We do not want to wait for years. The aim and demands of the residence-legalisation protest

We are not acting against the staff of the office. We are acting against a system in which the state accepts an application, collects the fee, and then leaves a person without a decision for two or three years.

Behind every case there is a person, not a file that can be put on a shelf. People cannot put their lives on hold for two or three years: they have to work, raise children, get medical treatment, run businesses, travel and plan for the future. That is why we want residence-legalisation cases in the Pomeranian Voivodeship and across Poland to be handled within a reasonable and predictable time. But the slogan “work faster” is not enough. We expect concrete measures, deadlines and data.

Our aim is:

• to stop the queue from growing and to reduce the number of unresolved cases systematically;
• to shorten the real waiting time for a decision;
• to introduce transparent rules by which anyone can check whether the situation is genuinely improving;
• to bring about organisational change in the Pomeranian Voivodeship Office, and statutory and digital change at national level.

Our demands to the Pomeranian Voivode and the Pomeranian Voivodeship Office

1. A public plan for clearing the queue

We expect a plan with concrete deadlines, named responsible officials and measurable results. It is not enough to be told that the office “is working on the problem”. We want to know what will be done, by what date, and by which indicators the public will be able to judge the outcome.

The plan should set out at least:

• the number of the oldest cases the office intends to close each month;
• the target reduction in the number of cases older than one, two and three years;
• the assumed monthly balance of new and closed cases;
• the people or units responsible for carrying out each measure.

2. Full and comparable statistics for the period before the war and after it began

We expect the publication of data separately for each full year from 2019 to 2025, and separately for 2026 as at the end of the last completed month. The data should cover at least temporary residence permits, permanent residence permits and EU long-term resident permits, and should show:

• the number of applications submitted;
• the number of proceedings concluded, distinguishing decisions, discontinuations and other forms of closure;
• the number of cases still open at the end of each period;
• the number of cases older than one, two and three years;
• the number of staff actually conducting proceedings, and the number of cases per member of staff.

We want to see the situation before 24 February 2022 and after that date separately. Only such a comparison makes it possible to establish what part of the problem stems from the rise in the number of applications, and what part from the organisation of work, staff shortages and the accumulation of an older backlog.

3. An account of the measures taken after 24 February 2022

We expect a report setting out:

• how many additional staff were hired;
• how many posts and recruitment rounds were opened, how many vacancies were filled and how many remained unfilled;
• how many staff were temporarily transferred from other departments;
• which procedures were changed;
• how much each significant change cost;
• what measurable effect it produced: how many additional cases were closed, by how much the queue shrank, and by how much the waiting time was shortened.

The report should also include a comparison with the solutions applied in Kraków and Wrocław: staffing, cases per member of staff, how cases are allocated, action taken on the oldest backlog, and results before and after the changes. We expect it to state which good practices the Pomeranian Voivodeship Office will adopt, which it will not, and why.

We are not asking for a catalogue of meetings and general declarations. We are asking for a comparison: measure, cost, deadline and result.

4. Monthly publication of real waiting times

Each month the office should publish not only the number of cases received and closed, but also:

• the median and the 75th and 90th percentile of the time from application to decision;
• separate figures for the main types of permit;
• the number of cases in which no action was taken for 30, 60 and 90 days;
• the number of cases at each stage of the proceedings;
• the stages at which the greatest delays arise.

An average on its own can conceal both very fast cases and extremely old ones. That is why we need data showing the real distribution of waiting times.

5. A staffing plan to strengthen the Department of Foreigners’ Affairs

We expect a plan covering the filling of existing vacancies, reducing staff turnover, temporarily assigning additional staff to the oldest cases, and training new caseworkers. If the resources available to the Voivode are insufficient, the Voivode should formally apply to the Ministry of the Interior and Administration and other competent bodies for additional posts and funding, and publish both the application and the reply received.

6. A public account of the FAMI project worth almost PLN 12.9 million

We expect a report on the implementation of the project “Strengthening the capacity of the Pomeranian Voivode in serving foreigners in the Pomeranian Voivodeship”PL🌐 Translate, worth PLN 12,885,333.33.

The report should show how the spending affected the number of closed cases, the size of the queue and the waiting time. The results of the thirteen-person helpline provided for in the project should be published separately: the number of posts filled, the number of incoming, answered and unanswered calls, the average waiting time, and the number of consultations given by e-mail and in person. We also want to know which posts, system integrations and other project activities have already been launched, and which are delayed or have not been carried out.

