u/PaulHinr

Hi all,

I’m researching the fate of my great-grandfather, a miner and steelworker from Upper Silesia, who was almost certainly deported by Soviet forces in early 1945 during the mass deportations of Upper Silesian civilians to the USSR as part of the Tragedia Górnośląska.

The last official evidence that he was still alive comes from a Wehrmacht document from January 1945 concerning one of his 17-year-old sons, who had been compulsorily conscripted. The document lists my great-grandfather at his home address in Upper Silesia. After the Soviet occupation a short time later, he disappeared and was never heard from again. No death certificate exists.

I have already checked Dariusz Węgrzyn’s Księga Aresztowanych, Internowanych i Deportowanych z Górnego Śląska do ZSRR w 1945 roku and found no entry for him, although I’m aware that this may simply reflect gaps in the surviving documentation rather than proof that he was not deported.

I’d now like to submit a formal request to the IPN in Katowice to determine whether any documentation relating to him exists in their holdings. I have a few questions for anyone who has gone through this process:

For a deceased relative with no death certificate (presumed deceased based on age and wartime disappearance), is the standard wniosek o udostępnienie dokumentów dotyczących zmarłej osoby najbliższej under Article 30 of the IPN Act the correct procedure?

The IPN service description states that a death certificate or a court declaration of death is generally required, but also mentions an exception where the death is a fakt znany organowi z urzędu.
I think it’s quite obvious that my GGF isn’t alive anymore, but is the IPN really that generous as to recognize this without formal proof?

I live in Germany and have access to an EU qualified electronic signature under the eIDAS Regulation. Has anyone successfully submitted an Article 30 request to IPN electronically using a qualified electronic signature, or does IPN still insist on a notarised handwritten signature (or certification through a Polish consulate) for this type of application?

Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone,

As our community continues to grow, it’s becoming clear that our rules need to be more precisely defined to keep pace. However, instead of making these decisions behind closed doors, we want to involve you directly in shaping the future of the subreddit.

Specifically, we’d like to get your input on how providers should participate in r/prawokrwi going forward.

We highly value the expertise providers bring, but we also want to keep discussions transparent and free from advertising or client acquisition in the comments. Providers already have excellent visibility through custom user flairs (including their websites) and our official Service Provider Master List.

To improve consistency and address recent community feedback, we’re considering a more structured approach to Rule 5.

The Idea: A “Two-Stage” Model
In general, all interactions in the comment sections should follow two steps:

Stage 1 – Public Contribution: Any assessment or advice must be given openly in the thread. Comments should provide real, case-specific value and stand on their own.

Stage 2 – Private Transition (Limited Exception): A move to private communication is only appropriate if the case requires reviewing sensitive personal documents (for example, certificates or records) that should not be shared publicly due to privacy reasons. In those specific cases, providers may point users to their contact details indirectly, but not post direct emails, links, or active calls to action.

The reason we want to avoid direct linking and contact details in the threads is the high risk of impersonation and spam. Without this restriction, anyone could easily create an account impersonating a legitimate provider. Restricting these channels protects both our users from scams and the hard-earned reputation of the providers themselves. By keeping links strictly confined to user flairs and the official provider list, we ensure that the mod team has thoroughly reviewed and verified the link in advance.

Allowed Example: "This requires a look at the actual certificates. Since these shouldn't be shared publicly, feel free to check the service provider master list or my flair for contact options."

Not Allowed Example: "Send the files to info@agency.com and we will review them for you."

The goal is to allow legitimate, complex cases to move forward privately while preventing regular comment sections from turning into aggressive acquisition channels.

Additional Question: Provider Recommendations

Separately, we’re also looking at threads where users explicitly ask for provider recommendations (e.g., "Which agency should I use?"). Should providers be allowed to mention themselves in those situations, or should visibility remain limited to their flair and the directory? We’re currently leaning towards the latter to avoid these threads turning into a race of who can spam their own links first, but we would love to hear your views on this.
⸻
We’re aiming for a solution that keeps discussions useful and trustworthy, while remaining fair to providers and easy for us to apply consistently.

Thanks for your input!