The applicant was denied statelessness status on the ground that national-level legislation does not define the authority responsible for granting this status and the procedure for its determination. The Court held that there were no reasonable grounds for denying the applicant statelessness status, and the explicit legal provision obliging the Migration Directorate to grant statelessness status and issue the necessary documents is regulated by Article 28 of the 1954 Convention and Article 59 par. (1) and (8) of the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act. The Court highlighted Bulgaria´s ratification of the 1954 Convention and emphasised the need for administrative assistance to stateless people.
- Article 59 par. (1) and (8), Bulgarian Identity Documents Act
- Articles 1 par. (1), 25, 28 of the 1954 Convention
- Article 5 par. (4), Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria
The applicant is a stateless person and entered Bulgaria based on a temporary passport issued by the Consulate of Bulgaria in K [detail missing from the original judgment]. The applicant applied to the Minister of Interior for recognition as a stateless person and issuance of an identity document with statelessness status as well as a certificate for travelling abroad. The application was referred to the Ministry of Interior's Migration Directorate (Migration Directorate) which issued an opinion stating that there is no legal basis to grant the application and refused to issue the requested documents. The applicant then filed a complaint with the Administrative Court – Sofia City. The dispute in the present case is whether Bulgarian legislation has designated a national level authority which is responsible for granting statelessness status and providing travel documents.
The applicant considers the Migration Directorate’s argument to be illegal as it violates the provisions of Article 1 par. (1) and Article 28 of the 1954 Convention, and Article 59 par. (1) and (8) of the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act. According to Article 5 par. (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, the 1954 Convention is applicable and entered into force following its ratification on 20 June 2012. It is the State's responsibility to determine the authorities, methods, and conditions under which the applicant's subjective rights would be realised. The applicant stated that the authority competent to provide the required documents, namely the Ministry of Interior, is determined by Article 59 par. (8) of the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act.
The Deputy Director of the Migration Directorate refused to issue the requisite documentation on the basis that there is no legal provision in force that defines or obliges it to grant statelessness status. It therefore argued that there is no legal basis to grant the application.
Notably, the Migration Directorate did not appear to dispute that the applicant is a stateless person who entered the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria with a temporary passport issued by the Consular Service of the Republic of Bulgaria in K [detail missing from the original judgment]. However, the Migration Directorate relied on Bulgaria’s reservation under Article 28 of the 1954 Convention which states that the “Stateless Person’s Travel Certificate” shall not be issued to persons who have acquired statelessness status in another country unless (i) they are permanent or long-term residents of the Republic of Bulgaria and, (ii) for compelling reasons duly documented, are unable to renew their travel document from the country which originally issued it.” As the applicant had not renewed his travel document, he was instructed to apply for the right to reside in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria under the provisions of the Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act.
The Court finds the applicant's claim admissible and fundamentally considers it on its merits.
According to Article 5 par. (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, international treaties that have been ratified and have entered into force are part of Bulgarian national law and take precedence over those provisions of domestic law that conflict with them.
“Според Конституцията на Република Б. – чл.5, ал.4 – международните договори, ратифицирани по конституционен ред, обнародвани и влезли в сила за Република Б., са част от вътрешното право на страната. Те имат предимство пред тези норми на вътрешното законодателство, които им противоречат.”
The legal basis for the issuance of documents to stateless people is contained in Article 28 of the 1954 Convention and Article 59 par. (1) and (8) of the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act, which explicitly states that the competent authority to issue a certificate for travelling abroad to a stateless person is the Ministry of Interior. The Court therefore finds no grounds for the administrative authority's view that there is no explicit legal provision obliging the Migration Directorate to grant stateless status and to issue the necessary documents. It is a well-known fact that the Migration Directorate of the Ministry of Interior carries out matters related to the regulation of migration processes and administrative control over the residence of foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria. Therefore, the Migration Directorate should issue the documents requested by the applicant.
“Правното основание за издаване на документи на лицата без гражданство е уредено в чл.28 от Конвенция за статута на лицата без гражданство и в чл.59, ал.1, т.8 от Закона за българските лични документи, в която точка изрично е вписано, че органът, който е компетентен да издаде удостоверение за пътуване зад граница на лице без гражданство е МВР. Поради това съдът намира за неоснователно становището на административния орган, че не съществува изрична правна норма, която да задължава Дирекция “Миграция” към настоящия момент да предоставя статут на лице без гражданство и да издава необходимите за това документи. Ноторно известен факт е, че с чужденците в Република Б. се занимава именно Дирекция “Миграция” при МВР. […] Дирекция “Миграция” следва да издаде поисканите от С. документи.”
Contrary to the Migration Directorate’s arguments, the absence of an authority regulated by a specific legal provision at the national level cannot constitute a legitimate ground for denying those rights. Moreover, Article 25 of the Convention states that administrative assistance should be presented to a stateless person by the contracting State.
“В случая, не може липсата на орган, регламентиран с нарочна правна норма, както се твърди от ответника да съставлява законосъобразно основание за отказ на тези права. Още повече, че в чл.25 от Конвенцията изрично е указано, че административна помощ следва да се представя на лице без гражданство от договарящите държави, а не да му се пречи или да се дискриминира лицето.”
Further, the relevant administrative body has the obligation to gather evidence as to whether there are insurmountable reasons why the applicant cannot renew the travel document. In the present case, the Migration Directorate did not fulfil its obligation, which violates Article 25 of the 1954 Convention.
“След като Б. е приела с резерви чл.28 от Конвенцията, то е следвало административния орган да събере доказателства има ли и какви са непреодолимите причини, поради които жалбоподателят не може да поднови документа си за пътуване. Това видно не е сторено от административния орган, което е нарушение на административнопроизводствените правила и е в противоречие с чл.25, т.1 от Конвенцията.”
The Court held that the Migration Directorate’s refusal to issue the requested documents is in violation of the Stateless Convention, which grants stateless people access to fundamental human and civil rights. The Court ordered that the case be sent back to the administrative authority for a new ruling in compliance with the guidelines outlined in the judgment, and the issued administrative act should be declared to be illegal.