Cessation and review of protection status

Author

Bulgarian Helsinki Committee Visit Website

According to Article 17(1) LAR, international protection may be ceased if the protection holder:

• Can no longer refuse to avail him or herself of the protection of his or her country of origin, as the circumstances that had given rise to fears of persecution have ceased to exist and the transformation in said circumstances is substantial enough and of a non-temporary nature;
• Voluntarily avails him or herself of the protection of his or her country of origin;
• Voluntarily re-acquires citizenship after having lost it, or acquires new citizenship in another country;
• Acquires Bulgarian citizenship;
• Voluntarily settles in the country where he or she was previously persecuted;
• Has been granted refugee status by the President; or
• Explicitly declares to no longer wish to enjoy international protection granted in Bulgaria.
• Is deceased.

Following the decision of the SAR’s Chairperson to initiate a cessation procedure, a caseworker may suggest to cease protection based on available data indicating that one of the above legal grounds applies. The beneficiary of protection is to be notified by a letter with recorded delivery that such a procedure has been initiated, the reasons thereof and the date and place for a mandatory interview in which he or she will have the opportunity to raise any objections against the cessation of the protection status. As of the date of notification, the SAR has 3 months to issue a decision. Such decision can also be taken in the absence of opinion or objections by the protection status holder if they have not been made on his own failure.  When the SAR has not established the grounds for cessation, the initiated procedure must be discontinued.

The cessation can be appealed within 14 days after being notified to the individual before the respective Regional Administrative Court. The appeal can be heard at two court instances where the decision of the second instance, the Supreme Administrative Court, is final. Legal aid can be appointed by the court on a request of the appellant (see section Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance).

Although there is no systematic review of protection status in practice, cessation procedures are initiated by the SAR when the MOI provides information indicating that status holders have either returned to their country of origin, obtained residence or citizenship in a third country, or have not renewed their Bulgarian identification documents for a period exceeding 3 years.

In 2025, a total of 850 cessations were made. The cessations affected individuals from the following countries of origin: ^[1]

Source: SAR.

In 2020, an amendment to the law introduced an additional clause, which allows cessation or revocation of international protection where the status holders fail to renew their expired Bulgarian identity documents, or to replace them if they have been lost, stolen or destroyed, in a period of 30 days.^[2]  Despite being contrary to 1951 Refugee Convention, the amendment was aimed at legalising a malpractice applied by the SAR since 2018. This broadened interpretation of the recast Qualification Directive introduces de facto an additional cessation ground in violation of national and EU legislation. The undue cessation of international protection has affected 4,264 status holders in total, respectively – 770 persons in 2018; 2,608 persons in 2019; 886 persons in 2020, 105 in 2021, and 41 in 2022, 0 in 2023, 0 in 2024, and 850 persons in 2025.^[3]

The introduction of said additional clause led national courts in some European countries to halt transfers of beneficiaries of protection to Bulgaria in 2022.[4] In 2025 however, several courts found that beneficiaries of protection could be sent back to Bulgaria.

