Bulgaria

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

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

9 January 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country Reports

December 2019 | Publisher: Council of Europe | Document type: Thematic Reports

The Court held that "- that O.D.’s removal to Syria would amount to a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights - that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. The Court found, in particular, that in view of the overall situation in Syria and the individual risk faced by the applicant it could not be established that he could safely return to Syria. The Court also found that the applicant had not had access to an effective remedy, noting that his request for a stay of execution of the expulsion order had been rejected on the grounds that he posed a threat to national security, and that the proceedings relating to the application for refugee status or humanitarian status had not been aimed at reviewing the lawfulness of the expulsion order or its effects in relation to the complaints concerning the right to life and the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment. ..."

10 October 2019 | 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): Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to life | Countries: Bulgaria - Syrian Arab Republic

23 October 2018 | Publisher: Council of Europe: Committee for the Prevention of Torture | Document type: Country Reports

The principal issues in the appeals concern the meaning and effect of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of Dublin III ("Article 2(n)" and "Article 28", respectively), which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation. Mr Hemmati and Mr Khalili also raise a distinct issue regarding whether Garnham J was right to hold that their detention was lawful by application of the usual principles of domestic law first adumbrated in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and rehearsed in later authorities such as R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 ("the Hardial Singh principles").

4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12(1) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9), and Article 35 and Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

25 July 2018 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 2011 Recast Qualification Directive (EU) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Effective remedy - Exclusion clauses - Palestinian | Countries: Bulgaria - Palestine, State of