Identification

Bulgaria

Country Report: Identification Last updated: 30/11/20

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

 

The law does not envisage any specific identification mechanisms for vulnerable categories of asylum seekers, except for children. The identification of vulnerability is stated to be mainstreamed in the training of caseworkers, but special trainings are rarely provided.

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] These SOPs were never applied in practice, however. 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. However, as of 31 December 2019, the SOPs revision was still not finalised nor adopted by the SAR.[3]

In April 2017, the national expert working group, headed by the State Agency for Child Protection developed a set of SOPs addressing the protection needs of all categories of unaccompanied children in Bulgaria, both migrant and asylum seekers. In May 2017, UNICEF communicated a concept for the establishment of interim care facility for unaccompanied children. Although these two documents were approved in July 2017 by the National Child Protection Council, nothing has been done by the government to forward the process. As of 31 December 2019 no SOPs whatsoever were implemented in practice.

Against that backdrop, BHC, UNICEF and UNHCR worked together with the Ministry of Interior on amendments of the primary and secondary immigration legislation. These amendments aim at creating a legally binding referral mechanism,[4] as well as a new procedure allowing for the regularisation of rejected and migrant unaccompanied children until they reach adulthood,[5] with a possibility for an indefinite extension after it on humanitarian grounds. These amendments, however, do not address the lack of identification mechanism of vulnerability at an earlier stage of the procedure and do not apply to all other categories of persons with special needs.

Given that the screening of persons with special needs was carried out in a fragmented and non-systematic way and lacked timely intra-institutional exchange of information, identification and referral, EASO cooperated with Bulgaria in an attempt 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). The SAR affirms the tool to be put in use, but in practice the vulnerability assessment is implemented sporadically and collectively rather than regularly and individually.

From 2014 to 2018, the SAR applied two main approaches regarding vulnerability assessments. The first one consisted in conducting consultations in groups to identify vulnerable applicants prior to their  registration, which did not meet the legal standards and criteria necessary for such an assessment. The second one consisted in an identification by the caseworker during the initial registration of the applicant, and referral to the SAR’s social expert for an in-depth interview to identify probable vulnerability. However, a formal assessment was not made or added to the applicant’s file, nor were specific guarantees assigned to meet the EU minimum standard in this respect.[7]

Recently the SAR adopted[8] new internal rules of procedure[9] whereby social experts provide assistance to its staff during the initial medical examination so as to enable the early identification of vulnerable applicants and their special needs. If an applicant is identified as vulnerable, the new rules foresee that the vulnerability will be added to the registration form, including a detailed explanation and a follow-up assessment to be described in an appendix.

Additionally, a new early identification questionnaire was established for applicants who experienced traumatising experiences in order to determine their special needs and to facilitate the referral to adequate psychological or medical care.[10] In many reception shelters however, and mostly in Sofia, group consultations continue to be applied to new arrivals in order to identify their potential medical or social issues.  

Nevertheless, monitoring in 2019 indicated improvements in the identification of vulnerable applicants in practice.[11] In 72% of the 271 monitored cases, the applicants confirmed that they went through needs assessment during a social interview, while a follow-up assessment was ordered in 7% of the cases (i.e. 25 cases). However, complete assessment forms or templates could not be found in the applicants’ individual files. In 100% of the monitored cases concerning unaccompanied children, the files completely lacked the mandatory social report by the respective statutory child protection service. It has been confirmed, however, ascertained[12] that these reports are prepared in practice, but that they are never shared with the asylum authority SAR, which renders their preparation purely formal and useless.

Thus in 2019 significant progress was made with regard to the introduction of early vulnerability identification mechanisms, but their results and implementation were often not reported to case workers and therefore not taken into consideration during the assessment of the asylum claim. 

The improvement of vulnerability identification mechanism resulted in a notable increase in the absolute number of asylum seekers formally recognised to have special needs. While this concerned 179 asylum seekers in 2016, 122 asylum seekers in 2017, and 99 asylum seekers in 2018; the number rose to 797 asylum seekers considered as vulnerable in 2019 (37% of all new applicants)[13].

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 2019, the following groups were identified among asylum seekers:

 

Asylum seekers identified as vulnerable in Bulgaria: 2017-2019

Category of vulnerable group

end 2017

end 2018

end 2019

Unaccompanied children

60

52

524

Accompanied children

not included

not included

207

Single parents

21

16

20

Pregnant women

4

0

8

Elderly persons

1

3

4

Disabled persons

11

3

10

Persons with chronic or serious illnesses

20

19

13

Persons with serious psychiatric issues

0

0

8

Victims of physical, psychological or sexual violence

5

6

3

Total

122

99

797

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); health issues and disabilities (Red Cross); mental and psychological problems (Nadya Centre, replacing ACET which ceased activities at the end of 2016) and unaccompanied children (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee).

 

Age assessment of unaccompanied children

 

The caseworker is not obligated to request an age assessment unless there are doubts as to whether the person is a child.[14] In practice, age assessment is used only to rebut the statements of asylum seekers that they are under the age of 18.

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,[15] which is also explicitly laid down in the LAR.[16]

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, it 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 are doomed to failure.

In 2019, the SAR conducted age assessments in 18 cases, in all of them (100%) concluding applicants to be adults. The monitoring of the status determination procedures demonstrated that the SAR continues to conduct 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.[17] If the children are considered to be of age they are not appointed statutory municipality representatives to assist them to contest the refusal of their asylum claims nor of their age assessments. Reports from medical organisations consider the X-ray as invasive but, more importantly, inaccurate with an approximate margin of error of 2 years.[18]

In 2019, an expert group representing both governmental and non-governmental organisations was established to create a national age assessment procedure based on a multidisciplinary approach. The aim is also to lay down some basic legal safeguards to be applied by asylum, immigration and/or other administrations that request age assessment in practice. Some of these legal safeguards were thus included by the SAR to its LAR amendments proposal.[19] The draft on age assessments was finalised and referred for adoption to the government, but still not endorsed as of 31 December 2019.

 


[1] Additional Provision 1(17) 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] Article 28a Regulations for Implementation of the Law on Aliens in the Republic of Bulgaria (LARB Regulations), State Gazelle (St.G.) №34/2019, enforced on 24 October 2019.

[5] Article 63k and 63l LARB Regulations, St.G. №23/2019, enforced on 26 November 2019.

[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] Article 24(1) recast Asylum Procedures Directive.

[8] SAR, Internal Rules of Procedure for assessing and granting international protection, adopted on 17 December 2018.

[9] Article 29(2) SAR Internal Rules of Procedure.

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

[11] Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 2019 Annual RSD Monitoring Report, 31 January 2020.

[12] Ibid.

[13] SAR, Exh. No. РД05-28/14.01.2020.

[14] Article 61(3) LAR.

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

[16] Article 75(2) LAR.        

[17] Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, 2019 Annual RSD Monitoring Report, 31 January 2020.

[18] 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.

[19] Draft amendments of the LAR, Public Consultations Portal, 13 December 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2u4mFUy.

 

Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation