The court found a violation of the child’s right to legal aid envisaged in the Child Protection Act. The asylum authorities presented no evidence that the child received any information about his right to receive free legal aid, nor was he informed about the respective procedure on how to apply for such legal aid.
Countries Archives: Bulgaria
The court repealed the order for immigration detention of a mother and her child. The detention order did not contain reasoning as to the exceptionality of the situation that required detention and the administrative body had made no assessment to protect the interests of the child.
The administrative body had discussed only the mother’s refugee story, without providing reasoning for its decision to refuse status to her children. The Court concludes that the administrative body did not respect and protect the best interests of the children: failing to consider the individual circumstances of the children is a significant violation of the administrative procedural rules.
The Court concluded that a child born in Bulgaria, who is fully integrated in the community cannot be returned to his country of origin together with his mother, where he will be at risk of being persecuted under Article 9, para 1 in relation to para 2, item f of Directive 2011/95/EU. Even if there is no well-founded fear of persecution for the mother, the national authorities should not allow such a risk to be inflicted on the child. As the mother is the only caregiver to the child, there is a ground for granting her international protection due to the need to preserve the family unity.
The asylum authorities had detained an unaccompanied asylum seeking child on the ground that it was in the interest of his own safety as he had taken part in fights with other asylum seekers at the reception centre. However, the court repealed the detention order highlighting that detention should be a measure of last resort. The court noted that the child had not been heard during the administrative procedure and neither his legal representative, nor a social worker had taken part in the procedure.
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.