Language Switcher

Navigation

Countries Archives: Bulgaria

Case No. 9836/2016 before the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Bulgaria, Ruling No. 10872 of 18 October 2016

On 05/09/2022 in

The ruling concerns the right to legal representation and to a lawyer of two detained unaccompanied migrant children (12 and 14 years old) who, as minors, did not have the legal capacity to sign a power of attorney of a lawyer (this must be done by their legal representative and they had none assigned). The first instance court had not admitted for review the appeal against their detention order on the ground that the lawyer was not properly authorized by the children. The Supreme court, however, invoked the best interests of the child principle, appointed ex officio the lawyer chosen by the children as their lawyer in the case and admitted their appeal against the detention order for review.

Source: official link

Continue Reading

Case No. 18192/2011 before the Sofia District Court, Judgment of 05 April 2012

On 05/09/2022 in

With this judgment an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child was placed in a family-type accommodation center for children and young people aged 7 to 18 years in preparation for reintegration into a family environment. The court took into consideration that the child lacked shelter, financial support, relatives or any other close people who can support the child, as well as the fact that the child’s return to Afghanistan imposed a risk to his life, because there were no relatives or adults able to provide him with adequate care.

Source: official link

Continue Reading

Case No. 4420/2011 before the Sofia City Administrative Court, Ruling No. 2263 of 25 May 2011

On 05/09/2022 in

The Court ordered unconditional release from detention of an accompanied migrant child. The case was initiated using the remedy of defence against factual unlawful action (detention). The court accepted the complaint that the permissible period of the minor’s detention (3 months) had passed and therefore the child’s detention lacked any legal basis.

Source: PDF with the case

Continue Reading

Case No. 18192/2011 before the Sofia District Court, Judgment of 05 April 2012

On 26/01/2022 in

With this judgment an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child was placed in a family-type accommodation center for children and young people aged 7 to 18 years in preparation for reintegration into a family environment. The court took into consideration that the child lacked shelter, financial support, relatives or any other close people who can support the child, as well as the fact that the child’s return to Afghanistan imposed a risk to his life, because there were no relatives or adults able to provide him with adequate care.

https://legalacts.justice.bg/Search/Details?actId=ZqqVTCvgj0s%3D

Continue Reading

Case No. 9836/2016 before the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Bulgaria, Ruling No. 10872 of 18 October 2016

On 26/01/2022 in

The ruling concerns the right to legal representation and to a lawyer of two detained unaccompanied migrant children (12 and 14 years old) who, as minors, did not have the legal capacity to sign a power of attorney of a lawyer (this must be done by their legal representative and they had none assigned). The first instance court had not admitted for review the appeal against their detention order on the ground that the lawyer was not properly authorized by the children. The Supreme court, however, invoked the best interests of the child principle, appointed ex officio the lawyer chosen by the children as their lawyer in the case and admitted their appeal against the detention order for review.

http://www.sac.government.bg/court22.nsf/d038edcf49190344c2256b7600367606/ad3f806879ee38c9c225804f0022b3f0?OpenDocument

Continue Reading

Case No. 745/2016 before District Court of Ihtiman, Judgment No. 15 of 01 February 2017

On 26/01/2022 in

In the case of an unaccompanied child registered as an asylum seeker, the court stated that the Bulgarian legislation is applicable to all children residing in the country and in this sense, since the child was at risk, appropriate protection measures under the Law on Child Protection should be taken. The court took into consideration that currently there is no other option to protect the child and that there is real danger for his life and health because of the absence of parental care and supervision. Therefore, in respect of his right to proper physical, emotional and intellectual development, the court placed the child into the mainstream child protection services.

https://legalacts.justice.bg/Search/GetActContentByActId?actId=eJtUI8BrLi8%3D

Continue Reading