Registered with the CJEU under C-718/24.

The case concerned an application for international protection submitted by a Syrian national and which was rejected by the State Agency for Refugees (SAR). The case reached the cassation appeal level and was re-examined by the SAR, then another appeal was submitted against the second SAR decision. In fact, the applicant is a Syrian national of Arab ethnicity, a Sunni Muslim of religious affiliation, unaccompanied minor, with primary education. His application was rejected on grounds of the concept of safe third country, as the SAR considered that he could safely return to Türkiye where he allegedly previously resided. The applicant contested the residence in Türkiye and stated that his stay, for less than a month could mot be considered for the application of the safe third country concept.

The Administrative Court of Sofia city suspended proceedings and referred questions before the CJEU for interpretation of the recast APD on the concept of safe third country:

1. Is a broad interpretation possible of recital 46 and Article 33(a), (2)(c), read in conjunction with Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU, to hold that the rules laid down in those provisions, which allow an application for international protection to be considered inadmissible and which concern the concept of safe third country under Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU, are to be applied in proceedings pursuant to Chapter III of that directive, in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees set out in Chapter II of that directive, that is to say, in the examination of the substance of an application for international protection?
2. Is Recital 46 and Article 33(a) and 33 (2) (c), read in conjunction with Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU, to be interpreted as meaning that national legislation of the type referred to in Article 75(1) (2) of the Law on Asylum and Refugees (LAR) as well as administrative and case-law according to which an application for international protection which has been examined on its merits may be rejected without being declared manifestly unfounded or inadmissible solely on the ground that it is possible for the applicant to avail himself or herself of the protection of a safe third country, without the provisions of Article 38(a) having been developed and applied in national law are to be followed according to Article 33 (2)(b) of Directive 2013/32/EU and where the administrative authority recognises that there is an armed conflict in the applicant’s country of origin and the conditions laid down in Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive are met?
3. Is Article 38 (2)(a) and (2)(b) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of recital 46 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that an administrative authority which examines the substance of an application for international protection may apply the concept of safe third country to a particular country and to a particular applicant only on the basis of information from generally available sources and of a decision adopted by an executive body (Council of Ministers) that a country is a safe third country, without any provision being made in national law?
4. Is Article 38(a) and (2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU to be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary for the Member States to lay down, in their national law, criteria on the basis of which it may be assumed that there is a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned on the basis of which it is justified for the applicant to go to that country?
5. Is Article 38 (2)(c) of Directive 2013/32/EU governing the possibility for the applicant to challenge before the courts the existence of a connection between him or her and a third country deemed to be safe, in accordance with point (a), to be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a provision of national law providing for judicial review of the lawfulness of the existence of a connection between the applicant and the third country concerned, the court hearing an appeal against an administrative decision refusing to grant international protection to the applicant on the ground that a third country has been deemed to be safe in relation to him or her is necessarily required to declare that it has jurisdiction and to rule on the lawfulness of the connection adopted by the administrative authority?