Poland, Regional Administrative Court in Rzeszów, II SA/Rz 1153/18, ordinary instance, January 9, 2019, referenced in legal databases
Member State
Poland
Topic
mutual trust
Sector
Asylum; Role of Lawyers;
Deciding Court Original Language
Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Rzeszowie
Deciding Court English translation
Regional Administrative Court in Rzeszów
Registration N
II SA/Rz 1153/18
Date Decision
January 9, 2019
ECLI (if available)
N/A
National Follow Up Of (when relevant)
The national case II SA/Rz 1153/18 is not a direct follow-up of a CJEU or ECtHR decision.
EU legal sources and CJEU jurisprudence
The European law sources referenced in the case include:
Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive): Establishes common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. Articles 13(1) and 13(3-4) of this Directive were invoked, particularly regarding the right to effective legal remedies and the process of appeal during deportation.
Directive 2013/32/EU (Asylum Procedures Directive): Specifically Article 46(1)(a), which emphasizes the right to an effective remedy for applicants seeking international protection, and the suspensive effect of appeals against return decisions.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR): Article 47, focusing on the right to a fair trial and effective judicial protection, which is central to the applicant's argument regarding the violation of procedural rights during the deportation process.
The following references were made in the legal argumentation by the applicant’s legal counsel, not by the court itself:
Direct References:
Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive): This directive was directly referenced in the decision, particularly in relation to Articles 13(1) and 13(3-4), concerning procedural safeguards and the right to effective remedies in return procedures.
Directive 2013/32/EU (Asylum Procedures Directive): Article 46(1)(a) was directly cited in the decision, addressing the procedural rights of individuals seeking international protection.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR): Article 47 was explicitly invoked in the decision to emphasize the right to a fair trial and an effective remedy.
Indirect References:
CJEU Judgment C-181/16, Sadikou Gnandi v. Belgium: This case was referred to indirectly, as the decision referenced principles from the judgment, such as the requirement for a suspensive effect of appeals in return procedures, without citing the full text of the judgment.
ECtHR Jurisprudence
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR): Particularly Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) were mentioned in the context of the applicant’s rights to appeal against deportation and protection from forced return.
The following references were made in the legal argumentation by the applicant’s legal counsel, not by the court itself:
G.R. v. Poland (Application no. 28871/18): Although this is not fully elaborated in the decision, it is clear that the case was brought before the ECtHR, and the national court was aware of this pending case, which involved the potential breach of the right to liberty and security (Article 5 ECHR) and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR).
The fact that these matters were under review by the ECtHR influenced the national court's approach.
Subject Matter
The case concerns the procedural legality of the actions taken by the Polish Border Guard in executing a return decision against a foreign national and her child. The applicants contested the execution of the decision, alleging that it violated their right to a fair trial, procedural safeguards, and the principle of non-refoulement under international law.
Legal issue(s)
The legal issues in this case primarily revolve around procedural fairness and the right to effective legal remedies. The applicants argue that their rights were violated due to the premature execution of a deportation order, before the administrative appeal and judicial review processes were completed. They also allege that their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the prohibition on non-refoulement, were breached due to the lack of adequate procedural safeguards and legal oversight. Additionally, the case raises concerns regarding compliance with EU and international legal standards for the treatment of asylum seekers.
Request for expedited/PPU procedures
NO, the national court did not request the CJEU to review the case under the expedited or PPU procedure.
Interim Relief
There is no indication that the national court or applicant requested the CJEU or ECtHR for interim relief in this particular case.
National Law Sources
The legal context of the case is primarily rooted in Polish national law, specifically:
Constitution of the Republic of Poland (Art. 45 and Art. 78): Addressing the right to a fair trial and the right to appeal administrative decisions.
Act of August 30, 2002, on Proceedings before Administrative Courts (P.p.s.a.): Articles 3 § 2 and 58 § 1 (referencing the competence of administrative courts and grounds for rejecting complaints).
Law on Foreigners (2013): Governing the status and deportation procedures of foreigners in Poland, particularly with respect to decisions on forced returns and protective measures for foreigners during pending asylum or deportation appeals.
Code of Administrative Procedure (K.p.a.): Relevant for the review of administrative acts and their legality within procedural law.
Constitution of the Republic of Poland (Art. 45 and Art. 78): Addressing the right to a fair trial and the right to appeal administrative decisions.
