Dublin

Author

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee Visit Website

General

Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December of 2024

 Source: SAR.

Source: SAR.

Source: SAR.

The LAR does not establish criteria to determine the state responsible, but simply refers to the criteria listed in the Dublin Regulation.

Application of the Dublin criteria

Family unity criteria are applied fully, though in practice the prevailing type of cases relate to joining family members outside Bulgaria, not the opposite. If the family link cannot be established or substantiated through relevant documents, some EU Member States (Netherlands) require DNA tests in cases of unaccompanied children to prove their origin. In such cases the parent or parents are usually advised to travel to Bulgaria and provide blood samples to be matched, tested, and compared with the unaccompanied child or children’s DNA. Considering that the majority of asylum seekers arrive in Bulgaria via Türkiye and Greece, cases when the responsibility of another EU Member State can be established under any other of the Dublin criteria, except the family provisions, are scarce.

The most common criteria that continue to be applied in incoming cases are previously issued documents and first Member State of entry, as well as “take back” cases. Bulgaria accepts responsibility for the examination of asylum applications based on the humanitarian clause, and mostly vis-à-vis document and entry reasons. In 2024, Bulgaria received 10,691 incoming requests and made 118 outgoing requests, compared to 17,899 incoming and 136 outgoing requests in 2023; 20,014 incoming and 175 outgoing requests in 2022; 7,811 incoming and 190 outgoing requests in 2021; 1,904 incoming requests and 116 outgoing requests in 2020; and 3,088 incoming and 80 outgoing requests in 2019.

The dependent persons and discretionary clauses

In the past, the sovereignty clause under Article 17(1) of the Regulation was used in few cases, mainly for family or health condition reasons. The sovereignty clause has never been applied for reasons different than humanitarian ones. Since 2017 and including in 2021, Bulgaria did not apply the sovereignty clause. In 2022, Bulgaria applied the humanitarian clause of Article 17(2) in 1 case, but none in 2023 and 2024.

Procedure

The LAR establishes the Dublin procedure as a non-mandatory stage, which is applied only following a decision from the caseworker assigned to the specific case, only if there are indications regarding the possibility to establish that another Member State is responsible to examine the asylum application in question.[2] In June 2022 the government adopted amendments[3] to the ordinance[4] regulating the coordination between the asylum and police (border and immigration) administrations while implementing Dublin III Regulation. The amendments updated and clarified the division of responsibilities among these authorities, but did not bring any noticeable change as they only formalised the already existing practical arrangements. The national plan for the EU Migration and Asylum Pact’s Implementation[5] adopted on 19 December 2024 envisaged a revision of the ordinance’s provisions to make them corresponding to the Pact’s rules and procedures with a deadline for these amendments set for December 2025.

Eurodac has been used as an instrument for checking the status records of all irregular migrants. Fingerprints taken by the Border or Immigration Police are uploaded automatically in the Schengen Information System (SIS) and can be used to implement the Dublin Regulation. Nonetheless, all asylum seekers are systematically fingerprinted again by the Dublin Unit of the SAR for technical reasons. The national plan for the EU Migration and Asylum Pact’s Implementation[6] envisaged revision and amendments of series of national rules and procedures, which safeguard the functioning of Eurodac at national level.

In 2020, the law was amended to optimise the decision-making in Dublin procedures by obliging the asylum agency to issue formal decisions only if another Member State has taken charge of or taken back the responsibility to examine the case. If this is not the case, asylum applications are automatically referred for eligibility determination without any written referral decision required, which has been the rule before the amendment. However, many problems are still created by the fact that the decision-making process remains centralised as far as the Dublin decisions are concerned, as such decisions can be issued only by the SAR’s Dublin Unit, which is located in the headquarters of the SAR in Sofia.[7] It used to create problems with meeting the 3-month deadline under the Dublin Regulation for issuing a request to another Member State, due to the congested communications between the Dublin Unit and the local reception centre outside Sofia. Presently, problems in this respect still occur due to the fact that the paperwork has to be prepared by the respective case-workers, who are already overburdened with their status determination caseload, which can cause delays in the preparation of the relevant documentation and its referral to the Dublin Unit in the headquarters in order to make a proper Dublin request.

