Ref. Ares(2025)2379981 - 24/03/2025
Ref. Ares(2025)2380049 - 24/03/2025
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 17.12.2024
C(2024) 8110 final
ANNEX 1
SENSITIVE*
ANNEX
to the
Commission Implementing Decision
establishing the report of the 2024 Schengen evaluation of Poland
*
Distribution only on a ‘Need to know’ basis - Do not read or carry openly in public places. Must be
stored securely and encrypted in storage and transmission. Destroy copies by shredding or secure
deletion. Full handling instructions https://europa.eu/!db43PX
EN
EN
ANNEX I
REPORT OF THE 2024 SCHENGEN EVALUATION OF POLAND
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Schengen evaluation of Poland was carried out in March - April 2024 by a team composed of
Commission and Member State experts accompanied by observers from relevant Agencies and
bodies1. It covered key areas of the Schengen
acquis including external border management, absence
of controls at the internal borders, return policy, police cooperation, the common visa policy, large
scale information systems and data protection. Particular attention was also paid to verifying the
respect for fundamental rights. This activity results in the report of the 2024 Schengen evaluation of
Poland2.
The Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has an important impact on Poland’s implementation
of the Schengen
acquis, as this Member State is
responsible for securing a border section with Ukraine
which is affected by an unprecedented flow of persons seeking international or temporary protection.
Poland is also facing hybrid threats such as the instrumentalisation of irregular migration at the border
with Belarus, and possible evolving military and security threats at the border with Russia
(Kaliningrad Oblast). Restrictions of cross-border traffic and closure of some of the border crossing
points are applied at external borders. The situation at the external borders of Poland is volatile and
unpredictable, therefore the Polish authorities must ensure constant readiness and sufficient response
capabilities. As a Baltic Sea State, Poland must also ensure effective preparedness and response to
maritime security challenges, including hybrid threats on critical infrastructure. In addition, Poland
is affected by cross-border crime, in particular smuggling and trafficking of human beings and goods.
Despite the complex environment and notwithstanding the recent challenges, Poland is
overall
effectively implementing the Schengen acquis and ensures a strong contribution to the correct
functioning of the Schengen area.
The implementation of the Schengen
acquis at the Polish borders is at high standards. The
performance of the Polish border management system is guaranteed by the Polish Border Guard, the
sole national authority responsible for border management, through effective border surveillance,
adequate border checks and sound risk analysis, supported by strong national capabilities established
in accordance with the National Capability Plan, as well as a reliable contribution to the European
Border and Coast Guard Agency.
Poland’s coherent and robust implementation of European
integrated border management is based on a national strategy and inter-agency cooperation.
Specific elements of cooperation between the border guards and customs were considered a best
practice, such as the direct access of customs officers to the information collected by the border guards
in the first line of control.
1
The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), Europol, the European Union Agency for the Operational
Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) and the European
Union Agency for Fundamental Right.
2
The report contains findings and recommendations for remedial actions as well as detailed information concerning the
visits carried out between March and April 2024 (enclosure 1) and on national authorities responsible for the
implementation of the Schengen
acquis in various fields covered by this report (enclosure 2).
1
Poland uses military capability to ensure sufficient situational awareness and adequate response
capacity to threats, including those of hybrid nature. The cooperation between the border guards and
the Armed Forces is effective, based on clear legislation and supported by specific training. Other
law enforcement authorities such as the police, as well as the intelligence services are part of the
extensive cooperation for effective border management.
The quality of the land border surveillance is at a high level, even though Poland must apply different
tactics and operational measures at each border section and the extension of state-of-the art technical
border surveillance solutions, the quality of staff and training and financing for maintenance and
running costs, should be constantly guaranteed by using national and EU funding schemes. The team
considered the
electronic integrated border surveillance system applied at the border with Ukraine
and Russia, and the online reporting and management system for border surveillance best practices.
The quality of the
sea border surveillance carried out by the Polish Border Guard is adequate.
However, a centralised national situational picture on sea borders is not visible and the sea border
surveillance is not integrated with the land borders when the geographical situation requires it;
consequently, the national situational picture is sometimes fragmented on sea borders, a situation
which is reflected in the organisation of the National Coordination Centre in Warsaw.
The quality of border checks is adequate, although deficiencies and room for improvement were
identified in the refusal of entry and visa procedures, the quality of document checks, the
inconsistency regarding the duration of the basic training and regular refresher training, in particular
on document fraud and language training. Given the high priority assigned to land borders requiring
flexibility in the allocation of resources and frequent redeployments of border guards, the Polish
authorities have challenges to ensure constant resources at the sea and air borders during the peak
season.
