The landmark judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in the 800+ case. The parent's citizenship is no longer an obstacle

There has been a consistent line of jurisprudence that it is not the citizenship of the person applying for family benefits that is decisive for a positive decision. The child's Polish citizenship is important – according to Wednesday's ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Administrative Court dealt with a legal issue formulated last fall by the Ombudsman for Children, Monika Horna-Cieślak. As the RPD Office pointed out then, according to the Spokesperson, in the decisions of administrative courts in matters of benefits for children from Polish-foreign families, “there are serious discrepancies in the interpretation of legal provisions.”

According to the provisions of the Act on Family Benefits, such foreigners are entitled to benefits provided that they meet the criteria specified in this Act. Meanwhile – as RPD pointed out – the legislator did not provide for the child's citizenship as a condition in these provisions.

“The difficulties are particularly visible in cases involving families with mixed citizenship status, in which the child has Polish citizenship, while the parent applying for the benefit has the citizenship of another country. The situation becomes problematic when the other parent, who is a Polish citizen, cannot submit an application due to fortuitous circumstances, such as death, abandonment of the family or deprivation of liberty. Administrative authorities often treat the parent's residence status as a negative condition, even when the child is a citizen. Republic of Poland and lives on Polish territory,” RPD argued last year.

In her opinion, administrative courts took opposing positions in such cases and only some of the judgments in such cases were based on the general assumption that a decision on family benefits cannot be issued “in isolation from the fact that the benefit serves the good of a child who is a Polish citizen, and basing the refusal solely on the criterion of citizenship or residence status of the parent would violate the constitutional principles of equality and protection of children's rights.”

However, on Wednesday, the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of seven judges, refused to adopt a resolution on this matter. “The application of the provision that was to be clarified did not result in discrepancies in the case law of administrative courts that would provide grounds for adopting an abstract resolution unifying the case law,” the Supreme Administrative Court said.

As the chairman of the panel adjudicating in this case, Judge Jerzy Siegień, said that in matters of family benefits in the manner questioned by the RPD, provincial administrative courts ruled in only three cases, of which in two of them – after examining cassation appeals – the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the judgments. In turn, administrative courts supported the interpretation indicated by the RPD in several judgments.

In Wednesday's announcement following this ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court emphasized that there has now been a “consistent line of jurisprudence that the citizenship and residence status of the person applying for family benefits is not a decisive criterion.” As the Supreme Administrative Court emphasized, “the criterion of Polish citizenship of the actual beneficiary of the benefit, i.e. the minor child, is important,” the Supreme Administrative Court emphasized.

In its justification, the Supreme Administrative Court also stipulated that – in accordance with the RPD's question – the answer concerns cases under the provisions of the Act on Family Benefits, and not proceedings under the Act on State Aid in Raising Children.

Marcin Jabłoński (PAP)

my/par/