Act of August 30, 2002, on Proceedings before Administrative Courts (P.p.s.a.): Articles 3 § 2 and 58 § 1 (referencing the competence of administrative courts and grounds for rejecting complaints).
Law on Foreigners (2013): Governing the status and deportation procedures of foreigners in Poland, particularly with respect to decisions on forced returns and protective measures for foreigners during pending asylum or deportation appeals.
Code of Administrative Procedure (K.p.a.): Relevant for the review of administrative acts and their legality within procedural law.
Facts of the case
The national decision, II SA/Rz 1153/18, issued by the Regional Administrative Court in Rzeszów, deals with the execution of a deportation order against G.R. and her minor daughter by the Border Guard Commander. The case involves the enforcement of a decision to return the two individuals to their country of origin.
The facts of the case are as follows:
G.R. and her daughter were subject to a return decision, issued by the Border Guard Commander, that mandated their removal from Polish territory.
The decision was enforced before it became final, meaning it was executed before G.R.'s legal counsel received the final decision from the authority, and before the expiry of the term to appeal the decision to the court.
Additionally, the deportation was executed despite an ongoing proceeding at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) regarding their detention and possible expulsion (related to G.R. v. Poland, Application no. 28871/18).
The plaintiff argued that these actions violated their right to access a court and their right to a fair procedure as guaranteed under Polish law and European human rights instruments.
The court dismissed the complaint as inadmissible, reasoning that the actions taken were consistent with administrative and immigration enforcement laws, and were part of the administrative execution process rather than subject to judicial review under the circumstances described.
In summary, the decision centered on the enforcement of administrative deportation orders, with key legal issues involving due process, the timing of deportation, and the intersection of national law with European human rights obligations.
The facts of the case are as follows:
G.R. and her daughter were subject to a return decision, issued by the Border Guard Commander, that mandated their removal from Polish territory.
The decision was enforced before it became final, meaning it was executed before G.R.'s legal counsel received the final decision from the authority, and before the expiry of the term to appeal the decision to the court.
Additionally, the deportation was executed despite an ongoing proceeding at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) regarding their detention and possible expulsion (related to G.R. v. Poland, Application no. 28871/18).
The plaintiff argued that these actions violated their right to access a court and their right to a fair procedure as guaranteed under Polish law and European human rights instruments.
The court dismissed the complaint as inadmissible, reasoning that the actions taken were consistent with administrative and immigration enforcement laws, and were part of the administrative execution process rather than subject to judicial review under the circumstances described.
In summary, the decision centered on the enforcement of administrative deportation orders, with key legal issues involving due process, the timing of deportation, and the intersection of national law with European human rights obligations.
Reasoning (role of the Charter or other EU, ECHR related legal basis)
The legal reasoning in decision II SA/Rz 1153/18 revolves around whether the administrative action of executing a deportation order before it became final was lawful. The Regional Administrative Court in Rzeszów dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the execution of the decision was part of the administrative enforcement process and did not constitute an action subject to judicial review within the framework of the Polish Administrative Procedure Code.
Relation of the case to the EU Charter
In the decision II SA/Rz 1153/18, the court did not engage with EU law, the EU Charter, or the jurisprudence of the ECtHR in its reasoning. Although the applicant's counsel referenced these in the complaint—notably Article 47 of the Charter and ECHR provisions—the court’s analysis focused strictly on national law.
The court’s reasoning began from a procedural standpoint, adhering to Polish legal norms, particularly Article 3 § 2 of the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts (P.p.s.a.). The decision was framed around the inadmissibility of the complaint due to jurisdictional limits and the fact that the actions undertaken were part of administrative enforcement, which fell outside the scope of judicial review under Polish administrative law.
Thus, while the EU Charter and ECHR were invoked by the applicant's representative, they were not analyzed or used by the court in its final judgment.
The court’s reasoning began from a procedural standpoint, adhering to Polish legal norms, particularly Article 3 § 2 of the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts (P.p.s.a.). The decision was framed around the inadmissibility of the complaint due to jurisdictional limits and the fact that the actions undertaken were part of administrative enforcement, which fell outside the scope of judicial review under Polish administrative law.
Thus, while the EU Charter and ECHR were invoked by the applicant's representative, they were not analyzed or used by the court in its final judgment.
