K.G. and S.G. v. Poland - Another Condemnation of Child Immigration Detention and a Reminder of the State’s Positive Obligations

We are happy to share this news with you! Last week, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in K.G. and S.G. v. Poland, once again reaffirming a principle that has long been established in international human rights law: children should not, as a rule, be detained for immigration purposes. This case was handled by our lawyer Iryna Hnasevych. Congratulations!

This judgment constitutes the sixth ruling since 2018 in which the Court has condemned Poland for the detention of children in migration-related proceedings. It reflects not an isolated systemic failure, but rather a recurring structural problem concerning the treatment of families with children in the Polish system of immigration detention.

This article discusses the factual background of the case, the Court’s legal reasoning, and the broader implications of the ruling for national practice.

Background of the Case

The case originated in 2018 at the Halina Nieć Legal Aid Center, where legal assistance was provided to a woman and her 19-month-old child. The mother had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, conditions which significantly increased her vulnerability.

Despite her mental health condition and the presence of a very young child, the authorities repeatedly placed the family in immigration detention. The applicants were ultimately held in conditions resembling a prison regime for a total of nine months.

Crucially, during the national proceedings, a third party had formally offered to host the applicants and provide accommodation, which constituted a realistic and concrete alternative to detention. This offer was disregarded by the authorities.

The Court’s Assessment under Article 5(1)(f) ECHR

The Court held that the detention of the applicants violated Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which permits immigration detention only under strict conditions and safeguards.

The Court reiterated its well-established criteria applicable to the detention of children and families in migration contexts. Such detention is permissible only exceptionally and must meet all of the following cumulative requirements:

it must be ordered for a short period of time;
it must take place in suitable conditions;
it must constitute a measure of last resort, meaning that genuine consideration must be given to less severe alternatives.

In the present case, the Court found that:

detention lasting nine months could not be considered “short” within the meaning of the Convention standards;
the conditions of detention, described as prison-like, were unsuitable for an infant and a psychologically vulnerable mother;
the national authorities relied on generic and stereotyped assessments, failing to conduct an individualised and rigorous examination of the necessity of detention;
the declared willingness of a third party to host the family was ignored, undermining the argument that detention was a measure of last resort.

The Court therefore concluded that the detention was arbitrary within the meaning of Article 5 ECHR.

Violation of Article 8 ECHR – Disproportionate Interference with Family Life

In parallel, the Court found a violation of Article 8 ECHR, which protects the right to respect for private and family life.

The prolonged confinement of a mother and an infant in a guarded centre was deemed a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ family life. The Court emphasised that the vulnerability of the child and the mother’s psychological condition imposed enhanced positive obligations on the State. These obligations were not fulfilled.

The Court criticised the domestic authorities for failing to meaningfully engage with:

the psychological evidence regarding the mother’s mental health;
the particular vulnerability of the child;
the long-term impact of prolonged detention on early childhood development and the family bond.

Structural Nature of the Problem

This judgment forms part of a broader and troubling pattern. Since 2018, the Court has repeatedly condemned Poland for the detention of children in immigration proceedings. Despite these judgments, practice at the national level has not evolved in line with Convention standards.

Children in Poland continue to be detained:

for prolonged periods,
in conditions incompatible with their age and needs,
without effective consideration of alternatives to detention.

This points not merely to individual errors, but to systemic shortcomings in the domestic legal and administrative framework.

Access to Legal Assistance as a Fundamental Safeguard

This case also clearly demonstrates the critical role of access to legal assistance in safeguarding human rights.

It was only through sustained legal representation that the following issues were effectively raised before the Court:

the lack of genuine consideration of alternatives to detention;
the relevance of medical evidence concerning the mother’s mental health;
the impact of detention on the child’s well-being.

Without specialised legal support, such arguments would likely have remained unheard. Effective legal assistance is not an accessory right, but a cornerstone of procedural fairness and substantive protection of vulnerable individuals.

Legal and Practical Implications

The judgment in K.G. and S.G. v. Poland reinforces several binding standards:

Detention of children for immigration purposes must be truly exceptional.
It must be short, proportionate and based on an individualised assessment.
Authorities must demonstrably consider alternatives to detention.
Vulnerability linked to age and mental health imposes heightened duties on the State.

For Poland, this ruling once again creates an obligation not only to remedy the individual situation of the applicants, but to reform domestic practice and procedures in order to prevent future violations.

Conclusion

Seven years after the case was first taken up by the Halina Nieć Legal Aid Center, the judgment in K.G. and S.G. v. Poland confirms what civil society and legal practitioners have long observed: the detention of children in migration contexts remains a deeply problematic practice in Poland.

This ruling is not merely a condemnation, but a renewed legal and moral call for systemic change.Children should not grow up behind barbed wire, and vulnerability should be met with protection, not further confinement.

Access to justice, effective legal assistance, and genuine alternatives to detention are not optional — they are legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Link to judgment in Hudoc.