UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
A.M. (au nom de M.K.A.H.) c. Suisse
Discrimination; intérêt supérieur de l’enfant; développement de l’enfant; droit de l’enfant d’être entendu dans toute procédure judiciaire ou administrative l’intéressant; protection et assistance humanitaire voulues pour les enfants réfugiés; droit de l’enfant de jouir du meilleur état de santé possible; traitements inhumains ou dégradants 6 October 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Children's rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Statelessness | Countries: Bulgaria - Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic |
EASO Age assessment practices in EU+ countries:
updated findings
July 2021 | Publisher: European Union: European Asylum Support Office (EASO) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
Applicant v. State Secretary for Security and Justice
19 October 2020 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: The Hague District Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Housing, land and property rights (HLP) - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to education | Countries: Bulgaria - Netherlands - Syrian Arab Republic |
Good Practices Paper – Action 6: Establishing Statelessness Determination Procedures to Protect Stateless Persons
July 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
High-Level Segment on Statelessness: Results and Highlights
May 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
Campaign Update, January 2020 - March 2020
22 April 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
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 |
Arrêt F-7195/2018 du 11 février 2020
On 11 February 2020, the Swiss Federal Administrative Tribunal (TAF) ruled in case F-7195/2018 concerning the Dublin transfer of an asylum seeker to Bulgaria that there are no systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants in Bulgaria, and that there is no reason for a complete suspension of Dublin transfers to Bulgaria. The court ruled that the Swiss asylum authority SEM should assess on a case-to-case basis whether a Dublin transfer must be suspended. This examination could include obtaining concrete and prior guarantees from the Bulgarian authorities. A transfer is only possible if the possibility that the asylum-seeker concerned would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on his return to Bulgaria is excluded. In this particular case, the appeal against the transfer decision was made by the applicant, arguing that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder which could not be treated adequately in Bulgaria, that she risked not being able to access the regular reception services due to the fact that her asylum application had already been rejected by the Bulgarian authorities, that she even risked being detained and subjected to inhuman conditions and that she finally risked being returned to her country of origin contrary to the principle of non-refoulement. Taking her particular circumstances into account, the TAF quashed the transfer decision and upheld the appeal, ruling that even though there are no systemic deficiencies in the asylum system in Bulgaria, the transfer decision should be based on a detailed analysis of all relevant circumstances of the asylum seeker. 11 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - Reception - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Bulgaria - Sri Lanka - Switzerland |
UNHCR Submission for the Universal Periodic Review – Bulgaria – UPR 36th Session (2019)
9 January 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports |
USING CRIMINAL LAW TO RESTRICT THE WORK OF NGOS SUPPORTING REFUGEES AND OTHER MIGRANTS IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES
December 2019 | Publisher: Council of Europe | Document type: Thematic Reports |