Individualised guarantees

In practice, Bulgaria does not seek individualised guarantees to ensuring that asylum seekers will have adequate reception conditions upon transfer. The overwhelming part of outgoing transfers relating to vulnerable groups were carried out with respect to unaccompanied children since 2016 and up until the end of 2024.[8] Since all transfers were based on family reunification and consent from the children and family members, the Dublin Unit did not request guarantees from receiving countries.

It is also a general understanding among national stakeholders that the reception conditions in the countries of transfer, e.g. such as Germany, Norway, The Netherlands and Sweden in 2024, are better in most aspects than those in Bulgaria.

Transfers

In cases where another Member State accepts the responsibility to examine the application of an asylum seeker who is in Bulgaria, the outgoing transfer was usually implemented within 3 months on average, while the take back requests were usually implemented within one and a half months.[9]

Asylum seekers are usually not detained upon notification of the transfer. However, in certain cases, transferred asylum seekers can be detained for up to 7 days before the transfer as a precautionary measure to ensure their timely boarding of the plane. In all cases the transfer is carried out without an escort. It should be noted that in the past asylum seekers sometimes agreed to be detained for a couple of days before the flight to the responsible Member State as this was the only way for them to avoid any procedural problems that can delay their exit. No cases of detention based on this ground were reported in 2024.[10]

Asylum seekers due to be transferred under the Dublin Regulation to another Member State are given a written decision stating the grounds for applying the Dublin III and the right to appeal the transfer to the other Member State before the court. However, asylum seekers are not informed of the fact that requests have been made for “take back” or “take charge” requests to the Member State deemed responsible, nor of any progress made with regard to such requests, unless the applicants actively require information on the progress, when the information is provided by SAR in due course.

In 2024, 45 outgoing transfers were carried out compared to 118 requests, indicating a 38% outgoing transfer rate. In the same time period, out of 10,691 incoming requests, just 589 transfers were carried out in practice, thus marking 6% incoming transfer rate. The majority of outgoing Dublin transfers were of unaccompanied children or other family members.

Personal interview

The law does not require to conduct a personal interview in the Dublin procedure. Instead, it gives the interviewer an opportunity to decide whether an interview is necessary in light of all other relevant circumstances and evidence.[11] If an interview is conducted, it is mostly follows the same rules and practices as eligibility interviews in the Regular Procedure, except relating to the type of questions asked in order to verify and apply Dublin criteria. Similar to the regular procedure, an audio or audio-video recording is now mandatory and applied in the majority of cases.[12]

Appeal

Contrary to appeal against other decisions, appeals against decisions in the Dublin procedure are heard only before the Administrative Court of Sofia and only at one instance. Dublin appeals do not have automatic suspensive effect, but it can be awarded by the court upon an explicit request from the asylum seeker.

The time limit for lodging the appeal is 7 calendar days, which is equal to the time limit for appeal in the Accelerated Procedure: Appeal. Appeal procedures are held in an open hearing, and legal aid can also be awarded.

In practice, the court accepts all kinds of evidence in support of the appeal, including on the level of reception conditions and procedural guarantees to substantiate its decision. The court’s practice however is quite poor, as very few Dublin decisions on transfers to other Member States are challenged and even fewer overturned. For this reason, no clear conclusions can be made as to whether the Administrative Court of Sofia takes into account the reception conditions, procedural guarantees and recognition rates in the responsible Member State when reviewing the Dublin decision.

Legal assistance

The Law on Legal Aid provides for state-funded representation at first instance and appeal. As a result, legal aid financed by the state budget should have become available to asylum seekers during the Dublin procedure since 2013, in addition to the already available legal aid during an appeal procedure before the court. However, in practice in 2024, legal aid to initiate and undergo a Dublin procedure was only provided to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in order to assist their reunion with parents, relatives or family members in other European countries. This special legal aid was provided under the adopted 2020 amendment to the law, when the obligation to represent unaccompanied children was shifted from the municipalities to the National Legal Aid Bureau (see section Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance).[13] The statutory legal aid lawyers who represented unaccompanied children were assisted with training, interpretation and support to make sure that they are able to provide adequate and child-friendly information, and to manage their Dublin cases in accordance with the ad-hoc arrangements established jointly by NGO BHC and SAR’s Dublin Unit since August 2019. These ad-hoc arrangements were funded by UNICEF, and ended on 31 December 2023. In 2024, BHC lawyers and paralegals in all SAR reception centres, whose activity was funded by UNHCR, were assisted the interaction and communication of unaccompanied children in Dublin procedures with their appointed legal aid representatives as neither the asylum agency, nor the NLAB were able to provide for such communication or interpretation. The presence of BHC lawyers or paralegals in SAR reception centres however ended on 31 December 2024 as the UNHCR funding for these activities was not extended.

