CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sF6EC97F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s4009AD62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:9pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s119C1441 { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s74825D0C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1CABE11 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-size:12pt } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2FA28896 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s507990D1 { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB9BE2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA7186A9D { width:36.9pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s7B051ABA { width:164.45pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } FIRST SECTION CASE OF ŞENER v. POLAND (Application no. 53371/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 1 P7 • Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens • Entry of the applicant’s details in the Register of Undesirable Foreigners and the Schengen Information System on national security grounds, decided on the basis of classified information not disclosed to the applicant, without sufficient counterbalancing safeguards • Art   1 P7 applicable • Entry of his details in the Registers producing the effect of an expulsion • Significant restriction of the applicant’s right to be informed of the facts and the content of the documents underlying his expulsion • Lack of reasoned and individualised assessment • Strict scrutiny of counterbalancing factors, in the absence of any examination by the domestic authorities of the need for the significant limitation of his rights   • Applicant not afforded an effective opportunity to secure representation by a lawyer • Involvement of highest judicial authority a significant safeguard, but insufficient given scarce information available • Essence of the applicant’s procedural rights not preserved Art 8 • Private and family life • Domestic proceedings concerning the entry of the applicant’s details in the Registers not attended by appropriate and sufficient procedural guarantees • Interference not necessary in a democratic society   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 7 May 2026   This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Şener v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Raffaele Sabato,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   53371/18) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Adin Şener (“the applicant”), on 9 November 2018; the decision to give notice of the application to the Polish Government (“the Government”); the decision by the Government of Türkiye not to exercise their right to intervene in the proceedings in accordance with Article 36   §   1 of the Convention and Rule 44   § 1   of the Rules of Court; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; the death of the applicant on 13 October 2024 and the wish expressed by his daughter, Ms Derya Şener, to pursue the case in his stead;   Having deliberated in private on 2 December 2025 and 10 April 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that later date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the expulsion of the applicant (a lawfully resident alien) on the grounds of national security. The applicant complained that he had never been informed about the reasons for his expulsion. The case raises issues under Article 1 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention and Article   8 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1971 and died in 2024. The applicant and subsequently his daughter were represented by Mr M.   Pietrzak and Ms   M.   Radziejowska, lawyers practising in Warsaw. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J.   Sobczak, subsequently replaced by Ms A. Kozińska-Makowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         BACKGROUND TO THE CASE    The applicant’s life and residence in Poland 5 .     The applicant entered Poland in 1989. He had been in an informal relationship with K., a Polish national, since 1995. Their daughter, Derya, was born in 2001. The couple married in 2008. 6 .     The applicant ran a small business. He lived in Poland on temporary residence permits which had been repeatedly renewed. His last temporary residence permit was issued on 23 March 2015 and had an expiry date of 2   March 2018. 7 .     While residing in Poland, the applicant was convicted twice (between 2004 and 2009) of fraud and corruption. He had been the subject of a further criminal investigation under the supervision of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office and concerning charges of fraud and tax evasion since at least 2013. Another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant had also been pending before the Prudnik District Court since 2013.    The applicant’s application for a permanent residence permit 8 .     While his temporary residence permit was still valid (see paragraph   6 above), the applicant applied for permanent residence. On 10   August 2015 the Mazowiecki Governor ( Wojewoda Mazowiecki ) refused to grant the applicant a permanent residence permit on the grounds that he was a threat to national security and public order. The Governor noted that the applicant had previously been convicted of tax related criminal offences. Even though his conviction was spent, there was no basis to believe that he would respect the Polish legal order in future. The Governor further found that the permit could not be granted since the applicant had concealed the fact that there were various criminal proceedings pending against him. 9 .     