7. Work on a case starting from the moment it enters the system

Once an application has been submitted through MOS and made available to the Pomeranian Voivodeship Office, the case should not sit idle waiting for a fingerprinting appointment. We expect the office to carry out immediately all steps permissible at that stage: register the case, check that the form and documents are complete, verify the available registers, establish any links to other proceedings, and prepare any necessary requests. The biometrics appointment should be scheduled in parallel and as early as possible, and once it has taken place the case should move on to full examination on the merits without a further pause.

We are not asking the office to disregard obligations arising from statute. Changing the legal role of biometrics is a demand addressed to the Sejm. What we require of the Voivode is that work be organised so that biometrics does not become an excuse for failing to carry out beforehand those steps that are already legally possible. The office should publish monthly the median time from receipt of the application to registration, from registration to biometrics, and from biometrics to the first substantive step.

8. Coordinated handling of related family cases

We expect a fast track for residence for the purpose of family reunification and for cases based on other circumstances whose outcome depends directly on the resolution of the case of a spouse, parent or guardian.

We are not asking for the formal joinder of proceedings where the law does not provide for it. We are asking for organisational coordination: assignment to a common team, re-use of shared documents within the limits of the law, no duplication of the same checks, and decisions issued at the same time. Where this is not possible, the case of a spouse or child should be concluded within 30 days of the decision in the principal applicant’s case, unless there are individual obstacles requiring further proceedings.

9. An end to freezing cases after a complaint is filed with the WSA

The Pomeranian Voivodeship Office states on its websitePL🌐 Translate that once a complaint has been filed with the Voivodeship Administrative Court, proceedings will be continued only after the case file is returned together with a final court ruling. In practice this means that a person who exercises the right to challenge inactivity or undue delay may end up waiting even longer precisely because they filed a complaint.

We expect this practice to change and an official statement to be issued. Before sending the paper file to the court, the office should create a complete, ordered working copy and continue to carry out all steps that do not require the originals. If the office takes the view that particular steps may not be carried out without the main file, it should state the legal basis and explain why it cannot use a copy or electronic document workflow. A complaint to a court must not become an additional penalty for trying to defend one’s rights.

10. Timely issuing of certificates and an end to ignoring official correspondence

The problem of inactivity is not limited to the time spent waiting for a decision in a residence case. The Pomeranian Voivodeship Office has no right to ignore separate applications and official correspondence merely because they concern a person awaiting the conclusion of residence proceedings.

Under art. 217 § 3 of the Code of Administrative ProcedurePL🌐 Translate, a certificate should be issued without undue delay and no later than within seven days. This applies in particular to certificates confirming facts known to the office from the data it holds: the submission of an application, the date it was received, the case number, and the fact that proceedings are pending — provided the applicant states a ground under art. 217 § 2 of the Code. If the office refuses to issue a certificate, or a certificate with the requested content, it should issue a decision subject to appeal under art. 219 of the Code. Silence is not a proper way of dealing with an application.

Art. 100d concerns time limits in expressly listed proceedings for granting, changing or withdrawing residence permits, and does not mention proceedings for the issuing of certificates. In our assessment there is no basis for extending it automatically to such separate proceedings. A significant argument is provided by the judgment of the WSA in Opole of 12 October 2023, II SAB/Op 44/23PL🌐 Translate: the court found the Voivode inactive and ordered him to deal within seven days with an application for a certificate confirming the date on which a temporary residence application had been submitted. That judgment was given in a specific case and does not replace a legal assessment of each subsequent case, but it shows that proceedings on a certificate are subject to separate review by an administrative court.

We require the Pomeranian Voivodeship Office:

• to review and deal without delay with all applications for certificates pending for more than seven days;
• to issue, within the statutory time limit, either the certificate or a decision refusing it, and where documents or payment are missing, to send a request to remedy the deficiencies without delay;
• to make it possible to receive a certificate electronically via ePUAP or e-Doręczenia;
• to register and give timely and proper effect also to ponaglenia (reminders), complaints and other official correspondence, rather than leaving them unanswered;
• to publish monthly the number of certificates applied for and issued, refusals and unresolved applications, the number of applications pending for more than seven days, and the median time taken to deal with them.

11. MOS as a real working tool, not just an electronic form

We expect the publication of a local assessment of how MOS works and how it is integrated with the systems of the Pomeranian Voivodeship Office. MOS cannot be merely an interface layer behind which a caseworker still copies data by hand into further systems. It should be a single genuine entry point for a case: the data and documents submitted by the applicant must reach the tools used by staff without the same information being entered again.

The period before and after the electronic procedure was introduced should be compared, showing the number of applications, the number of requests to remedy deficiencies, the time to registration, the time to biometrics, the time to the first substantive step, the extent of manual re-keying of data, the number of integration errors, and the time to decision. The office should disclose which stages after submission are performed automatically and which are still manual.