Suspension of transfers

Bulgaria had suspended all Dublin transfers to Greece in 2011, based on the European Commission Fourth Recommendation,[14] thereby assuming responsibility for examining the asylum applications of the asylum seekers concerned.

In 2023, Bulgaria resumed take back request to Greece with 2 requests sent, however, no transfers were implemented. In 2024, Bulgaria made 1 take charge request and transfer to Greece, and 2 take back request with no transfers.

Suspensions of transfers are not automatic, as there might be cases of “take charge” requests where applicants have family members in other EU Member States or other circumstances that engage the responsibility of another state. Due to the level of material reception conditions in Bulgaria, there have just several appeals against Dublin transfer decisions to other EU Member States.

The situation of Dublin returnees

In 2024, Bulgaria received 10,691 incoming requests under the Dublin Regulation and 589 incoming transfers.[15] In 2024, the number of Dublin returns actually implemented to Bulgaria decreased by 0.1% while during the previous year these increased, respectively by 192% compared to 2022, 158% compared to 2021 and 1,342% compared to 2020 (see table below). Overall, the percentage of actual transfers remains moderate compared to the number of incoming requests.

Source: Eurostat, migr_dubro and migr_dubto; SAR.

Asylum seekers who are returned from other Member States in principle do not face any obstacles in accessing the territory of Bulgaria upon return. Prior to the arrival of Dublin returnees, the SAR informs the Border Police of the expected arrival and indicates whether the returnee should be transferred to a reception centre or to immigration pre-removal detention facility. This decision depends on the phase of the Bulgarian asylum procedure of the Dublin returnee as outlined below:

• If the returnee has a pending asylum application in Bulgaria, or the procedure was terminated because of the returnee’s absconding, he or she is transferred to a SAR reception centre. In the past, the SAR usually suspended asylum procedures when asylum seekers had left Bulgaria before their procedures were completed. After the amendments of the law in 2020, the SAR obtained the right to directly terminate (discontinue) the asylum procedure in such cases without passing through a stage of suspension. In both cases, no decision on the merits is issued, therefore the procedure can be reopened.[16]
• If, however, the returnee’s asylum application was rejected with a final decision on the merits before, or after, leaving Bulgaria, and the decision was served in absentia and therefore became final,[17] the returnee is transferred to one of the immigration pre-removal facilities, usually to the Busmantsi detention centre in Sofia, but also to the Lyubimets detention centre near the Turkish border. Such refusal and serving of the refusal’s decision in absentia is legally possible,[18] if an interview has been conducted[19] with the returnee prior their absconding from Bulgaria and if based on the information gathered from the interview the case worker could form an opinion about the credibility of the asylum claim. In the case of families, when returned, parents whose application was finally rejected are usually detained together with their children. In exceptional cases children may be placed in child care social institutions while their parents are detained in immigration facilities, however it is applied only when an expulsion order on account of threat to national security is issued to any of the parents.

Since 2020, the LAR explicitly provides for the mandatory reopening[20] of an asylum procedure with respect to an applicant who is returned to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation, provided that s/he has not been issued a decision on merits while in absentia.[21] The SAR’s practice following this particular amendment has been so far in line with the law, and returnees whose asylum procedures had been only terminated (discontinued) after their absconding do not face obstacles in principle to have their determination procedures reopened. However, it does not secure their access to state provided food and accommodation in reception centres as these are guaranteed only to vulnerable applicants.[22]

For any other Dublin returnees, who are not considered vulnerable, food and accommodation are contingent to the limited national reception capacity and availability. If there is no available place for accommodation in reception centres of the asylum agency SAR, Dublin returnees will have to secure accommodation and nutrition at their own expenses. In 2024, SAR continued to report[23] a lack of capacity to accommodate in its reception centres the Dublin returnees who were not identified as vulnerable,  despite the decreasing number of new arrivals (-45% in 2024, +10% in 2023, +55% in 2022; +205% in 2021),[24] on account of the continuously shrinking reception capacity due to multiannual lack of funding for repairs and refurbishment, which is why in practice only 3,225 out of 5,160 official accommodation places were assessed as fit for living (3,592 in 2023; 3,932 in 2022).[25] (see Overview of the main changes since the previous report update, Reception capacity).