The first-instance decision was upheld by the Head of the Office for Foreigners ( Szef Urzędu do Spraw Cudzoziemców ) on 15   March 2016. The second ‑ instance body agreed with the applicant that, since his convictions were spent, there were no grounds for applying the provisions concerning national security and public order. Nevertheless, having confirmed that the applicant had indeed concealed information about pending criminal proceedings, the Head of the Office for Foreigners upheld the first-instance decision because that concealment meant he was required to refuse to grant a residence permit. It appears that this decision did not affect the applicant’s then valid temporary residence permit, which was not revoked until a decision by the Mazowiecki Governor of 6 October 2016 (which, in turn, only became final on 1   February 2018).    The applicant’s most recent criminal conviction 10 .     On 4 April 2016, the Prudnik District Court convicted the applicant in the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 7 above in fine ) on multiple counts of forgery (Article 270 § 1 of the Criminal Code), misrepresentation in order to procure a document (Article 272 of the Criminal Code) and use of a fraudulently obtained document (Article 273 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced him to a total of 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment suspended pending 4 years’ probation. The applicant appealed and in the final judgment of 27   July 2018 the Opole Regional Court amended the sentence by reducing the period of probation to two years.       THE ENTRY OF THE APPLICANT’S DETAILS IN THE REGISTER OF UNDESIRABLE FOREIGNERS for reasons of national security 11 .     On 6 July 2016 the Head of the Office for Foreigners entered the applicant’s details in the Register of Foreigners whose Residence in Poland is Undesirable (“ Wykaz cudzoziemców, których   pobyt na   terytorium Polski jest niepożądany ” – hereinafter referred to as “the Register of Undesirable Foreigners”), for a period to end on 4 July 2021. At the same time, the applicant’s details were transferred to the Schengen Information System (“SIS”) for the purposes of refusing him entry. Hereinafter, the Court will refer to the Register of Undesirable Foreigners and to SIS jointly as “the Registers”. The applicant was not involved in the process, which resulted in his details being entered in the Registers. 12.     Neither the authority which requested the entry of the applicant’s details in the Register of Undesirable Foreigners nor the content of the information on which that request was based have ever been disclosed to the applicant. This information has likewise not been disclosed to the Court in the present proceedings. 13 .     On 12 July 2016, on his way back to Poland from a holiday in Türkiye, the applicant was stopped at the Turkish-Bulgarian border and refused entry to the Schengen area. The Bulgarian authorities informed him that his name was on the Register of Undesirable Foreigners. 14.     On 15 and 18 July 2016 the applicant’s lawyer asked the Head of the Office for Foreigners why the applicant was on the Registers, and for permission to access the applicant’s file. 15 .     On 4 August 2016 the Head of the Office for Foreigners dismissed the above-mentioned requests. It was noted that the applicant’s details had been entered in the Registers due to the fact that considerations of national defence or security, or the protection of public security and public order, or the interests of the Republic of Poland so required, as provided by Section   435   (1)   4 of the Aliens Act of 12 December 2013 (see paragraph   28 below). It was therefore not possible to provide the facts on which the decision had been based or to allow the applicant an opportunity to review the evidence on his file. The authority concluded that providing the applicant with the requested information would be tantamount to a breach of law.     PROCEEDINGS TO REMOVE THE APPLICANT’S DETAILS FROM THE REGISTERS 16 .     On 8 September 2016 the applicant applied to the Head of the Office for Foreigners for the removal of his details from the Registers and for a certificate confirming that his details did not appear in either database. He relied on, inter alia , Article 8 of the Convention and argued that the entry of his details in the Registers had prevented him from remaining in Poland with his wife and minor child. 17 .     On 6 October 2016 the Head of the Office for Foreigners, relying on Sections   435 (1) 4, 438 (1) 8 and 443 (1) 3 of the 2013 Aliens Act (see paragraph   28 below), refused the applicant’s application on the ground that his entry and stay in Poland would present a risk to national security. 18.     On 18 October 2016 the applicant asked for his case to be reconsidered. He emphasised that the order for the entry of his details in the Registers had been made under a legal regime which did not provide the necessary safeguards against arbitrariness. 19 .     On 27 March 2017 the Head of the Office for Foreigners, after having reconsidered the case, upheld the first ‑ instance decision. The authority found no reasons to remove the applicant from the Registers given that his entry and stay in Poland would present a risk to national security. 20 .     The applicant made a further appeal, which was dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court on 6 September 2017. The court noted that the information on which the order for the entry of the applicant’s details in the Registers was based was secret. The court had examined that information and held that there were no grounds to find that there had been no legal basis for entering the applicant’s details in the Registers or that it had been in breach of the law. 21 .     The applicant brought a cassation appeal in the Supreme Administrative Court, which was dismissed on 26 March 2018. The court repeated the reasons given by the administrative authorities and the Regional Administrative Court. The judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 11   May 2018.    