The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that Bulgaria had violated EU law by refusing to examine the substance of a Syrian minor’s asylum application, citing Turkey as a “safe third country” without proving the existence of a real and sufficient connection with that country.<\/p>\n
We are delighted with the success of Todor Iliev, lead lawyer in the case and part of the team of lawyers at CLA Voice in Bulgaria. He is the child’s special representative.<\/p>\n
The applicant, a Syrian teenager who fled the war in Aleppo, applied for asylum in Bulgaria in November 2023 after spending about a month in Turkey. The Bulgarian authorities accept that his return to Syria would expose him to a serious risk of violence, but nevertheless refuse to examine his application, declaring it inadmissible on the grounds that Turkey is a safe third country.<\/p>\n
The ECJ emphasises that EU law allows for the rejection of an asylum application on this ground only under strict conditions. The key criterion is the existence of a “genuine link” between the applicant and the third country, which makes it reasonable to expect that he will be sent there. A short stay or formal assumptions are not sufficient.<\/p>\n
The Court makes a clear distinction between procedural rejection (inadmissibility) and rejection after examination on the merits, emphasizing that the two cannot be confused. National courts have a duty to exercise effective judicial review and to verify independently whether the conditions for applying the “safe third country” concept are actually met, regardless of gaps or ambiguities in national law.<\/p>\n
The case has been referred back to the Administrative Court in Sofia, which must now reassess whether Turkey can lawfully be treated as a safe third country in this particular case. The ECJ’s decision has broader implications for asylum practice in the EU and highlights the role of national courts as a guarantee of effective judicial protection.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n