Although the access to the national health care system is automatically reinstated after the Dublin return,[26] the national health care package is generally scarce and does not provide for any tailored medical or psychological treatment or support, nor for the treatment of many chronic diseases or surgical interventions, prosthetics, implants or other necessary medications or supplies.[27] Therefore the patients need to pay for them at their own expense.

Access to the labour market is guaranteed to asylum seekers after a period of three months from their personal registration and for the duration of the procedure.[28] However, the national economic situation remains challenging. Any improvements which finally started to occur after the end of COVID-19 pandemic were reverted in the beginning of 2022 by the war in Ukraine and the following economic recess across Europe. It further complicated asylum seekers and refugees’ employment and self-sufficiency. In 2024, the State Refugee Agency issued 1,074 work permits to asylum seekers who were looking to support themselves while their asylum claims were being processed.[29] Out of them, only 3 asylum seekers and 10 persons granted international protection were employed through employment programs, while the rest found work independently and on their own initiative.[30]

If, however, the Dublin returnee is among those, whose asylum procedures ended prior their return to Bulgaria with a refusal in absentia on the merits (substance), they are treated as irregular migrants with no access to the labour market, health care system or any other services that require legal residence and an identity document. In the majority of cases, these returnees are arrested upon return and detained in Busmantsi or Lyubimets pre-removal immigration centres to further enable their removal. In the few cases when the returnees are not detained after their arrival, usually – due to administrative or institutional entanglements, they may face homelessness and destitution because of their irregular status in Bulgaria and the lack of valid residence and/or identity documents. This means that even, if the returnees do have financial means, their access to the labour market and most of the basic public services (health care, social support, bank services, etc.) is nearly impossible.

In principle, no “take back” requests have been made so far under the Dublin Regulation regarding individuals with special needs. In the few cases in the past where the return of families with minor children, the requesting Member states usually asked the assurances of SAR for accommodation, adequate reception conditions as well as the nature of the services that will be provided. Usually, these individual guarantees are not made via DubliNet, but by using the available diplomatic channels, in most cases by the respective Member State’s embassy in Bulgaria.

Several courts in other European countries ruled on cases of transfer decisions towards Bulgaria.

The Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled several times in 2024 that Dublin returnees could be sent back to Bulgaria.[31] The court considered that the applicants would not face obstacles related to poor treatment by the authorities and difficulties in accessing reception conditions as they were returning as Dublin transfers rather than arriving by crossing the border irregularly, and that, if they were temporarily denied access to reception, it was up the applicants to appeal to the Bulgarian authorities and claim their rights before the courts if necessary, also with assistance from NGOs, but without any reasoning what could happen if their services are no longer available due to lack of funding, for example. The court also considered the medical infrastructure in Bulgaria to be sufficient.

In a few occasions, Courts in Germany evaluated there are no systemic deficiencies in the Bulgarian asylum procedure, but only for cases in which the applicants that were not identified as having particular vulnerabilities.[32] The asylum procedure is considered to be based on the rule of law, reception conditions are deemed reasonable for young, single, physically healthy men, and given the shortages in the labour force in several areas of unskilled work, it ‘can be assumed a young, single, healthy man can find a job opportunity on the primary labour market in Bulgaria if he makes a reasonable effort’.[33] The Higher Administrative Court of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern instead cancelled a Dublin transfer in the case of an with significant mental health issues, taking into account risks of detention upon return, limited reception conditions, the insufficiencies of the state health care system and high costs associated especially for medication, the lack of special precautions for torture victims and people with mental health problems, and difficulties in practice for Dublin returnees to access the healthcare system. The court thus ruled that severely mentally ill Dublin returnees faced systemic challenges upon return in Bulgaria, given their dependency on public support.[34]

The Refugee Appeals Board in Denmark found that the recognised shortcomings in the Bulgarian asylum system did not meet the threshold of systemic deficiencies preventing transfers, highlighting that the Bulgarian authorities were taking initiatives to address special needs of vulnerable applicants, the fact that the deficiencies related to healthcare were not specific to asylum seekers but also faced by Bulgarian nationals. It did, however, require that Denmark seek individual guarantees for reception and accommodation due to the vulnerability of the applicant.[35]