LATER DEVELOPMENTS 22 .     On 12 February 2019 the applicant made a further application for the Head of the Office for Foreigners to remove his details from the Registers and to issue a certificate that his details were not on the Registers. The application was considered at two levels but ultimately refused by a decision of the Head of the Office for Foreigners of 22 July 2019. In giving reasons, the Head of the Office for Foreigners explained that at the date of the decision and until 26 July 2020 there were two independent grounds for putting the applicant’s details on the Registers. The first one was national security (see paragraph   15 above) and that applied until 4 July 2021 (see paragraph   11 above). The second ground cited by the authority was the applicant’s most recent criminal conviction (see paragraph 10 above), which had resulted in his details being put on the Registers for the two-year probation period imposed on him in the final judgment (that is, from 27 July 2018 to 26   July 2020). The legal basis for entering the applicant’s name on the Registers was Section   435 (1) 2 (c) in conjunction with Section 438 (1) 6 of the of the Aliens Act of 12 December 2013 (see paragraph 28 below). The applicant did not appeal further to the Regional Administrative Court against that decision. 23.     On 4 July 2021 the prescribed period for the applicant’s details to remain on the Registers for reasons of national security ended (see paragraph   11 above) and the applicant’s details were removed from the Registers. 24.     It appears that, following the removal of his details from the Registers, the applicant first returned to Poland in September 2021 and that he then travelled in and out of Poland on the basis of a valid visa. Most recently, he appears to have entered Poland on 4 September 2023, after which he made an application for a temporary residence and work permit, which was refused on 8   April 2024 by the Małopolski Governor. On 13   October 2024 the applicant died in Poland. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK         POLISH CONSTITUTION 25 .     Article 47 of the Constitution reads as follows: “Everyone shall have the right to legal protection of his private and family life, to his reputation and to make decisions about his personal life.” 26.     Article 51 in its relevant parts reads as follows: “2.     Public authorities shall not acquire, collect nor make accessible information about citizens other than that which is necessary in a democratic state ruled by law. 3.     Everyone shall have a right of access to official documents and data collections concerning himself. Restrictions on such rights may be established by statute. 4.     Everyone shall have the right to demand the correction or deletion of untrue or incomplete information, or information acquired by means contrary to statute. 5.     Principles and procedures for collection of and access to information shall be specified by statute.” 27 .     Article 52 of the Constitution in its relevant part reads as follows: “1.     Freedom of movement and the choice of the place of residence and stay within the territory of the Republic of Poland shall be assured to everyone.”       THE ALIENS ACT OF 2013 28 .     The Aliens Act of 12 December 2013 ( ustawa o cudzoziemcach – “the 2013   Aliens Act”), as applicable at the material time, read as follows in its relevant parts: “Section 302 1.     A decision ordering a foreigner to leave the country shall be made where: ... 7)     the foreigner’s details are on the register of foreigners whose stay on the territory of the Republic of Poland is considered undesirable ... Section 434 The register of foreigners whose stay on the territory of the Republic of Poland is considered undesirable, hereinafter referred to as “the register”, shall be maintained by the Head of the Office [for Foreigners]. Section 435 1.     The personal details of a foreigner shall be entered in and stored in the register if at least one of the following grounds is met: 1)   a decision has been made requiring the foreigner to leave the territory, accompanied by a prohibition on entry into the territory of the Republic of Poland, or a prohibition on entry into the territory of the Republic of Poland and other Schengen states; 2)     the foreigner has been convicted by a final judgment: a)   in the Republic of Poland – of an intentional offence or a fiscal offence for which the foreigner has been given a penalty of a fine or imprisonment, or b)   in a State other than a Schengen state – of an offence constituting a serious crime ( zbrodnia ) within the meaning of Polish law, or c)   in the Republic of Poland or another Schengen state – of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year; 3)     the entry or stay of the foreigner on the territory of the Republic of Poland is undesirable because of obligations arising from international agreements ratified by and binding on the Republic of Poland; 4)     considerations of national defence or security, or the protection of public security and public order, or the interests of the Republic of Poland so require; 5)     after having been arrested in connection with an unlawful border crossing, the foreigner has been transferred to a third state pursuant to an international agreement on the transfer and readmission of persons. 2.     A foreigner’s details may be entered in the register without his or her knowledge or consent. Section 438 1.     