The applicant sought the annulment of an Order mandating his forcible deportation from the Republic of Bulgaria to a third country given the applicant’s lack of Bulgarian nationality (he was stateless) and lack of a valid residence permit. The court annulled the Order on several grounds: Firstly, the issuing authority failed to consider factors in the applicant’s favour regarding his ties to Bulgaria that need to be taken into account under Bulgarian law. In this regard, the court listed, among other factors, that the applicant has established his life in Bulgaria and had broken all ties to his country of birth, is married to a Bulgarian and has a minor Bulgarian child. The court stressed that for these reasons, the Order also failed to properly consider the rights of the applicant’s wife and minor child as required under Art. 8 ECHR. Secondly, the Order did not specify a deadline for voluntary compliance with the obligation to leave the country as required by law. Thirdly, the issuing authority failed to specify the country to which the applicant should be deported.
- Articles 6, 144, 145, 149(1) and 224 of the Code of Administrative Procedure;
- Article 236(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure;
- Article 39a(1) No. 2; Article 39b(1) and (4); Article 41 No. 4, Article 44(1), (2), (5) No. 1; Article 46(1) of the Aliens in the Republic of Bulgaria Act (Aliens Act);
- Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR);
- Article 2(3) of Protocol 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR);
- Article 9 (1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC);
- Articles 5 and 7 from Directive 2008/115/EC;
- Point 1.5 Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/2338 of 16 November 2017 establishing a common ‘Return Handbook’ to be used by Member States’ competent authorities when carrying out return-related tasks.
The applicant was born in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. He had moved to and has been living in Bulgaria since 1995 without possessing Yugoslav, Bosnian, or Bulgarian nationality; he no longer had any ties with his country of birth. In that year, the applicant applied for international protection and was granted humanitarian status for a period of three months by the Bulgarian State Agency for Refugees. In 2007, the applicant submitted a new application for refugee or humanitarian status. The reasons for the delay, considering that the applicant’s residency permit had expired some time ago, remain unclear. The new application was ultimately denied. That same year, the applicant entered into a civil marriage with a Bulgarian national, and the couple has one child together. In the following years, the applicant again submitted several applications for international protection, which were all rejected by final decisions of the competent administrative authority.
As a consequence of these rejections for international protection and of the fact that the applicant is stateless, he is not in possession of any valid identification documents. His only identity document is an expired passport, issued in 1996 by the Embassy of Yugoslavia, which was valid until 23 April 2001. In 2016, the applicant applied for a passport from the Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but his application was denied because he was not registered as a national in the country’s civil registration system.
By Proposal No. 5364p-16416, the Head of the Department for Combating Illegal Migration recommended that the applicant be returned to his country of origin, a transit country, or a third country, in accordance with Article 41(4) of the Aliens Act. Based on this proposal, the contested Order No. 5364z-1608 was issued on 29 August 2019 by the Director of the Migration Directorate of the Ministry of Interior (the issuing authority). This Order, pursuant to Article 44(1) and Article 41(4) of the Aliens Act, required the applicant to “return to the country of origin, transit country, or third country” (Article 39a(1) No. 2 of the Aliens Act).
The applicant requested the court to annul the contested Order and to order the administration to pay the legal costs.
The applicant argued that the Order was unlawful because, in his view, it was contrary to substantive law. He specifically argued that the Order did not specify a time limit for voluntary compliance with the obligation to leave the country as required by Article 39b(1) of the Aliens Act although the prerequisites for omitting a time limit under Article 39b(4) of the same act were not met. The applicant further alleged that the Order violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The administration defended its Order and disputed the merits of the complaint and therefore requested that the application be dismissed.
The Head of the Department for Combating Illegal Migration, who proposed the Order, argued that the measure should be enacted in accordance with Article 41 No. 4 of the Aliens Act. He asserted that there was no application for international protection pending and there was a final decision denying the applicant refugee or humanitarian status.
The court concluded that the complaint against the Order was both admissible and well-founded, and it therefore annulled the contested Order.