Caselaw varied in the Netherlands. In several occasions in 2024, and notably in a landmark judgment of 27 June 2024, the Dutch Council of State ruled that the conditions in Bulgaria did not meet the threshold of systemic deficiencies. Notably, the court highlighted that there is an appeal available against potential exclusion of  non-vulnerable Dublin claimants from care and facilities after their transfer.[36] This reasoning was followed by regional courts throughout the year.[37] However, it was disputed by the Court of Rotterdam in December 2024, which questioned the effectivity of the available legal remedy to challenge exclusion from reception conditions, notably highlighting the fact that asylum seekers are, in practice, only informed  orally of their exclusion from reception, making it difficult to appeal.[38] Moreover, in two separate judgments, the courts of Utrecht and Haarlem considered that there were systemic errors in the Bulgarian asylum procedure for Turkish asylum seekers specifically, relying on the extremely low recognition rates, violations of national law by not releasing Turkish asylum applicants from detention after lodging their application, public statements, unofficial use of the safe country of origin concept re. Türkiye despite the lack of official list, reports regarding the inadequacies of the accelerated and admissibility procedures.[39]

Additional information on the access of Dublin returnees to reception and healthcare can be found under the sections on Access and forms of reception conditions and Health care.

[1] SAR, reg. No. №РД05-31 from 15 January 2024.

[2] Article 67a(2) LAR.

[3] State Gazette No.46 from 21 June 2022.

[4] COM No.332/2007: Наредба за отговорността и координацията на държавните органи, осъществяващи действия по административно сътрудничество при прилагането на регламент Дъблин и регламент Евродак.

[5] COM №883 from 19 December 2024, available in Bulgarian here.

[6] Ibid.

[7] SAR, Annual report on procedures for international protection in 2023, available in Bulgarian at: https://bit.ly/3IgTCjm.

[8] SAR, reg. №АД-07-7 from 14 January 2025: 35 out of 54 outgoing requests in total.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Article 67b(2) LAR.

[12] Article 63a(3) LAR.

[13] Article 25 LAR.

[14] Commission Recommendation on the resumption of transfers to Greece under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013, C(2016) 8525, 8 December 2016.

[15] SAR, reg. №АД-07-7 from 14 January 2025.

[16] Article 77(3) LAR.

[17] Articles 18(1)(d) and (2) Dublin III Regulation.

[18] Article 76(4) LAR.

[19] Article 63a(1), (5) and (7) LAR.

[20] Article 77(3) LAR.

[21] Article 18(2) Dublin III Regulation.

[22] Article 29(7) LAR.

[23] SAR, reg. №АД-07-7 from 14 January 2025.

[24] MOI statistics, December 2023, available in Bulgarian at: https://bit.ly/48C57wC.

[25] See, AIDA Updates on 2023 and 2022.

[26] Article 29(8) LAR.

[27] National Health Insurance Office, statutory health care package, available in Bulgarian at: https://bit.ly/3nDcrU1.

[28] Article 29 (3) LAR.

[29] SAR, reg. №АД-07-7 from 14 January 2025.

[30] Employment Agency, reg. No. РД-08-1915 from 27 December 2024.

[31] Swiss Federal Administrative Court, D-6675/2024, 30 October 2024, available here; D-3810/2024, 21 June 2024, available here; F-3048/2024, 25 June 2024, available here; E-328/2024, 25 January 2024, available here.

[32] Higher Administrative Court of Nordrhein-Westfalen, 11 A 1460/23. A, 10 September 2024, available here.

[33] Administrative Court of Darmstadt, 7 L 97/24. DA.A, 25 January 2024, available here.

[34] Higher Administrative Court of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 4 LB 653/22 OVG, 2 February 2024, available here.

[35] Danish Refugee Appeals Board, Dub-Bulg/2024/1/sme, April 2024.

[36] Council of State, 202403145/1/V3, 27 June 2024, available here; 202403896/1/V3 and 202403896/2/V3, 11 July 2024, available here; 202405876/1/V3 and 202405876/2/V3, 30 September 2024, available here; 202406476/1/V3 en 202406476/2/V3, 29 October 2024, available here.

[37] See for example Court of Utrecht, NL24.40544, 11 November 2024, available here; Court of Middelburg, NL24.39235, 14 November 2024, available here.

[38] Court of Rotterdam, NL24.47452, 23 December 2024, available here.

[39] Court of Utrecht, NL24.24213, 15 July 2024, available here; Court of Haarlem, NL24.36498, 12 November 2024, available here.