The details of a foreigner shall be entered in the register for the following periods: 1)   for the period specified in the decision requiring the foreigner to leave the territory, where that decision imposed a prohibition on re‑entry into the territory of the Republic of Poland, or into the territory of the Republic of Poland and other Schengen states; 2)   for three years from the date on which the foreigner was transferred to a third state under an international agreement on the transfer and readmission of persons, following his or her apprehension in connection with an unlawful border crossing; 3)   for five years from the date of completion of a sentence of imprisonment imposed in the judgment in which the entry of the foreigner’s details in the register is ordered, where the foreigner was sentenced to at least three years’ imprisonment; 4)   for three years from the date of completion of a sentence of imprisonment imposed in the judgment in which the entry of the foreigner’s details in the register is ordered, where the foreigner was sentenced to less than three years’ imprisonment; 5)   for three years from the date on which the judgment ordering the entry of the foreigner’s details in the register became final, where a fine was imposed on the foreigner; 6)   for the duration of the conditional suspension of a sentence of imprisonment, from the date on which a judgment referred to in Section 435 (1) 2 became final, where the foreigner was given a suspended sentence of imprisonment; 7)   for the period resulting from an international agreement binding on the Republic of Poland on which the entry of the foreigner’s details in the register is based; 8)   for a period not exceeding five years, with the possibility of extension for further periods none of which may exceed five years, in the case of entries made on the grounds that the foreigner’s entry or stay may pose a threat to national defence or security, to the protection of public security and public order, or may prejudice the interests of the Republic of Poland. 2.     A foreigner’s details shall be entered in the register for the period referred to in subsection 1, starting from the date of: 1)   enforcement of the decision obliging the foreigner to leave the territory; 2)   expiry of the time‑limit for leaving the country voluntarily as specified in the decision requiring the foreigner to return, where there is no information as to the enforcement of that decision; 3)   the decision requiring the foreigner to leave the territory, where no time‑limit for voluntary departure was specified. 3.     In the situation referred to in subsection 2 (2), where the Head of the Office [for Foreigners] has received confirmation that a decision requiring a foreigner to leave the territory on which an entry in the Register was based, has been enforced, the period of validity of the entry shall be adjusted so that its starting point is the date of enforcement of that decision. 4.     A foreigner’s details shall be removed from the register on expiry of the periods referred to in subsections 1–3. Section 440 1.     The entry of a foreigner’s details in the register, the extension of the period of validity of an entry, or the removal of the details from the register shall be effected by the Head of the Office [for Foreigners], either on his or her own initiative or at the request of one of the following authorities: 1) the Minister of National Defence; 2) the Minister for Public Finances; 3) the Minister for Foreign Affairs; 4) the Chief Commander of the Police; 5) the Chief Commander of the Border Guard; 6) the Head of the Internal Security Agency; 7) the Head of the Intelligence Agency; 8) the Head of the Customs Service; 9) the President of the Institute of National Remembrance – Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation; 10) the regional governor ( wojewoda ). 2.     Where the Head of the Office [for Foreigners] does not grant a request referred to in subsection 1, the requesting authority may apply to the minister responsible for internal affairs for a decision in the matter. 3.     Where the minister responsible for internal affairs grants an application referred to in subsection 1, he or she shall order the Head of the Office [for Foreigners] to enter the foreigner’s details in the register, to extend the period of validity of the entry, or to remove the foreigner’s details from the register. Section 443 1.     The Head of the Office [for Foreigners] shall transmit the details of a foreigner as held on the register to be held for the duration of their retention by the Schengen Information System for the purpose of refusing entry, where the basis for retaining those details on the register is: 1)   a final decision requiring the foreigner to return, containing a prohibition on re‑entry into the territory of the Republic of Poland and other Schengen States, or 2)   a final judgment referred to in Article 435 § 1 (2) (b) or (c), or 3)   a finding that the entry or stay of the foreigner on the territory of the Republic of Poland is undesirable on account of a threat to national defence or security, or is required for the protection of public security and public order, or is undesirable because it may prejudice the interests of the Republic of Poland, or 4)   the transfer of the foreigner to a third State under an international agreement on the transfer and readmission of persons, following his or her arrest in connection with an unlawful border crossing, or 5)   Section 77 of the Act of 14 July 2006 on the entry into, residence in, and departure from the territory of the Republic of Poland of citizens of the Member States of the European Union and their family members. 2)   Details entered in the Schengen Information System shall be removed in the event of suspension of the validity of the entry on the register, as referred to in Section   437, until the circumstances justifying that suspension cease. 3)   Upon expiry of the suspension period, the foreigner’s details shall again be entered in the Schengen Information System for the purpose of refusing entry. Section 444 1.     