By amending the Act on Foreigners3, the Polish authorities implemented certain safeguards related
to the
respect of fundamental rights in connection to border procedures, asylum, migration referral
mechanisms, and return. At the same time, the most significant challenge to procedures applied to
third-country nationals apprehended in connection with an illegal border crossing still present room
for improvement, especially regarding the respect of the principle of
non-refoulement and a number
of important aspects of fundamental rights.
Poland has also implemented several measures to adapt its return system at the legal, strategic, and
operational levels; Poland has established a structured, coordinated, and developed approach
for the
governance of the return system as necessary structures are in place, both legally and operationally,
to ensure the effective return of third-country nationals who do not have the right to legal stay. Risks,
threats, and necessary responses are clearly identified, as are the responsibilities of the involved
authorities. Detention facilities for third-country nationals in return procedures provide adequate
conditions and
best practices were observed in the detention centres, including the provision of
extensive medical care and cultural support tailored to detained third-country nationals, as well as a
structured and efficient approach to maintaining detainee wellbeing.
In addition to the improvements needed to respect the principle of
non-refoulement, other challenges
in the area of return are closely tied to safeguards throughout the return process, including access to
legal aid and effective remedies to appeal return-related decisions and the monitoring system for
forced returns which also faces significant shortcomings.
3
Act of 12 December 2013 on foreigners as amended by Act of 17 December 2021 (Journal of Laws of 2022 item 91).
2
In the field of
police cooperation, Poland is
in general implementing the Schengen acquis
adequately. There have not been any remarkable legal or organisational changes in the Polish
internal
security system since the last evaluation in 2019. Participation to
different
EMPACT activities by
Polish law enforcement agencies is very active and well-coordinated and a best practice related to the
implementation of one of the EMPACT priorities, including training, was identified. Strategic
priorities for internal security are not covered by a specific internal security strategy but they are
included in the national security strategy and some specific strategies and ministerial level
development plans. Connection to the priorities of the EU internal security was found to be
fragmented, and the implementation of the EU legislation in the field of law enforcement cooperation
is not adequately planned and resourced. Points of concern are related to the exchange of information
between the national law enforcement authorities and with the Member States, especially given the
overall functioning of the Single Point of Contact and the capacity to implement respective new EU
legislation4. The lack of joint national level threat assessment including all relevant law enforcement
authorities leads to fragmented situational awareness. Some previous recommendations were not
implemented, which indicates persistent problems in some functions.
With regards to large scale IT systems supporting the well-functioning of the Schengen area and
information exchange, notably the
Schengen and Visa Information Systems, overall, the Schengen
Information System (SIS) and SIRENE procedures are sufficiently integrated in border, migration
and law enforcement processes in Poland. Best practices were identified, including a well-established
procedure for end- users to request the Central authority to create, update and delete an alert in
emergency mode in case of unavailability of the direct access; the systematic attachment of the
European Arrest Warrant, both in Polish and in English by the Court and prosecutor Office when
creating alerts on wanted persons; and the “Digital Border” procedures, put in place between Border
Guards and Customs authorities at the border crossing points. However, further improvements are
needed to ensure a more effective use of the SIS, in particular the implementation of dactyloscopic
searches in the SIS AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System) for all the competent
authorities, as well as the systematic attachment of fingerprints to Polish alerts; granting access to all
types of alerts to SIS to the Office for Foreigners as needed for the performance of its tasks, and the
use of the established procedures for prior consultation by the SIRENE Bureau; the training on the
new possibilities of renewed SIS functionalities; and putting in place the necessary additional human
resources to ensure the N.SIS Office is able to address the current delays in the IT projects and
upcoming tasks related to Interoperability.
As far as the implementation of the
EU visa acquis is concerned, Poland complies with Regulation
(EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council5
and other relevant legislation. The
examination of the applications is solid in the visited Guangzhou and Manila consulates, where the
IT-system is user friendly and functioning well, and the staffing level is sufficient, and staff is well
trained. However, the team identified some deficiencies, including difficulties with granting timely
appointments to submit visa applications in some locations; conducting prior consultations and
linking of applicants traveling together; the need to strengthen the coherence of decisions so as to
4
Directive (EU) 2023/977 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on the exchange of
information between the law enforcement authorities of Member States and repealing Council Framework Decision
2006/960/JHA.
5
Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a
Community Code on Visas (Visa Code).
OJ L 243, 15.9.2009, p. 1–58.
3
6
3. NATIONAL SCHENGEN GOVERNANCE
3.1 National strategies and quality control mechanisms
7
7
12
13
14
13
15
21
22
23
24
25
24
25
51
48
49
52
7.5 Cooperation with Europol
54
56
57
58
59
