Identification

Author

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee Visit Website

Applicants who are children, unaccompanied children, disabled, elderly, pregnant, single parents taking care of underage children, victims of trafficking, persons with serious health issues, psychological disorders or persons who suffered torture, rape, or other forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence are considered as individuals belonging to a vulnerable group.[1]

Screening of vulnerability

Several initiatives on vulnerability were undertaken in previous years. In 2008, the SAR and UNHCR agreed on standard operating procedures (SOPs) to be followed with respect to treatment of victims of Sexual and Gender-based Violence (SGBV).[2] The SOPs were never applied in practice. A process for the revision of the SOPs has been pending since the end of 2013, which also aims to include new categories or vulnerable groups.[3] The revision of SGBV SOPs ended in December 2021 with their formal adoption by the SAR.[4] However, they were neither communicated to SAR staff working on the field, nor implemented in practice.[5]

EUAA, formerly – EASO, also cooperated with Bulgaria in order to improve the capacity to identify and refer vulnerable applicants and to improve exchange between relevant institutions. EASO’s Special Support Plan to Bulgaria was originally in place from December 2014 until June 2016, but was extended until 31 October 2018.[6] The identification and referral mechanism was set to build on the Quality tool for the Identification of Persons with Special Needs (IPSN).

In 2020, amendments to the law introduced a mandatory vulnerability assessment implemented by the SAR social experts with their vulnerability reports and recommendations referred to the case workers in order these circumstances to be taken into account in the decision-taking process. The SAR internal rules foresee that these two documents have to be added to the personal file to enable case worker to take them into account when examining the application. These activities have to be implemented also in the cases when the vulnerability or the special needs are established at a later stage of the asylum procedure. Additionally, an early identification questionnaire was created for applicants who experienced traumatising experiences in order to determine their special needs and to facilitate the referral to adequate psychological or medical care.[7]

In 2024, both vulnerability assessment and identification, but most of all follow-ups on identified cases, remained substandard, to the point this represented the most significant violation of existing obligation in the context of the asylum procedure.[8] SAR social workers conducted a total of 1,054 vulnerability assessments and identified 55 applicants[9] with vulnerabilities or specific needs. SAR acknowledged[10] to have dealt with 4,136 applicants with vulnerabilities as defined by the law in 2024 (see, the Table Asylum seekers identified as vulnerable in Bulgaria: 2018-2024). These figures obtained through monitoring indicated that just 25% of all asylum applicants with vulnerabilities received proper assessments of their needs. Moreover, SAR affirms[11] that the social experts who carry out the vulnerability assessment do file their assessments and support plans in the case management registry for the case worker to be able to review and collect them into the respective individual file, while copies of these documents remain with the social experts for subsequent work with the vulnerable person, according to the planned activities. However, the monitoring of these processes established[12] that only in 50% of the cases, an initial assessment form and the required subsequent plan were present in the file of asylum seekers who were falling within the vulnerability definition under national law.[13] Thus, in practice the vulnerability assessment and support plans were still missing in 50% of the monitored cases of asylum seekers, who otherwise should have been assessed and supported as persons with specific needs or vulnerabilities. It also means that, due to the missing or misplaced vulnerability assessment documents, the responsible case workers were unable to properly account their specific situation when determining the asylum application. Therefore, in 2024 needs assessment as well as planning and provision of support measures with respect to applicants with identified vulnerabilities were still carried out more sporadically than systematically.

The most serious violation in this respect continued to affect unaccompanied children’s files continue in many cases to lack the mandatory BID reports[14]. Under the law,[15] their best interest assessment and individual social report ought to be implemented by the statutory social workers from child protection services of the Agency for Social Assistance (ASA). The mandatory social reports with needs assessment were present in just 41% of the monitored children’s files in 2024.[16] At the same, whenever submitted, these reports continue to be entirely generic and formal, without any real risk or best interest assessment for the child concerned. In addition, the mandatory plan for necessary measures to adopt in the specific case was not established in any (0%) of the monitored cases. In 9% of the cases a notification by the ASA indicating that a support plan for the child has been prepared was included, but the plan in question could not be found in the file, which indicated that either it had not been communicated, or was not properly enclosed in case file of the child. If properly prepared and communicated, these social reports could play a vital role not only in the asylum procedure, but also after it to outline the measures which need to be taken with respect to the child depending on the outcome of the procedure – rejection or recognition. The failure of the statutory child protection services to implement this basic safeguard vis-à-vis unaccompanied asylum seeking and refugee children have continued for over a decade.[17]

Although moderate, the efforts made for the vulnerability identification resulted in a notable increase in the absolute number of asylum seekers formally recognised to have special needs or vulnerabilities. While this concerned 797 asylum seekers in 2019; 1,259 in 2020, 3,928 asylum seekers in 2021 and 5,482 asylum seekers in 2022, and 6,155 asylum seekers in 2023. In 2024, this number dropped to 4,136 asylum seekers, or 34% of asylum applicants on the backdrop of a 45% decrease in the overall number of new applicants throughout the year.[18] However, it has to be noted that 97% of them were children (2,601 unaccompanied children and 1,420 accompanied children), i.e. cases where the vulnerability identification is straightforward and almost automatic as it derives from the child’s statement about his or her age, or from the identity documents, if available.