Relation between the EU Charter and ECHR
N/A
Horizontal Judicial Interaction patterns (Internal – with other national courts, and external – with foreign courts)
In the case II SA/Rz 1153/18, the court did not engage in horizontal judicial interaction or cite judgments from other national courts, foreign courts, or European courts like the CJEU. The court's decision strictly focused on the application of Polish national law, particularly the Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts (P.p.s.a.), and did not incorporate external legal sources or precedents from other jurisdictions.
Vertical Judicial Interaction patterns (Internal – with other superior national courts, and external – with European supranational courts)
In the case II SA/Rz 1153/18, the court did not engage in significant vertical judicial interaction with European supranational courts like the CJEU or the ECtHR. The national court did not make any direct reference or engage in a detailed assessment of judgments from superior national courts or European courts within its reasoning. The court did not utilize the preliminary reference procedure to seek guidance from the CJEU on issues of European law.
However, it should be noted that the complainants referenced European legal sources, such as CJEU case law and European directives related to immigration law, within their submissions, particularly invoking Directive 2008/115/EC and Directive 2013/32/EU. They also cited the ECHR and relevant provisions like Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as the ECtHR's jurisprudence in support of their arguments. Despite these references by the complainants, the court did not assess these in its final decision, focusing exclusively on the applicability of Polish national law.
However, it should be noted that the complainants referenced European legal sources, such as CJEU case law and European directives related to immigration law, within their submissions, particularly invoking Directive 2008/115/EC and Directive 2013/32/EU. They also cited the ECHR and relevant provisions like Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as the ECtHR's jurisprudence in support of their arguments. Despite these references by the complainants, the court did not assess these in its final decision, focusing exclusively on the applicability of Polish national law.
Strategic use of judicial interaction technique (purpose aimed by the national court)
In the case II SA/Rz 1153/18, the court did not appear to engage in any strategic use of judicial interaction techniques involving European law or courts. The court primarily addressed the matter through the lens of Polish procedural law, specifically focusing on the admissibility of the complaint and issues related to the scope of administrative judicial review.
Impact on Legislation / Policy
In the decision II SA/Rz 1153/18 by the court, there is no evidence that it triggered any direct changes to legislation or policy adjustments. The court's ruling focused on procedural aspects of Polish administrative law concerning the admissibility of the complaint, without engaging in broader legal interactions that would necessitate legislative reform or adaptation of policy frameworks.
Notes on the national implementation of the preliminary ruling by the referring court
In the case II SA/Rz 1153/18, there is no reference to a CJEU preliminary ruling as the decision is rooted in Polish administrative law rather than an EU law context directly influenced by CJEU rulings. Therefore, no national implementation of a preliminary ruling was necessary.
Did the national court quote case law of the CJEU/ECtHR (in particular cases not already referred to by the CJEU in its decision) or the Explanations?
No, the court did not quote case law from the CJEU or the ECtHR in its judgment. While the legal representative of the applicants referenced CJEU and ECtHR case law, the court's ruling focused solely on procedural aspects of Polish administrative law and did not delve into an analysis of EU or Council of Europe legal principles.
Did the national court quote soft law instruments, such as GRECO Reports, Venice Commission, CEPEJ Reports, or CCEJ Reports?
No, the court did not reference soft law instruments such as GRECO Reports, Venice Commission, CEPEJ Reports, or CCJE Reports in its ruling. The decision was focused on Polish administrative procedural law without engaging in discussions involving international soft law frameworks.
Did the national court take into account national case law on fundamental rights?
No, the court did not take into account national case law on fundamental rights in its reasoning. The court focused on the procedural aspects of administrative law and did not engage in a broader discussion about fundamental rights or relevant national jurisprudence on those matters. The emphasis remained on the procedural legality of administrative actions without expanding into constitutional or human rights case law.
If the court that issued the preliminary reference is not a last instance court, and the “follow up” was appealed before a higher court, include the information
N/A
Was there a consensus among national courts on how to implement the CJEU's preliminary ruling; and were there divergences between the judiciary and other state powers regarding the implementation of the preliminary ruling?
N/A
Impact on national case law from the same Member State or other Member States
N/A
Connected national caselaw / templates
N/A
(Link to) full text
Author
The template was prepared by Marcin Michalak, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Gdańsk, with the support and assistance of the researcher Daniel Zieliński.
Project implemented with financial support of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship Programme of the European Union
© European University Institute 2019
Villa Schifanoia - Via Boccaccio 121, I-50133 Firenze - Italy