A foreigner whose details have been entered in the register or in the Schengen Information System for the purpose of refusing entry shall have the right to apply to the Head of the Office [for Foreigners] for: 1)   access to information concerning the entry of his or her details in the register or in the Schengen Information System for the purpose of refusing entry, the duration of the entry, and its legal and factual basis; 2)   rectification of the details, where they are incomplete, outdated, or inaccurate; 3)   removal of the details, where they have been entered or are stored in breach of law. 2.     The Head of the Office [for Foreigners] shall refuse to provide the foreigner with information concerning the factual basis of the entry [in the register] where his or her details have been entered in the register or in the Schengen Information System on the basis of Section   435   (1) 4.” THE LAW LOCUS STANDI 29.     The applicant died after he had lodged the present application and his daughter informed the Court that she wished to pursue the proceedings in his stead. The Government submitted that she could not have standing in the case as the rights under examination were not transferable. 30.     The Court reiterates its constant approach: where an applicant dies after lodging an application, it accepts that the next of kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references). The issue is not whether the rights in question are or are not transferable to any persons wishing to continue the process but whether those persons can in principle claim a legitimate interest in asking the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant’s wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application with the Court (see Singh and Others v.   Greece , no. 60041/13, § 26, 19   January 2017). 31.     The Court is satisfied that the applicant’s daughter has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the application is pursued on behalf of the deceased applicant. It has no reason to doubt that they had a sufficiently close relationship. The Court finds that Ms Derya Şener has standing to pursue the late applicant’s complaints before the Court. However, for reasons of convenience, the text of this judgment will continue to refer to Mr Adin Şener as “the applicant” (see Gaggl v. Austria , no. 63950/19, § 35 in fine , 8   November 2022, and the case-law cited therein).       SCOPE OF THE CASE 32 .     The Court reaffirms that as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, the States have the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens; that the Convention does not guarantee the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country; and that, in pursuance of their task of maintaining public order, Contracting States have the power to expel an alien convicted of criminal offences (see, among many other authorities, De Souza Ribeiro v.   France [GC], no. 22689/07, §   77, ECHR   2012). 33.     Given the above, the Court finds it important to note the following circumstances, which were not in dispute between the parties: - the applicant was convicted in criminal proceedings in the domestic courts of the Respondent State on three occasions (see paragraphs   7 and   10 above); - the first two convictions were spent (expunged from the record) before the applicant’s details were first entered in the Registers (see paragraph   9 above); - the domestic authority which considered the applicant’s application for a permanent residence permit decided that because the two first convictions were spent there was no reason to refuse the applicant a permanent residence permit for reasons of national security (see paragraph   9 above); - the applicant’s most recent (third) criminal conviction did not become final until after the applicant’s details were first entered in the Registers (see paragraphs   10 and 11   above); - the applicant’s details were entered in the Registers on two separate occasions and for two separate reasons (see paragraph   22 above): initially, for national security reasons, for the period between 6   July 2016 and 4   July 2021; and subsequently, on the basis of the applicant’s most recent (third) criminal conviction, for the period between 27 July 2018 and 26   July 2020; - the applicant did not challenge the entering of his details in the Registers on the basis of his most recent criminal conviction, either at the domestic level or before the Court. 34.     Taking the above into consideration the Court will now examine the precise scope of the case before it, in so far as the applicant’s criminal convictions are concerned. Firstly, the Court observes that it was never suggested that the applicant’s spent convictions were the basis on which the applicant’s details were entered into the Registers for reasons of national security. In this connection, the Court also observes that even when those convictions were addressed by the domestic authorities (as was the case in the proceedings for a permanent residence permit, about which the applicant has made no complaint), the authorities expressly stated that the applicant’s application could not be refused on the basis of those convictions. Since there is no indication that those spent convictions constituted any part of the basis for the entry of the applicant’s details in the Registers, the Court finds that they fall outside the scope of the present case. Secondly, the Court observes that the parties agree that the applicant’s most recent conviction could constitute a valid basis for putting the applicant’s name on the Registers. Therefore, since the applicant has not raised any complaints about his details being put on the Registers on that basis, the Court finds that conviction and its consequences to be likewise outside the scope of the present case. 35 .     