Bulgaria
- Case Law 3
UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
- Amnesty International - Bulgaria
- Council of Europe, Venice Commission: Constitutional Courts (Links)
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Bulgaria
- Human Rights Watch (HRW) - Bulgaria
- International Committee of the Red Cross - The ICRC delegation in Brussels
- Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) - Bulgaria
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) - Bulgaria
- ReliefWeb - Bulgaria
- UNHCR - Bulgaria
- United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - Bulgaria
- United States Department of State - Bulgaria
- World Health Organization (WHO) - Bulgaria
|
CASE OF M.A. AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
(Application no. 5115/18)
The Court had therefore to examine whether any effective guarantees existed that protected the applicants against arbitrary refoulement by the Bulgarian authorities to China, be it direct or indirect. No destination country had been indicated in the initial decisions for the applicants’ repatriation or in the expulsion decisions. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the determination of such a country and the assessment of any risk the applicants would face if returned to China fell to be carried out in the process of implementation of the expulsion decisions. However, such an approach offered no guarantees that the Bulgarian authorities would examine with the necessary rigour the question of the risk the applicants would face if returned to the country they had fled. It was unclear by reference to what standards and on the basis of what information the authorities would determine, if at all, the relevant risk. Lastly, there was no indication as to whether, if the authorities chose to send the applicants to a third country, they would properly examine whether they would in turn be sent from there to China without due consideration for the risk of ill‑treatment and even death. In sum, there were no effective guarantees, in the process of implementation of the repatriation or the expulsion decisions against the applicants, that they would not be sent back to China. 20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Uighur | Countries: Bulgaria - China |
|
Amie and others v. Bulgaria
12 February 2013 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Right to family life - Statelessness | Countries: Bulgaria |
|
Vasileva v. Denmark
25 September 2003 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Bulgaria - Denmark |