The SAR collects statistics on the number of asylum seekers identified as vulnerable at the end of any given month rather than cumulative data on the number of vulnerable persons applying for asylum in a given year. At the end of December 2024, the following vulnerable groups were identified among asylum seekers:

Source: SAR.

NGOs continue to play key role in early identification and assessment of applicants’ vulnerability and their referral and according treatment. Organisations specialise in specific groups and issues, namely: poverty, destitution and social inequality (Red Cross; Council of Refugee Women, Caritas Sofia); health issues and disabilities (Red Cross); mental and psychological problems (Animus, Nadya Centre, replacing ACET which ceased activities at the end of 2016), domestic abuse (Bulgarian Gender Research Foundation, Mission Wings) and unaccompanied children (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee).

Age assessment of unaccompanied children

The caseworker is not obliged to request an age assessment unless there are doubts as to whether the person is a child.[19] In practice, age assessment is used only to disprove asylum seekers declaring being underage.

The law does not state the method of the age assessment which should be applied. As a rule, the wrist X-rays method is applied systematically in all cases, based on the assumption that this method is more accurate than a psycho-social inquiry. The Supreme Administrative Court, however, considers this test as non-binding and applies the benefit of the doubt principle,[20] which is also explicitly laid down in the LAR.[21]

The age assessment cannot be contested by means of a separate appeal to the one lodged against a potential negative decision. Therefore, if a positive decision is issued, but the age is wrongly indicated to be 18 years or above, the decision cannot be appealed on that account as a part of the status determination process and the child granted the protection will be treated as an adult. The sole legally available option in such case is to initiate lengthy and usually costly civil proceedings to establish the actual age, but unless documentary or other irrefutable evidence is provided these proceedings generally have negative results.

In December 2023 a bilateral Age Assessment Instruction,[22] was formally adopted by SAR and State Agency for Child Protection (SACP) and published in December 2023. The instruction, entered into force on 1 March 2024, introduced a structured multi-disciplinary age assessment rules and procedures and is the first ever formally adopted one in the European context. The Age Assessment Instruction was widely endorsed by all national stakeholders, including UNHCR and UNICEF.[23]

However, in 2024, the SAR continued to use predominantly X-ray medical age assessment, which was conducted in 34 cases, in 1 of them (3%) concluding that the applicant was an adult. Under the Age Assessment Instruction,[24] the medical assessment ought to be conducted only if and when the non-medical ones failed to reach a conclusion about the age of the applicant. Just 3 non-medical assessments were conducted by the SACP’s age assessment teams in 2024, all of them concluding applicants to be underage. Thus, despite the adoption of the instruction, the SAR overwhelmingly continued to conduct the age assessment by means of X-ray expertise of the wrist bone structure and without any evidence of prior consent by the children’s representatives.[25] Reports from medical organisations consider the X-ray as invasive but, more importantly, inaccurate with an approximate margin of error of 2 years.[26]

[1] §1(17) Additional Provisions, LAR.

[2] Standard Operating Procedures on sexual and gender-based violence, Exh. No 630, 27 February 2008.

[3] UNHCR, SGBV Task Force, established on 15 February 2014.

[4] Exh. No.СД-172/и/23.12.2021 approved with resolution by SAR Chairperson.

[5] Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 2022 Annual RSD Monitoring Report, published on 1 March 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3Jkd3t0.

[6] EASO, Special support plan to Bulgaria – Amendment No.3, 27 October 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/2U58pCF; ‘EASO successfully completes its special support in Bulgaria’, 27 November 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/2S9FwUQ.

[7] Early Identification and Needs Assessment form (ФИОН), Individual Support and Referral Plan form (ФИПП) and Social Consultation form (ФСК).

[8] Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 2024 Annual Refugee Status Determination Monitoring Report, 31 January 2025, available at: https://bit.ly/3SX3ST7.

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

[10] Ibid.to

[11] Ibid.

[12] Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 2024 Annual RSD Monitoring Report, 31 January 2024, available at: https://bit.ly/3Jkd3t0.

[13] §1(17) Additional Provisions, LAR.

[14] Articles 16-18 Law on Social Support’s Regulations.

[15] Article 15(6) Law on Child Protection.

[16] Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 2024 Annual Refugee Status Determination Monitoring Report, 31 January 2025, available at: https://bit.ly/3SX3ST7.

[17] Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 2012 Annual Refugee Status Determination Monitoring Report, 31 January 2013, available at: https://bit.ly/49TvJdp.

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

[19] Article 61(2) LAR.

[20] Supreme Administrative Court, Decision No 13298, 9 November 2009.

[21] Article 75(3) LAR.  

[22] State Agency for Refugees, Instruction on the Rules and Conditions on Age Assessment, published on 1 December 2023, available in Bulgarian here.

[23] State Agency for Refugees, ДАБ при МС и ДАЗД въвеждат първата инструкция за определяне възрастта на непридружените деца-бежанци в България, published on 22 December 2023, available in Bulgarian at: https://bit.ly/3OZmqAF.

[24] Article 9(1) of the Age Assessment Instruction.

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

[26] Doctors of the World, Age assessment for unaccompanied minors, 28 August 2015. See also UNHCR, UNICEF and International Rescue Committee, The way forward to strengthened policies and practices for unaccompanied and separated children in Europe, July 2017, available at: http://bit.ly/2BHGxLo.