If the system has not reduced the number of requests, manual re-keying and processing time, the office should state the reasons and present a remedial plan. Changes requiring intervention in the central MOS system should be formally reported to the Office for Foreigners and the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, and the content of the report and the reply should be published.

12. A public and substantive response to our petition

On 24 June 2026 we formally submitted a package of three documents: a petition to the Pomeranian Voivode, a petition to the Petitions Committee of the Sejm, and a letter to the Ministry of Digital Affairs and the Head of the Office for Foreigners. The package has already been supported by more than 3,700 peoplePL🌐 Translate.

The protest does not replace the petition. Its purpose is to ensure that the petition does not end in a general reply without commitments. We expect the Pomeranian Voivode to give a public, substantive response to each demand, to state which demands are accepted, which are rejected and which require cooperation with central authorities, together with a timetable for implementing the measures accepted. The response should be given no later than the time limit set by the Petitions Act. We also expect a working meeting between representatives of the office and representatives of the petitioners.

Systemic demands addressed to the government, the Sejm, the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, the Ministry of Digital Affairs and the Office for Foreigners

The Voivode cannot change legislation alone. The demands below are therefore not formal requirements addressed to the Pomeranian Voivodeship Office. We raise them during the protest because the local queue is the result both of how the office is organised and of legislation and central systems. We expect the Voivode to take a public position and to pass these demands on to the competent ministers and parliamentary committees.

13. Repeal of art. 100d and restoration of the state’s responsibility for time limits

Art. 100d of the Ukraine assistance act suspends the running of time limits in cases conducted by voivodes concerning temporary residence, permanent residence and EU long-term resident status, excludes the application of the provisions on inactivity, and limits effective legal remedies against delay. In 2026 its operation was extended to 4 March 2027PL🌐 Translate.

We do not claim that art. 100d formally “does not work”. It works exactly as it was written: it stops time limits and shields the authority from the consequences of delay. It has not, however, solved the problem of the queue, nor has it speeded up proceedings. Some 460,000 cases awaiting examination in mid-2024 show that suspending time limits is no substitute for efficient administration. The provision shifts the burden of the state’s inefficiency from the office onto the person who has no decision and limited means of defence.

Our own statistics on WSA and NSA rulings already show a clear trend: the problem has not been solved but partly moved from the administration to the courts. When the office issues no decision, people file complaints about inactivity or undue delay, courts spend time and resources on hundreds of similar proceedings, and once the file has been sent to the court the office — according to its own statement — suspends further work until it is returned. As a result, overloading one part of the system creates a further burden in the judicial part, without bringing the individual any closer to a residence decision.

The Commissioner for Human RightsPL🌐 Translate has likewise pointed out that depriving foreigners of legal tools entrenches the absence of accountability for failing to act on time, and that the problem should be solved by comprehensively improving the administration and increasing its resources.

We demand that the government and the Sejm repeal art. 100d and restore real time limits, the duty to inform a party of delay, and effective protection against inactivity and undue delay. If the state needs a transitional period, it should be accompanied by a public backlog-reduction plan with quarterly targets, not by another automatic extension of the exception.

14. UD408: a fast procedure based on objective criteria, not privilege for selected passports

The government bill UD408PL🌐 Translate provides for tacit approval of most temporary residence cases within 60 days for nationals of selected developed third countries enjoying visa-free travel. The list of countries is to be determined by the Council of Ministers, taking into account migration risk and cooperation on security.

We support fast, simplified and secure procedures. We object, however, to the creation of a separate sixty-day queue available primarily on the basis of nationality, while a person with the same risk profile, complete documentation and a positive residence history may wait two or three years merely because they hold a different passport.

Such a mechanism creates a risk of unequal treatment by public authority on grounds of nationality. Art. 32 of the ConstitutionPL🌐 Translate guarantees everyone the right to equal treatment by public authorities. Not every differentiation between foreigners on grounds of nationality is automatically unlawful, but it must have an objective, rational and proportionate justification. In our view, an investment interest connected with the country of origin should not by itself determine who receives a decision in 60 days and who remains in a queue lasting years.

We demand that the accelerated mechanism be available regardless of nationality, on the basis of objective features of the case. It should cover at least subsequent applications for temporary residence.

Related cases of minor children and family members should also qualify for the fast track. In cases concerning permanent residence and EU long-term resident status, a real, enforceable time limit and priority should be introduced once the conditions are met and security checks are complete; the possibility of applying tacit approval in such cases should be assessed for compatibility with Polish and EU law.

