The case concerned a Syrian national, whose asylum application was rejected as inadmissible by the State Secretary for Justice and Security by decision of 26 August 2022, on the grounds that he was granted international protection by the Bulgarian authorities, on 19 January 2022.

The applicants appealed against this decision before the Court of the Hague and stated that according to recent amendments of the Bulgarian legislation (Article 42(5) of the Law on Asylum and Refugees, LAR), already granted international protection could be withdrawn on the grounds that applicants did not renew their residence documents within 30 days of expiry.

By judgement of 27 September 2022, the Court of the Hague allowed the appeal of the applicant, annulled the contested decision and considered that the State Secretary has to re-examine the case in view of this decision.

The State Secretary appealed against the lower court decision and the Council of State allowed the appeal, annulling the contested decision.

The Council of State reiterated its findings in a case ruled on the same day, namely Applicant v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid). The Council of State concluded that in Bulgaria, the failure to renew the residence permits in time did not automatically lead to the termination of international protection, but merely to the initiation of a procedure in which all facts and circumstances were taken into account before a decision on withdrawal was taken. According to the Council of State’s considerations, withdrawal proceedings were only initiated if an applicant had not renewed the residence permit for at least three years after expiry.

The Council of State noted that the applicant is a beneficiary of subsidiary protection in Bulgaria since 19 January 2022, and was issued a residence permit valid until 19 January 2025. Even if the applicant has already left Bulgaria before the residence document was issued to him, however the State Secretary may assume that the SAR has not yet initiated a withdrawal procedure. Thus, the applicant was considered to still enjoy international protection. Since the applicant did not return to his country, not has obtained a right for residence in another country, and the validity of his residence permit in Bulgaria, which was not issued/collected, has not yet expired.

The Council of State considered that the applicant had the burden of proof to demonstrate that he was no longer a beneficiary of subsidiary protection in Bulgaria. Since he failed to do so, the applicant did not make it plausible that the Bulgarian authorities will not issue him his residence document if he reports to the Bulgarian authorities in Bulgaria.

The Council of State considered that even if the Bulgarian authorities were to start a revocation procedure because the applicant has not collected his residence document earlier, he can litigate about it in Bulgaria. According to the Council of State, the State Secretary rightly argued that there was sufficient clarity about the international protection status of the applicant.

The Council of State decided similarly in other cases pronounced on 1st November 2023:

• Netherlands, Council of State [Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State], State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid) v Applicants, No 202206277/1/V2, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3967, 01 November 2023.
• Netherlands, Council of State [Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State], Applicants v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid), 202203963/1/V2, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3965, 01 November 2023. 
• Netherlands, Council of State [Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State], State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid) v Applicants, 202206284/1/V2, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3968, 01 November 2023.