Article 41 - Right to good administration
Article 52 - Scope and interpretation
Key facts of the case:
D.V.K., a Russian citizen, challenged a decision issued by the Sofia Metropolitan Directorate of the Interior, ordering his return to Russia. After his application for international protection was denied in February 2023, the applicant remained in Bulgaria without legal status. In April 2024, during a police operation, he was detained and found to have no means of support or registered address. He was informed of his illegal status and offered assistance to return to Russia, which he declined, stating his intention to move to another European country. On 18 April 2024, the Migration Department of the Sofia Metropolitan Directorate of the Interior issued an order for his return to Russia and his detention in a pre-removal detention facility called special home for temporary accommodation of foreigners (специален дом за временно настаняване на чужденци). The applicant appealed, arguing that the order violated the law as it did not specify a period for voluntary return, did not justify if and why he posed a threat to national security or public order, and did not explore alternative safe countries. He also expressed fears of persecution in Russia due to his objection to military service, citing religious and moral reasons. The Court ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the order was issued without properly considering his circumstances and rights. The Court emphasised that the authorities failed to assess the risk to his safety and did not give him a chance to present his concerns before the decision.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Court examined several key legal questions. The first question was whether the forced return order issued against the applicant was legally justified and compliant with procedural requirements. Central to the Court’s inquiry was whether the administrative authority had adequately explained why the applicant was considered a threat to national security or public order and whether they had explored alternative measures, such as granting a period for voluntary return or considering a safe third country for his relocation. Another key issue was whether the applicant’s procedural rights were respected during the administrative process. The Court scrutinised whether he was given an opportunity to be heard and to present his concerns before the return order was issued. This was particularly important as the applicant had expressed fears of persecution in Russia due to his objection to military service, a matter that the authorities seemed to have overlooked. Additionally, the Court questioned whether the authorities had properly assessed the potential risks to the applicant's life and freedom if he were returned to Russia. The legal framework requires a thorough examination of such risks, especially in cases where the individual fears persecution or inhuman treatment. Finally, the court considered whether the forced return order violated fundamental rights, specifically the right to personal security and protection from being returned to a country where the person could face severe harm.
Outcome of the case:
The Court’s decision resulted in the annulment of the forced return order against the applicant, preventing his deportation to Russia. Factually, this meant that the applicant was not immediately subject to the administrative measure of being returned to his country of origin, and he was no longer detained. In terms of legal assessment, the Court found multiple violations in how the administrative authority handled the case. It concluded that the forced return order lacked proper justification, particularly because it did not specify why the applicant was deemed a threat to national security or public order. The Court also noted that the order failed to comply with the requirement to set a period for voluntary return, a procedural safeguard meant to allow individuals the opportunity to leave the country on their own. The Court further criticised the authorities for not giving the applicant an opportunity to present his case before issuing the order, which violated his procedural rights. This omission was significant, as his expressed fear of persecution in Russia due to his objection to military service was not considered. The Court held that the administrative body did not adequately assess the risks he would face if returned, ignoring its obligation to protect individuals from being sent back to a country where they could suffer harm. Ultimately, the Court’s assessment of these legal questions revealed significant procedural and substantive flaws in the administrative process, leading to the decision to annul the return order.
“There is no dispute in the case that D.V.K. is a foreigner to whom the provisions of the Foreigners in the Republic of Bulgaria Act apply. Article 1 of Directive 2008/115 lays down the general standards and procedures to be applied in the Member States for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals. These standards and procedures shall be applied in accordance with fundamental rights, which are general principles of Union law, and international law. In view of that, the authority is obliged, before issuing the compulsory administrative measure 'return to the country of origin, transit or third country', which is undoubtedly a measure having adverse consequences for the applicant, to hear him. That right is expressly set out in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, respect for that right is mandatory even where the applicable legislation does not expressly provide for such a requirement (judgment of 10 September 2013, M.G., N.R., C-383/13 PPU, paragraph 32). In the present case, the administrative authority did not give the applicant the opportunity to consult the file and express his views before issuing the contested measure. It is undisputed that, under Article 52(1) of the Charter, the rights guaranteed by it may be restricted, but that this must be provided for by law and respect the essential content of the right, and that, subject to the principle of proportionality, restrictions may be imposed only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others (judgment of 4 June 2013, ZZ, C-300/11, EU: C: 2013:363, paragraph 51). In the present case, there is no evidence in the file from which it can be concluded that the applicant was duly informed of the administrative procedure initiated and that he had the opportunity to explain and object. That infringement is of the essential kind, since it violates the applicant's rights of defence on the one hand and, on the other, leads to the adoption of an individual administrative decision without the facts and circumstances of the case having been fully established."
„По делото не е спорно, че Д.В.К. е чужденец, спрямо когото се прилагат разпоредбите на ЗЧРБ. В чл. 1 от Директива 2008/115 са определени общите стандарти и процедури, които се прилагат в държавите членки по отношение на връщането на граждани на трети страни, които са в незаконен престой. Тези стандарти и процедури се прилагат в съответствие с основните права, които са общи принципи на правото на Съюза, и на международното право. С оглед на това органът е длъжен, преди издаване на принудителната административна мярка „връщане до страна на произход, страна на транзитно преминаване или трета страна“, която безспорно е мярка с неблагоприятни последици за жалбоподателя, да го изслуша. Това негово право е изрично посочено в чл. 41 (2) (а) от Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз (Хартата). Съгласно практиката на Съда на Европейския съюз зачитането на това право е задължително дори когато приложимата правна уредба не предвижда изрично такова изискване (решение от 10 септември 2013, M. G, N. R, С-383/13 PPU, точка 32). В случая административният орган не е предоставил възможност на жалбоподателя да се запознае с преписката и да изрази становище преди издаването на оспорената ПАМ. Безспорно е, че съгласно чл. 52 (1) от Хартата, гарантираните от нея права могат да бъдат ограничавани, но това трябва да бъде предвидено в закон и да зачита основното съдържание на правото, като при спазване на принципа на пропорционалността ограниченията могат да бъдат налагани само ако са необходими и действително отговарят на признати от Съюза цели от общ интерес или на необходимостта да се защитят правата и свободите на други хора (решение от 4 юни 2013 г., ZZ, С-300/11, EU: C: 2013:363, точка 51). В случая по делото липсват доказателства, от които да се направи извода, че жалбоподателят е бил надлежно уведомен за образуваното административно производство, както и че е могъл да даде обяснения и възражения. Посоченото нарушение е от категорията на съществените, тъй като нарушава правото на защита на жалбоподателя, от една страна, а от друга води до издаване на индивидуален административен акт, без да се изяснени в пълнота фактите и обстоятелствата от значение по случая.“