If the government nevertheless retains a list of countries, it should publicly demonstrate the proportionality of such a solution, publish an assessment of its impact on the remaining queues, and provide additional resources. Speeding things up for one group must not mean an even longer wait for everyone else.

15. Implementation of the statutory demands from our petition to the Sejm

We expect further work on the solutions described in the petition submitted:

• separating biometrics as an identification step from the substantive progress of the case, so that the absence of an available appointment does not block examination of the application;
• a simplified procedure for subsequent temporary residence permits in cases with recurring facts;
• limiting requests for documents that the authority can verify itself in ZUS, the National Revenue Administration, CEIDG, the National Court Register or other public registers;
• simplifications for people continuing genuine, stable and verifiable sole-trader activity;
• a statutory link between the cases of minor children and those of their parents or guardians;
• ensuring that a person lawfully awaiting a decision can effectively demonstrate their status to public institutions and — within the limits of sectoral legislation — to regulated private entities.

16. One digital gateway instead of further unconnected systems

MOS 2 cannot be merely a new interface layer or an electronic envelope for documents. It should be a single entry point to the entire proceedings and a common source of data for the systems used by staff. We expect the Ministry of Digital Affairs, the Ministry of the Interior and Administration and the Office for Foreigners to integrate MOS fully with ST POBYT, EZD, voivodeship systems and the necessary public registers, in particular ZUS, the National Revenue Administration, CEIDG and the National Court Register. Information entered once should be used throughout the process. Data submitted electronically must not be re-keyed by hand, and a document available to the state in one register should not be demanded from the applicant again.

A caseworker should see in a single environment the complete application, the documents, the data from registers, the history of steps taken and the tasks to be carried out. An applicant should have access to a reliable case status, a list of steps completed and expected, and digital confirmation of lawful residence that authorised institutions can verify. We have already described detailed solutions in our letter to the Ministry of Digital Affairs and the Head of the Office for Foreigners. Every IT project should be accounted for by its effect: less manual work, fewer requests, faster registration and a shorter time to decision.

Why we are protesting now

According to the Pomeranian Voivodeship Office’s data for 2025PL🌐 Translate, in the category of temporary residence permits, including temporary residence and work, 41,206 applications were received and 31,121 cases were completed. The difference is 10,085. That difference alone does not yet allow the whole queue to be calculated, because some of the completed cases may have come from earlier years. It does show, however, why we need full data on the number of pending cases and their age, not just two aggregate figures.

The problem is nationwide. The official report of the Sejm investigative committee, paper no. 951PL🌐 Translate states that in 2023 around 617,300 applications for temporary residence, permanent residence and EU long-term resident status were submitted, while around 411,900 decisions were issued. As at the end of June 2024, around 460,000 cases were awaiting examination by voivodes. The document states plainly that the number of applications was growing faster than the number of decisions, so that more and more cases were carried over to the following year.

Our own analysis of rulings of the WSA in Gdańsk concerning inactivity and undue delay in residence cases covers, as the database stood on 24 August 2026, 388 classified rulings from 2025–2026. In 263 cases the final classified outcome was favourable to the complainant; in at least 61 source descriptions the court found a gross violation of the law, and in at least 24 cases it awarded the complainant a sum of money. Our search for rulings is not yet complete, so these figures are a lower bound, not full statistics for all cases. We do not use them to judge individual members of staff. They show the recurring nature of an organisational problem and its real consequences.

We also know that improvement is possible. The Lower Silesian Voivodeship OfficePL🌐 Translate reported that after reorganisation in 2025 the cost of judgments and compensation fell by 84.7%, the number of complaints to the WSA by 16.1%, and the backlog from 2022 and earlier was reduced to 507 cases. We do not claim that the solutions used in Wrocław can be copied mechanically in Gdańsk. We do expect the Pomeranian Voivode to explain what solutions have been applied in other offices, which of them have been analysed in Pomerania, and why no public plan with comparably measurable targets has yet been presented.

The Commissioner for Human Rights also drew attention to the enormous differences in staff workload between voivodeships. At the Lesser Poland Voivodeship Office in Kraków there were 73 cases per decision-issuing member of staff in 2023 and 85 in the first half of 2024. These figures do not yet prove that a single number explains all the differences in waiting times. They do show that the resources, organisation and results of Kraków, Wrocław and Gdańsk can and should be compared, instead of treating a wait of several years as inevitable.

Our demand is simple: the state has the right to examine applications thoroughly, but it has no right to leave people without a decision for years and to conceal the inefficiency of the system by suspending time limits.

Data and the state of legislative work were verified on 25 August 2026. The ruling statistics come from our own, still incomplete database of WSA and NSA rulings and have been marked as incomplete. The remaining figures link to official sources or to the public page of the petition package.