The applicant contested an inadmissible decision and requested also the suspension of the enforceability of the negative decision until the end of proceedings. The Provincial Court in Warsaw rejected the request and considered that according to national legislation and the revised APD, the contested decision does not have the attribute of enforceability, as the direct consequence of its issuance is not the expulsion of the foreigner from the territory of Poland. The contested decision only imposes an obligation, of a voluntary nature, to leave the territory of the Republic of Poland within 30 days from the date of delivery of the decision, pursuant to Art. 299 paragraph. 6 of the Act of 12 December 2013 on foreigners. The court of first instance held that a decision declaring an application for international protection inadmissible does not require suspension under Art. 46 sec. 5 of the revised APD.

The applicant contested the first instance court decision, and the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal. It found that Article 46 sec. 5 of the revised APD states that Member States must ensure that applicants for international protection have the right to remain on their territory until the end of the proceedings before a court of first instance. The obligation of a Member State to grant a foreigner the right to stay in its territory until the end of the proceedings before the court of first instance is limited in the cases specified in art. 46 sec. 6 of the revised APD. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the application for suspending the execution of the inadmissibility decision does not require the foreigner's right to stay in Poland to be taken into account until the end of the proceedings before the court of first instance in the scope resulting from Art. 46 sec. 5 of the APD. It follows from the above that the very nature of the decision limits the above-mentioned law and when the subject of the appeal is a decision declaring an application for international protection inadmissible, then the obligation to provide the foreigner with a stay in Poland until the examination of the complaint lodged by him against the above decision does not exist. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the lack of such an obligation is explicitly indicated in Art. 46 sec. 6 of the APD. 

Moreover, the fact that the applicant is aware of his rights, including the right to a court, and is willing to actively and personally participate in the pending court proceedings, does not support the suspension of the application of the inadmissibility decision, and the fact that the applicant's expulsion from the country would deprive him of the possibility of defending his rights. The court of first instance noticed that the applicant had a professional attorney appointed ex officio, and therefore his rights to represent his interests before the court would be taken into account and protected by the attorney representing him, his personal presence not being necessary. Therefore, the obligation to ensure that the party has the right to a court, including the right to participate personally in the proceedings, does not support the stay of execution of the contested decision. The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the absence of the applicant in Poland during the proceedings will not result in the risk of significant harm or effects difficult to reverse.