The court determined that the contested Order was issued by a competent authority within the scope of the powers conferred upon it under Article 44(1) of the Aliens Act, and also in the required form. However, the court decided that the Order violated essential procedural rules and was also materially incorrect. (“Оспорената заповед е издадена от компетентен орган в рамките на предоставените му съгласно чл.44, ал.1 ЗЧРБ правомощия, в изискуемите форма и съдържание, но в нарушение на закона и при допуснати съществени процесуални нарушения.”)
Firstly, Article 39(a)(1) No. 1-5 of the Aliens Act outline the permissible enforcement measures against aliens. The Director of the Migration Directorate has imposed a measure based on the authorisation in No. 2 of this provision (“return to the country of origin, country of transit, or a third country”).
Pursuant to Article 41 Nо. 4 of the Aliens Act, deportation shall be imposed, for instance, if the proceedings under the Asylum and Refugees Act have been concluded by a final decision against the applicant. However, the issuing authority erroneously concluded that the mere presence of a ground under Article 41 Nо. 4 of the Aliens Act was sufficient for the lawfulness of the issued Order. However, the existence of such a ground alone does not ensure the legality of the Order. (“Наличието на основание по чл. 41,т.4 от ЗЧРБ обаче не е достатъчно за законосъобразност на издадената заповед.”)
Pursuant to Article 44(2) of the Aliens Act, when imposing compulsory administrative measures against illegal aliens, the decision whether to impose a deportation order must take into account the duration of the alien’s residence in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, whether vulnerable persons (such as minor children) are affected by the order, pending proceedings under the Asylum and Refugee Act or proceedings for renewal of a residence permit or other permit conferring the right of residence, his/her family situation, as well as the existence of family, cultural and social ties with the person’s country of origin. The provision of Article 44(2) of the Aliens Act is a general rule applicable to all administrative deportation measures. Therefore, the issuing authority should have taken into account the circumstances laid down in Article 44(2) of the Aliens Act when issuing the contested Order. (“Наличието на основание по чл. 41,т.4 от ЗЧРБ обаче не е достатъчно за законосъобразност на издадената заповед. На първо място административният орган е длъжен да отчете всички релевантни за производството факти. Съгласно чл. 44, ал. 2 ЗЧРБ при налагане на принудителните административни мерки се отчитат продължителността на пребиваване на чужденеца на територията на Република България, категориите уязвими лица, наличието на производства по Закона за убежището и бежанците или производства за подновяване на разрешение за пребиваване или друго разрешение, предоставящо право на пребиваване, семейното му положение, както и съществуването на семейни, културни и социални връзки с държавата по произход на лицето. Разпоредбата на чл. 44, ал. 2 ЗЧРБ се явява обща спрямо тази на чл. 41, т. 4 от същия закон, както и към всяка една принудителна административна мярка по чл. 39а, ал. 1 ЗЧРБ. Следователно административният орган е следвало да съобрази предпоставките, предвидени в чл. 44, ал. 2 ЗЧРБ, при издаване на процесната заповед.”)
When applying Article 44(2) of the Aliens Act to the applicant’s situation, the court underlined the following: The applicant is married to a Bulgarian citizen, and they have a minor child together. Additionally, the applicant has resided in Bulgaria for 25 years. These circumstances were listed in the proposal for the contested Order without proper consideration and without assessing whether deportation would be a proportionate measure, as required by Article 2(3) of Protocol 4 to the ECHR.
Pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC, on which Article 44(2) of the Aliens Act is based, Member States must consider the best interests of the child and family life when implementing this Directive. According to the court, the contested Order disproportionately affected the applicant’s right to family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR for several reasons: The coercive measure created undue difficulties in maintaining the relationship between the applicant and his minor son, as well as his relationship with his wife. Consequently, the court found that the principle of proportionality, as laid down in Article 6 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, was infringed. (“Въпреки наличните по преписката доказателства административният орган не е анализирал всички относими доказателствата, като по този начин не е дал обоснована правна оценка на релевантните факти. При издаване на заповедта органът е следвало да подложи на анализ всички относимите към чл.44, ал.2 ЗЧРБ факти. С издаването на оспорената заповед несъразмерно се засяга правото на личен и семеен живот на жалбоподателя.”)
