In May 2023, the Refugee Appeals Board pronounced a decision concerning the Dublin transfer of a family with a minor child to Poland on the basis of the Dublin III Regulation.
In this case, the complainants argued that the application should be examined in Denmark, and not in Poland, due to the risk of detention and considering that they are a family with minor children and thus vulnerable to inadequate detention conditions in Poland.
The Refugee Appeals Board confirmed that Poland was responsible for the examination of the application, on the basis of Article 12(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, considering that the complainants had been issued visas in Poland with a validity of 365 days and Poland had agreed to take charge of the applicants.
The Refugee Board considered that there was no reason to believe that the conditions at the general reception centres in Poland could be considered to be affected by significant deficiencies. It made reference to AIDA’s reports which stated that overcrowding did not appear to be an issue and although some specific aspects could be improved (provision of more efficient inclusion programmes and better access to medical and psychological services), reception conditions in Poland appeared to have improved in recent years and did not represent a major cause for concern in the country. The Board added that Polish NGOs reported on difficulties in finding private accommodation as rents have increased and the financial allowances were insufficient.
However, the Board noted several sources which expressed concerns about the inadequate conditions for children and the fact that none of the detention centres was an appropriate place for children, as none of them guarantees the children’s right to education, sometimes lack common social rooms for foreigners, containers do not have sanitary facilities or they are located several hundred meters away, which due to weather conditions may endanger their health. It was also noted that two families are placed in one container which did not respect their right to privacy.
The Board also cited the Association for Legal Intervention which noted that courts automatically approved most legal motions of the border guards, resulting in many vulnerable persons, including families with children, being placed in guarded centers. According to the association, the courts also automatically extended detention beyond the initial three months, which in practice meant many persons stayed in guarded detention centers for extended periods of time. Furthermore, the association observed that children placed in guarded centers did not have access to public education and could participate only in limited educational activities organised on site.
The Refugee Appeals Board concluded that there were no systemic deficiencies that would hamper all Dublin transfers to Poland but highlighted that prior to the transfer of the persons in question, a guarantee must obtained from the Polish authorities that the complainants will have access to the asylum procedure and reception and accommodation conditions that are in accordance with the country's EU law and other international obligations.