Temporary Residence Card and Employment Gaps: What the Voivodeship Office Actually Checks
Legal significance of employment gaps for a temporary residence card
Employment gaps are one of the most common sources of concern among foreigners in Poland.
Even a short break between jobs is often perceived as an automatic risk to a temporary residence permit.
This is a misconception.
For the authority, the key issue is not the break itself, but what it indicates about the purpose of stay, the stability of the situation, and compliance with formal obligations. This is where most cases start to fail.
Why employment gaps matter to the authority
For a temporary residence permit based on work, one core issue is assessed:
whether the purpose of stay – employment in Poland – is still being fulfilled.
When employment ends, from a legal perspective a situation of possible cessation of the purpose of stay (ustanie celu pobytu) arises.
This does not automatically make the stay illegal, but it triggers supervisory mechanisms by the authority.
Legal basis: Article 101 of the Act on Foreigners.
For this reason, the office does not simply count “days without salary.”
It evaluates the entire employment and migration history as a coherent picture, assessing whether the conditions and purpose of the permit are still met.
When a break becomes a real risk
A break becomes problematic not because of its length, but when several risk factors appear simultaneously.
1. Failure to notify the authority within the statutory deadline
In the case of a temporary residence and work permit (pobyt czasowy i praca), loss of employment creates an obligation to notify the voivode within 15 working days, or to submit a new or modified application within the same period.
Missing this deadline constitutes a formal violation that is directly taken into account in the assessment of the case.
Legal basis: Article 121(1) of the Act on Foreigners.
In practice, offices most often rely on this argument – not because work ended, but because the statutory obligation was not fulfilled.
2. Lack of a new genuine basis for stay
If a foreigner remains in Poland for a longer period:
- without employment,
- without another lawful source of income,
- without submitting an application based on a new legal ground,
the authority may reasonably question the actual purpose of continued stay.
In such circumstances, the office may determine that the purpose of stay has ceased and that the permit is subject to revocation.
Legal basis: Article 101 of the Act on Foreigners.
3. Illegal employment during the “gap”
Even short-term work without the required authorisation during a break is no longer treated as a neutral pause. It constitutes a violation of access-to-labour-market rules.
Such episodes do not disappear. They remain in the administrative record and may be used retroactively in future residence procedures or inspections.
When a break is not a problem
Polish law does not prohibit being unemployed.
Even a temporary residence and work permit is not automatically revoked solely due to a break in employment.
Authorities generally take a neutral approach to:
- short breaks between jobs,
- periods of active job searching,
- registration with the labour office (PUP),
- breaks due to illness, relocation, studies, childcare, or maternity/parental leave.
One condition applies:
formal obligations must be fulfilled on time, and the overall timeline must appear logical and consistent.
Actual break vs. ZUS “gap” – not the same thing
A common mistake is confusing factual reality with technical registry data.
- An actual break means work has genuinely ended: no duties, no income, termination documents in place.
- A ZUS gap is a technical record issue: registration and deregistration dates, RCA/RSA reports, interruption codes.
The authority is required to assess the real factual situation, not only technical entries in registries.
Legal basis: Articles 7 and 77 §1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.
As a result:
- there may be a real break without a visible ZUS gap – and it is still a break;
- there may be a ZUS gap without an actual cessation of work – which must be explained with documents.
How the office assesses breaks in practice
The voivode does not analyse each break in isolation. The assessment is holistic and includes:
- employment contracts (dates, types, employers),
- ZUS data,
- PIT income records,
- compliance with statutory deadlines,
- consistency of explanations,
- repeatability of employment patterns.
A single longer but well-documented break may be safer than a series of short, recurring gaps between weak contracts.
It is repetition that creates an impression of instability or fictitious legalisation.
Typical red flags
In practice, the following issues most often trigger doubts:
- missed 15-day notification deadline,
- unauthorised work “for a few weeks,”
- long periods without income and without explanation,
- inconsistencies between contract, ZUS and PIT data,
- repeated short-term contracts with questionable employers,
- inconsistent explanations for termination.
Even if such situations seem understandable in real life, legally they weaken the case.
Arguments applicants tend to overestimate
The authority does not operate on emotions. Statements such as:
- “it was difficult,”
- “I did not manage in time,”
- “the employer did not inform me,”
- “I have lived here for years,”
- “taxes were paid,”
do not override formal violations where the law clearly establishes obligations.
What actually strengthens a case
From the authority’s perspective, only the following are persuasive:
- a clear and consistent timeline,
- matching documents,
- statutory deadlines met,
- real and documented income,
- demonstrable stabilisation after a break.
A break does not destroy a case if it is explained, documented, and does not become a recurring pattern.
Conclusion
Employment breaks are not prohibited.
However, they shape the overall migration history.
The more that history looks like a consistent path with occasional, justified pauses, the easier it is to demonstrate stability.
The more it resembles a fragmented series of contracts and gaps, the more questions the authority will raise – even if the permit is still formally valid.
The problem is not that work ended. The problem is how it looks on paper and what legal conclusions follow from it.
Ukrainian version of this article
Contact For professional assistance regarding Polish immigration, residence procedures, and administrative compliance, you may contact me via Telegram: @aleks_dokumenty