The contested Order was therefore unlawful for non-compliance with Article 44(2) of the Aliens Act. (“Необсъждането на всички относими за законосъобразното налагане на ПАМ факти води до извод за незаконосъобразност на оспорения акт като постановен в нарушение на административнопроизводствените правила и в нарушение на материалния закон – чл. 44, ал. 2 ЗЧРБ, тъй като органът не е съобразил относимата разпоредба при издаването на акта.”)
Secondly, the contested Order failed to comply with Article 39(b) of the Aliens Act. This provision requires an order to stipulate a period of 7 to 30 days within which the affected person can voluntarily comply with the obligation to return (i.e., leave the country without deportation). This provision aligns with Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC. Setting such a time limit is unnecessary only if the prerequisites under Article 39b(4) of the Aliens Act are met, specifically in cases where the person poses a threat to national security or public order, which was not the case for the applicant. („На второ място съгласно чл.39б, ал.1 ЗЧРБ в заповедта за налагане на принудителна административна мярка „връщане до страна на произход, страна на транзитно преминаване или трета страна“ се определя срок от 7 до 30 дни, в който чужденецът трябва да изпълни доброволно задължението за връщане. Тази разпоредба съответства на изискванията на чл.7, т.1 от Директива 2008/115/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 16.12.2008г. относно общите стандарти и процедури, приложими в държавите-членки за връщане на незаконно пребиваващи граждани на трети страни. Такъв срок не се дава единствено при наличието на предпоставките по чл.39б, ал.4 ЗЧРБ - когато лицето представлява заплаха за националната сигурност или обществения ред.“)
Thirdly, Article 39a(1) No. 2 of the Aliens Act requires that the deportation order specifies the country to which the affected person must return (to the country of origin, to the country of transit or to a third country). Point 1.5 of Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/2338 establishing a common Return Manual for the Member States establishes that, given the obligation of Member States to always respect the general principle of non-refoulement, transportation outside the Member State must not be to an unspecified destination, but only to a specific country of return. The person to be deported must be informed of the state to which he or she will be deported in advance so that he or she can indicate any reasons against the deportation to this state in compliance with the principle of non-refoulement and in order to exercise their right of appeal. In the present case, since no time-limit was given for the voluntary execution of the deportation Order, it was immediately enforceable, and therefore the Order had to specify the state to which the applicant was ordered to be deported. But it failed to do so and therefore was unlawful also for that reason. („На трето място принудителната административна мярка по чл.39а, ал.1, т. 2 ЗЧРБ предвижда три хипотези - връщане до страна на произход ,връщане в страна на транзитно преминаване и връщане в трета страна. В т. 1.5 от Препоръка (ЕС) 2017/2338 на Комисията от 16 ноември 2017 година за създаване на общ Наръчник за връщането, който компетентните органи на държавите членки да използват при изпълнението на задачи, свързани с връщането, е посочено, че предвид задължението на държавите членки винаги да спазват принципа на забрана за връщане, извеждането (физическото транспортиране извън държавата членка) не може да е до неопределена дестинация, а само до конкретно определена държава на връщане. Подлежащото на връщане лице трябва да бъде информирано за дестинацията на операцията по извеждане предварително, така че то да може да посочи евентуалните причини, поради които счита, че извеждането до предложената дестинация би било в нарушение на принципа на забрана за връщане, и да може да упражни правото на обжалване. В случая, след като не е даден срок за доброволно изпълнение на заповедта за връщане, тя подлежи на принудително изпълнение, поради което следва да се посочи конкретно като дестинация страната, в която се връща жалбоподателя - страна по произход, страна на транзитно преминаване или трета страна. В оспорената заповед това изискване не е спазено, като не е посочено за коя от трите хипотези се отнася принудителната мярка, както и липсва конкретна държава, в която да бъде осъществено извеждането.“)
The contested administrative Order was deemed unlawful and consequently annulled, with the administration being ordered to bear the associated legal costs.
None available.
No caselaw was cited.
There are no third-party interventions.