In Germany, most courts are of the opinion that removals of beneficiaries of protection to Bulgaria are lawful. By way of exception, some administrative courts have found – in the case of the administrative court of Potsdam even before the outbreak of the war in Ukraine – that even non-vulnerable persons face destitution and homelessness upon arrival.^[5] The Federal State government of Lower Saxony issued guidance on 21 February 2022 according to which transfers are only admissible for healthy persons who are fit to work, and not for single parents, families with minor children and persons unable to work.^[6] In 2025, administrative courts continued to uphold the permissibility of returning beneficiaries of international protection to Bulgaria, while at the same time scrutinising closely the lawfulness of accompanying return measures. This is illustrated by the judgment of the Administrative Court Bayreuth of 28 July 2025 (B 7 K 25.30925), where the court confirmed that a subsequent asylum application by a healthy and employable beneficiary of subsidiary protection in Bulgaria could be rejected as inadmissible under § 29(1) No. 2 and No. 5 Asylum Law, applying the high threshold developed by the CJEU and the ECtHR for violations of Art. 3 ECHR / Art. 4 CFR.[7] At the same time, however, the court partially upheld the action by obliging the authorities to lift the existing deportation order and entry ban, emphasising that new factual developments—such as serious mental illness, the appointment of a legal guardian, and the establishment of a marital family life in Germany protected by Art. 6 of the German Constitution (GG)—must be properly taken into account, at least with regard to the continued enforceability of return measures.[8] A similar pattern can be observed in other 2025 case law, including decisions of the Administrative Court of Osnabrück, which reaffirmed that poor socio-economic conditions or limited integration prospects in the responsible Member State are, as such, insufficient to bar return of protection beneficiaries, but insisted on an individualized assessment where concrete vulnerabilities or family ties may render removal measures unlawful or require reconsideration by the competent authorities.[9] Likewise, on 12 March 2025, the Higher Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg (VGH Baden-Württemberg) reaffirmed its established case law that returning healthy, employable and non-vulnerable single men to Bulgaria does not, in general, expose them to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Art. 3 ECHR and Art. 4 of the EU Charter.[10] Relying on up-to-date country information and the high threshold set by the CJEU in Jawo, the court found that reception and living conditions in Bulgaria do not reach a level where such persons would be systematically unable to secure their most basic needs (“Bett, Brot und Seife”).[11]

In the Netherlands, in an internal information message of the IND, it is stated that for particular vulnerability it is important to assess whether someone is self-sufficient.^[12] Moreover, the internal information message states that individual guarantees should be requested for particularly vulnerable beneficiaries of protection from Greece, Bulgaria and Hungary, given that protection beneficiaries returned to these Member States are in principle assumed to be at risk of facing a situation of extreme material poverty, as stated in the Ibrahim ruling.

^[1] SAR, reg. №АД-07-7 from 14 January 2025.

^[2] Article 42(5) LAR, enforced on 20 October 2020.

^[3] SAR, reg. №ПО-02-115 from 22 February 2026.

[4] (Germany) Administrative Court of Düsseldorf, 12 L 1073/22.A, 25 May 2022. District Court of the Hague, NL22.2064 en NL22.2066 T, 8 July 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/42POziX; District Court of the Hague, NL22.2064 en NL22.2066, 26 October 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3nmnxiZ.

^[5] Administrative Court of Frankfurt / Oder, 10 K 803/22.A, 6 January 2023; Administrative Court of Oldenburg, 12 A 849/22, 2 March 2023; Administrative Court of Saarland, 3 L 1057/23, 20 July 2023; Administrative Court of Potsdam, 12 K 2418/20.A, 11 January 2022; Administrative Court of Ansbach, 14 S 22.50126, 31 October 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/4738dJb; Administrative Court of Köln, 20 K 3733/22.A, 15 November 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/48nFdwU; Administrative Court of Freiburg, A 14 K 900/22, 19 September 2022, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3GRyCza. See also Justus Linz, Zur Situation von »Dublin-Rückkehrenden« und »Anerkannten« in Staaten Osteuropas, September 2022, asyl.net, 3, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3JdJ7PH.

^[6] Ministry for the Interior and Sports of Lower Saxony, Abschiebunsgvollzug von anerkannt Schutzberechtigten nach Bulgarien, 21 February 2022, available in German at: http://bit.ly/3Y1o1rT.

[7] Administrative Court Bayreuth, 28 July 2025 (B 7 K 25.30925), available here.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Administrative Court Osnabrück, 18 November 2025, Az.: 7 A 252/23, available here.

[10] Higher Administrative Court (VGH) Baden-Württemberg, Decision of 12 March 2025 – A 4 S 256/24 (asyl.net: M33666), available here.

[11] Ibid.

^[12] IB 2021/56 asielverzoeken van bijzonder kwetsbare statushouders, available in Dutch at: https://bit.ly/3hCLBf6.