Consequently, the Court finds that the present case does not directly concern the Respondent State’s right to expel an alien convicted of criminal offences. The parties agree that the Respondent State had the right to enter the applicant’s details in the Registers on the basis of a final conviction and to bar the applicant from entering its territory for the period associated with that conviction. The Court notes, in this connection, that the applicant clearly stated that his application did not concern the domestic proceedings terminated with the decision of 22 July 2019 (see paragraphs   39 and   41 below). The issue is therefore whether the Respondent State respected the applicant’s Convention rights when it entered his details in the Registers solely for reasons of national security. 36.     In view of the above, including because there is no disagreement between the parties on the facts, the Court is not called upon to examine whether the entering of the applicant’s details in the Registers on the basis of his most recent criminal conviction for the period between 27   July 2018 and 26   July 2020, and the resulting bar on his returning to Poland during that period, affected the applicant’s Convention rights. 37 .     The remaining issue is then whether the case discloses any violations of the applicant’s rights by the original decision to enter his details into the Registers for reasons of national security, which prevented his return to the Respondent State.     PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF NON-EXHAUSTION REGARDING THE APPLICATION AS A WHOLE    The parties’ submissions 38.     The Government submitted that the application as a whole was inadmissible on account of a failure to exhaust domestic remedies, in so far as the applicant: (i)   did not appeal against the Head of the Office for Foreigners’ decision of 22   July 2019 (see paragraph 22 above), and (ii)   did not lodge a constitutional complaint to challenge the relevant provision of the 2013 Aliens Act (namely, according to the Government, Section   435   (4) of the 2013 Aliens Act) which, if successful, would have enabled him to apply for the proceedings which had terminated with the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 March 2018 (see paragraph   21 above) to be reopened and to claim compensation under Section   417 ‑ 1   (1) of the Civil Code, that is, on the basis of the State Treasury’s liability in tort for the harm caused by the enactment of a law incompatible with the Constitution (see Broniowski v. Poland (dec.) [GC], no.   31443/96, §   25, ECHR   2002 ‑ X). 39 .     In response, the applicant submitted that: (i) his application concerned the proceedings that had terminated with the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 26 March 2018, to which the decision of 22   July 2019 was irrelevant, and (ii) a constitutional complaint was not an effective remedy in his case, notably because the Constitutional Court was no longer an independent and impartial judicial authority and there were significant doubts as to the validity of its rulings.    The Court’s assessment 40.     The Court refers to the general principles concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies as recently summarised in Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], (no. 21881/20, §§   138 ‑ 45, 27   November 2023). 41 .     It should be noted, at the outset, that the application under review was lodged with the Court within the six-month time-limit after the final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26 March 2018 had been served on the applicant’s lawyer (see paragraph 21 above). The Government’s first argument in support of their objection that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies was that he had not lodged an appeal against the unfavourable decision of the Head of the Office for Foreigners of 22   July 2019 given in the subsequent set of proceedings (see paragraph   22 above). The Court reiterates that, in so far as that decision concerned the applicant’s name having been put on the Registers on the basis of his final criminal conviction, it remains outside the scope of the present case (see paragraphs   35-37 above), as the applicant made no complaints in that respect. 42.     Concerning the applicant’s complaint regarding expulsion on the grounds of national security (see paragraph 51 below), the Court observes that the applicant had used the same legal avenue before (see paragraphs   16 ‑ 21 above) without success. When one remedy has been pursued, the use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see Şerife Yiğit v.   Turkey [GC], no.   3976/05, §   50, 2   November 2010 and Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v.   Romania [GC], no.   41720/13, § 177, 25 June 2019, both with further references). It thus follows a fortiori that, in the specific circumstances of the present case, that is, where there has been no change of the underlying situation, the applicant cannot be required to make repeated use of the same remedy, especially after having already filed the application with the Court. 43 .     The other remedy the Government said the applicant had not exhausted was a constitutional complaint to challenge the relevant provision of the 2013 Aliens Act. In their observations the Government identified the provision as “Section 435 (4)”. The 2013 Aliens Act does not contain a provision with that reference (see paragraph 28 above). The Court will therefore assume, in the Government’s favour, that they meant Section   435   (1) 4 of the Act. In the Government’s view the applicant could have challenged the application of that provision as incompatible with Articles   47, 51 (2)-(4) and 52 (1) of the Constitution (see paragraphs   25-27 above). The Government claimed that if this were to have been successful it could have been followed by an application for the proceedings that terminated with the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 26   March 2018 to be reopened and by a civil action for compensation. 