court's interim measures, the Polish State had also failed to live up to its obligations under the Convention.


The ECtHR held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) to the Convention, and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. It also held, unanimously, that Poland had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 (right to individual petition) of the Convention.


Country of Decision
Council of Europe
Court Name
CoE: European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR]
Case Number
Applications nos. 40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17
Date of Decision
23/07/2020
Country of Origin
Keywords
Access to asylum procedures
Asylum Procedures/Special Procedures
Border procedures
Effective remedy
Source
HUDOC