The case concerned an appeal submitted by Ukrainian nationals O.V. and M.V. whose applications for international protection was terminated on basis of Order no. 263/08.04.2022 of the Chairman of the State Agency for Refugees under the Council of Ministers. This order provided that all applications for international protection shall be immediately terminated, that State Agency shall cease all registrations and initiating of proceedings for international protection of applications submitted by Ukrainian nationals because they are registered for temporary protection and are issued registration cards. The SAR justified the decision on urgency to prevent and stop violations related to national security and public order, which could arise from the increased migration pressure caused by the existence of mass entry of displaced persons from Ukraine, within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2001/55/EC, established by the Implementing Decision of the Council of the EU /EU/ 2022/382 of 4 March 2022.

The applicant argued stated that, including a new ground for terminating the procedure for international procedure is the attribute of the legislator and the court ruled that the Law on Refugees and Asylum does not grant the Chairperson of the State Agency for Asylum to issue a general administrative act allowing the termination of multiple separate proceedings for international protection.

The Administrative Court of Sofia City first considered that the contested act does not affect directly the Foundation for Access to Rights, and that the legal interest has to be direct, personal and immediate, which is not the case of this organisation, thus the proceedings in its regard were terminated.

On the appeal submitted by the applicants, the Administrative Court of Sofia city ruled that the termination of the proceedings for international procedure were illegal because there was a violation of the applicants’ rights. Ex officio, the court analysed the criteria for nullity of an administrative act, namely the Order 263/8 April 2022. The court found that there are serious grounds to consider that the law does not confer competence to the Chairman of the SAR to issue general administrative decision for summary termination of proceedings for international proceedings. The argument that there is no legal provision for the termination of proceedings for the granting of international protection due to the granting of temporary protection is well founded. The court stated that the argument that there is no legal provision for the termination of proceedings for the granting of international protection due to the granting of temporary protection is well founded because Article 48 paragraph 1 of the Law on Asylum and Refugees does not provide such ground for termination of international protection procedure. In addition, the court mentioned that the possibility of persons displaced from Ukraine to obtain individual international protection is granted to them by virtue of Article 17 and Article 19 of Directive 2001/55/EC. Also, according to Article 3, § 1 of the Directive, the regime of temporary protection does not preclude or prejudice the recognition of refugee status under the Geneva Convention.

According to the applicable European Directive, beneficiaries of temporary protection have the right to access the international protection procedure at any time (Article 17, Directive 2001/55/EC). According to the court, the existence of temporary protection does not exclude the examination of the application for international protection, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2001/55/EC and the European Commission's Operational Guidelines. The court concluded that the temporary protection regime must, in general, be compatible with the Member States' obligations concerning refugees and, in particular, must not prejudice the possibility of being granted refugee status.

The ACSC also concluded that SAR’s order supplements the law without legislative powers by introducing a previously non-existent ground for termination of the international protection proceedings. The Law on Asylum and Refugees exhaustively lists under Article 15(1) the circumstances which constitute grounds for termination of asylum proceedings already initiated and the existence of a temporary protection decision is not one of them. In the court's view, the provision cited by the President of SAR as a legal ground for the termination of pending proceedings (Article 68(1)(2) of the LAR) in fact refers to their initiation. Thus, the ACSC found that the order of the President of SAR was null and void as there was no legal basis for its issuance.

The ACSC ruled that there was also no legal possibility to pre-decide to terminate the proceedings in a general manner, without taking into account the individual characteristics of each case.

The Administrative Court of Sofia city had declared null and void articles 4 and 5 of the Order 263/8 April 2022 of the Chairman of the State Agency for Refugees. The judgement can be further contested before the Supreme Administrative Court.