44.     The Court considers the summary of the process for making a constitutional complaint in Poland from the judgment given in Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland (no. 4907/18, 7 May 2021) to be relevant here: 197.     The Court reiterates that in the decision in Szott-Medyńska v.   Poland (no.   47414/99, 9 October 2003) concerning the right of access to a court, when examining the question of the effectiveness of a constitutional complaint for the purposes of Article 35 §   1 of the Convention, it considered two important limitations of the Polish model of a constitutional complaint, namely its scope and the form of redress it provided. 198.     The first limitation is that a constitutional complaint can only be lodged against a statutory provision or another type of provision, and not against a judicial or administrative decision as such. Therefore, recourse to a   constitutional complaint can only be had in a situation in which the alleged violation of constitutional rights and freedoms has resulted from the application of a legal provision which can reasonably be questioned as unconstitutional. Furthermore, such a provision has to constitute the direct legal basis for the individual decision in respect of which the violation is alleged. Thus, the constitutional complaint procedure cannot serve as an effective remedy if the alleged violation has resulted only from the erroneous application or interpretation of a statutory provision which, in its content, is not unconstitutional (see, for example, Palusiński v.   Poland (dec.), no. 62414/00, 3 October 2006; and Długołęcki v.   Poland , no.   23806/03, § 25, 24 February 2009, both cases concerning freedom of expression). 199.     The second limitation of a constitutional complaint under Polish law concerns the redress which a constitutional complaint provides to an individual. The Court notes that, in accordance with Article 190 of the Constitution, the only direct effect of a judgment of the Constitutional Court is the repeal of the statutory or other type of provision which has been found unconstitutional. Such a judgment, however, does not automatically quash an individual decision in relation to the constitutional complaint which has been lodged. Article 190 § 4 of the Constitution grants a person who lodges a successful constitutional complaint the right to request that the procedure in his case be reopened or otherwise revised, “in a manner and on the basis of principles specified in provisions applicable to the given proceedings”. 45.     The Court finds the Government’s argument unconvincing in the light of the first limitation described in Szott-Medyńska , in so far as it restricts the remedy of a constitutional complaint to situations in which the alleged violation of constitutional rights and freedoms resulted from the application of a legal provision which can reasonably be questioned as unconstitutional. 46.     The Government contended that the applicant should have lodged a constitutional complaint about Section 435 (1) 4 of the 2013 Aliens Act (see paragraph   43 above). The Court notes, in this respect, that the provision in question indeed constituted the basis of the decision to enter the applicant’s details in the Register of Undesirable Foreigners for reasons of national security. However, regard must be had to the fact that the applicant did not challenge – either at the domestic level or before this Court – the general power of the Respondent State to declare the presence of certain foreigners on Polish territory to be undesirable and to expel them or bar them from entering the country. It is also worth reiterating that the applicant did not even contest the entering of his details in the Registers on the basis of his criminal conviction. Rather, the complaints aired at the domestic level and submitted to this Court were about the lack of procedural safeguards in the domestic proceedings. 47.     In view of the above, the Court is not persuaded by the Government’s argument that the applicant could have remedied his situation by challenging the constitutionality of Section 435 (1) 4 of the 2013 Aliens Act. While the Court is not called upon to speculate on the outcome of any proceedings that might be instituted before the Constitutional Court, it observes that the general aim of the provision in question – namely, preventing individuals posing a threat to national security from entering or remaining in Poland – could not reasonably be expected to be found incompatible with the provisions of the Constitution cited by the Government. This observation is further reinforced by the fact that the Government have not submitted any case-law examples to the contrary. 48.     Consequently, the Court finds that the constitutional complaint suggested by the Government could not have constituted an effective remedy in the applicant’s specific situation. 49.     Having regard to the above considerations, the Court concludes that the Government’s objection to the application as a whole, namely that the applicant had failed to lodge a constitutional complaint, must be rejected under the Szott-Medyńska criteria, and that there is no need to examine the applicant’s arguments about the composition and operation of the Constitutional Court. 50.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection regarding the applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies.    ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 7 TO THE CONVENTION 51 .     The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that he had not been afforded sufficient procedural safeguards and therefore had not been able to defend himself effectively in proceedings which had resulted in his being expelled from Poland on national security grounds. More specifically, he alleged that he had not