The purpose of the paper is to analyse the European Agenda on Migration from the perspective of people who, for some reason, are susceptible to harm or have found themselves in a challenging situation (i.e. are “vulnerable”), and answer the question of whether the Agenda has taken notice of this issue in any way.
The analysis proceeds in five parts. It begins by outlining the complexity of vulnerability with particular emphasis on the role of the adopted perspective and the situation of migrants. Next, it describes the EAM objectives in terms of vulnerable persons. On the basis of several communications, proposals, working documents and reports that the EU has formulated since May 2015, the Agenda’s theoretical assumptions have been compared with their implementation in practice. Part four attempts to answer whether the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the situation of vulnerable migrants has been reflected in EU operational documents. The final part presents the New Pact on Migration and Asylum (as the latest achievement in the discussed area) with particular attention paid to vulnerable persons.
The research was based predominantly on official EU documents, binding and non-binding, and the latest literature on the subject.

The article analyzes the Polish practice of ignoring applications for international protection and the high level of refusals to grant international protection in the context of Rule 61 of the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights, which allows the employment of the pilot judgment procedure in the event of a structural violation of the ECHR (structural problem). It appears from the reasoning of the judgment of the ECtHR of 23 July 2020 M.K. and others v. Poland, as well as from information provided by the Ombudsman and non-governmental organizations that there are grounds for classifying the practice of ignoring applications for international protection as a structural violation (structural problem). However, there are no sufficient grounds for such a classification with regard to the significant level of refusals to grant international protection.

The aim of the article is to present a mechanism for the operation of organised crime groups which undertake to facilitate the crossing of a state border against the rules. The deliberations were based on an analysis made on the basis of a case study of a criminal case in which the perpetrators were convicted of organising the crossing of Poland’s eastern border by other people in contravention of regulations, undertaken as part of an organised criminal group. It was verified whether, according to reports from the Border Guard and the European Commission, we are dealing with the activity of international cross-border criminal group or only with network of local criminal groups operating on the territory of individual countries and cooperating with each other. On the basis of the research method adopted, the structure of the group, its mode of operation and the characteristics of foreigners were shown. Part of the deliberations was devoted to the criminal law reaction to the phenomenon mainly based on the level of penalties imposed by the justice system. The penalties imposed in the case in question were analysed and compared with the criminal policy of the Polish justice system within the scope of Article 264 § 3 and 258 of the Criminal Code. This was juxtaposed with the postulates resulting from the implementation of European Union law.

The aim of the article is to present one of the facets of the state’s approach towards irregular migration, namely identification of and reaction of the law enforcement and judiciary to the offence of facilitating or enabling unauthorised stay of another person and gaining personal or material profits from it (introduced to the Polish legislation in 2004). Based on the analysis of court files of 243 criminal cases, we indicate forms of facilitation of unauthorised stay (with predominance of document frauds) and analyse the features of the constitutive elements of the offence, i.e. facilitators, persons whose stay is enabled, and profits. We conclude that among convicted facilitators there are those whose intensions were far from enabling the stay of another person and actual facilitators often remained unidentified. We also point to doubtful court decisions, in particular those regarding undetermined profits and recipients or recipients sentenced as facilitators. Thus, we prove that despite the declared prioritisation of irregular migration as a problem to be tackled in Poland, the practice of the law enforcement agents and the courts reveals a determination to achieve easy targets, following known paths, as well as abandoning areas that require more attention and possibly also efforts.

European Agenda on Migration presented by the Council of Europe in 2015 revealed a necessity for amendment of the Frontex Regulation, in order to enhance its role in supporting Member States with regards to forced-returns. As underlined, all operational activities of the Agency shall be applied in respect of fundamental rights. European Border and Coast Guard Regulation adopted in 2016 provided for an obligation for all of forced-return operations coordinated or organised by Frontex to be me monitored. At the same time Frontex pool of forced-return monitors was set up with this view to support national monitoring systems. Through in-depth legal analysis of binding EU laws on forced-returns the author elaborates on the genesis, legal and organisational framework as well as on the development of Frontex pool of monitors.

The plans of the Turkish authorities to establish a security zone in northern Syria for Syrian refugees are the basis of the study on the European Union’s position towards the proposed political organism and the possibility of taking related actions. They are also a starting point for a broader analysis of EU-Turkish relations, especially concerning the issue of Middle East refugees. The paper is based on a political science analysis of the content (documents and media texts) and a review of the scientific literature on the externalization of migration management by the EU, security zones, EU-Turkey relations and the project to create a Syrian zone. These publications were created mainly between 2017 and 2020, in the period of increased interest in the issue. The conclusions from the analysis indicate the vital interest of both parties in maintaining cooperation in the field of migration. On the EU side, it results mainly from the need to achieve the goals of externalizing migration management, while for Turkey it remains an important element in the process of building a regional power position. However, despite the mutual dependence of partners in the implementation of their priority interests, the acceptance of the creation of a security zone in Syria by the EU – in the light of the current international and geopolitical legal conditions – is unlikely.

The subject of this article is to attempt to assess the impact of the 2015 European Agenda on Migration on the status of an EU citizen. This assessment was carried out in the context of freedom of movement under Article 21 TFEU, within two areas. The first one is the temporary introduction of controls at the internal borders of EU Member States, the second one are measures adopted by Member States and related to the maintenance of public order and public security, including protection against the terrorist threat. The research material is however relatively sparse, limited to selected provisions of the Schengen Borders Code and selected cases before the Court of Justice of the EU, still mostly pending. Nonetheless, one conclusion that emerges from this analysis is that EU rules, even if they actually restrict the legal situation of EU citizens, fall within the scope of acceptable restrictions. The real impact on the limitation of the rights attached to the status of EU citizen is in the Member States’ legislation.