A lost summons in a residence case — lessons from a Mazovia case

What the press report says

The case concerns a Turkish citizen, a nurse working in Warsaw, who in February 2024 — two days before her visa expired — submitted an application for a temporary residence permit to the Mazovian Voivode (wojewoda mazowiecki). In the application she gave the address of the flat that her employer had made available to her at the start of her stay.

In August 2024 the office sent an SMS stating that a request to remedy formal defects had been issued and that the letter would be delivered by post. By then the party was already living at a different address. According to the newspaper's account, the new address was entered in the portal operated by the office, the item never arrived, and when asked the office replied that she should wait for the letter at the address indicated in the application.

The newspaper reports that the Mazovian Voivode refused to grant the permit twice and is due to rule for the third time shortly, and that the envelope containing the summons, which ought to be in the case file, is not in the office. We do not know the file in this case and we do not assess the rulings. We describe the legal mechanism that decides the outcome in such situations. We know the course of the case solely from a press report — administrative case files are not public.

Why the envelope is the most important document here

A request to remedy the defects of an application is based on art. 64 § 2 k.p.a. The provision requires the applicant to be called upon to remedy the defects within a period of no less than seven days, with an instruction that failure to remedy them will result in the application being left unexamined. The effect therefore depends on two things at once: on a correct summons and on its correct service.

If an item cannot be served, art. 44 k.p.a. applies — a notice of the possibility of collecting the letter within seven days and, if the item is not collected, a repeat notice within no more than fourteen days of the first one. Only once that period has passed is service deemed to have been effected, and the letter is placed in the case file.

This whole mechanism leaves a material trace: a returned envelope with the postal service's annotations or a return receipt. That is the proof of service, and it is the authority that must have it in the file in order to show that the period set in the summons began to run at all. If no such document is in the file, there is nothing with which to show that service was effective.

The duty to notify a change of address works both ways

Art. 41 § 1 k.p.a. provides that, in the course of proceedings, parties and their representatives and authorised representatives have a duty to notify the public administration authority of every change of their address. Art. 41 § 2 adds that, where that duty is neglected, service of a letter at the previous address has legal effect.

This is a provision about who bears the risk. Until the party notifies the authority, an item sent to the old address produces full effects — even if the party never actually saw it. But § 2 applies only where the duty under § 1 has been neglected. If the notification was filed and reached the authority conducting the case, the basis for serving letters at the old address falls away.

What is disputed in practice is precisely this point of contact: whether entering a new address in the portal that handles applications amounts to notifying the authority within the meaning of art. 41 § 1, or whether a separate letter to the file of the specific case is needed. We do not know of a ruling that settles this question unequivocally, and we will not suggest that such a ruling exists. The practical conclusion is nonetheless clear: the notification should be filed in such a way that it lands in the case file and that its filing can be proved.

What happens to the legality of the stay

Under art. 108 ustawy o cudzoziemcach, if the deadline for submitting an application for a temporary residence permit was met and the application contains no formal defects, or the defects were remedied within the time limit, the voivode places a stamp in the travel document and the foreigner's stay is deemed legal from the day the application was submitted until the day the decision becomes final.

The condition "contains no formal defects or the defects were remedied within the time limit" is crucial here. Leaving the application unexamined means that this protection did not take effect — so the problem does not end with a lost residence card case, but touches the very basis for staying and working during the waiting period.

What remedies are available to the party

A missed deadline set in a summons can be recovered by an application to restore the time limit under art. 58 k.p.a. The time limit is restored at the request of the person concerned if they show it to be plausible that the failure occurred through no fault of their own. The request must be filed within seven days of the day on which the cause of the failure ceased and, at the same time, the act for which the time limit was set must be performed — that is, the missing documents must be filed at once.

Leaving an application unexamined is neither a decision nor an order, so no appeal or complaint lies against it. The Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny), in a resolution of a panel of seven judges of 3 September 2013, sygn. I OPS 2/13, held that a complaint about the authority's failure to act lies against leaving an application unexamined (art. 64 § 2 k.p.a.), pursuant to art. 3 § 2 pkt 8 Prawa o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi. That route is preceded by a request to expedite under art. 37 k.p.a.

Regardless of this, leaving an application unexamined does not as a rule close off the possibility of applying again — provided that the substantive-law deadline has not expired. In residence matters that reservation is highly significant, because an application for a temporary residence permit must be submitted no later than on the last day of legal stay.

In proceedings before the voivode and the Head of the Office for Foreigners (Szef Urzędu do Spraw Cudzoziemców), any natural person with capacity to perform legal acts may act as an authorised representative (art. 33 § 1 k.p.a.). Before a provincial administrative court (wojewódzki sąd administracyjny), only an adwokat or radca prawny (Polish regulated legal professions) may act as an authorised representative — at that stage our firm can prepare the pleading, which the party signs and files themselves.

What changed on 27 April 2026

The case described by the newspaper is proceeding under the old paper-based model. Since 27 April 2026, applications for a temporary residence permit, a permanent residence permit and an EU long-term resident's permit are submitted exclusively electronically in the MOS portal (Moduł Obsługi Spraw) (art. 225a ust. 1 ustawy o cudzoziemcach), and proceedings initiated by that route are conducted in electronic form.

The Mazovian Voivodeship Office (Mazowiecki Urząd Wojewódzki) states explicitly that an e-Delivery (e-Doręczenia) mailbox is needed, among other things, to receive summonses, information about the date of attendance for fingerprinting and information about the date for collecting the residence card, and that thanks to e-Delivery correspondence from the office will reach the addressee even if they change their place of residence or travel abroad.

This does not mean the problem has disappeared. It has moved: instead of an envelope sent to an outdated address, the risk now lies in an unactivated mailbox, an electronic delivery address that nobody checks, and loss of access to the account.