Seven Ukrainian nationals, acting on their behalf and also as legal representatives of their minor children, Ukrainian nationals, contested before the Supreme Administrative Court the Decision No. 278/02.05.2025 of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria on the adoption of a Program for Humanitarian Support and Integration of Displaced Persons from Ukraine with Temporary Protection in the Republic of Bulgaria. Specifically, the appeal was submitted by I. K. and M.K., personally and as the legal representatives of her minor child P. K., K. K. and O. K., personally, and V. G., O. A., R. P., personally and as the legal representative of her minor children I. P. and M. P.

They argued that the contested decision contained an incorrect definition of the category of vulnerable persons, alleging it was as contrary to §1, item 17 of the Additional Provisions of the Law on Asylum and Refugees (LAR). They also claimed that item 5.1. letters a) and b) contained discriminatory provisions for a certain category of children, allegedly violating Article 6(2) of the Constitution and other national laws prohibiting discrimination. The applicants also complained that item 5.1. letters a) and b) were partly illegal on restricting, for the purpose of this programme, the placement of only one parent per child up to 12 years old or per child between 12 to 16 years old. The applicants submitted that the contested provisions were contrary to the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD), Article 16 of the European Social Charter, Article 27 (2) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) and Article 34 (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

Regarding I. K., P. K., K. K., M. K. who claimed to fall within the risk groups set out in item 5.1, letters "a" and "b", the court noted that they were benefiting from the Program and had been accommodated in the "Zarya" hotel. Their complaint was therefore rejected as inadmissible for lack of legal interest. For O. K., the first assessment made based on the initially submitted form established that neither she nor her husband fell within a risk group. However, after resubmitting the form, the authorities concluded that they belonged to the risk group - a person aged 65 and over. Specifically, it was found that O. K. belonged to a risk group as a spouse of a person under letter "g", aged over 60, retired according to the Ukrainian legislation, as proven by a document attesting the right to a pension from Ukraine. As the family was accommodated free of charge under the Program in the Magnolia 2 Hotel accommodation facility, the court declared their appeal inadmissible on account of lack of legal interest. It reiterated that the legal interest must be present throughout the entire procedure and not only at the time of the complaint's submission.

For applicants V. G., O. A., R. P. personally and as the legal representative of their minor children I. P. and M. P., the court held that they did not demonstrate a personal and direct legal interest in challenging the contested decision since their situation did not fall within the ambit of any items of the decision indicated in the request, thus their appeal was deemed inadmissible.

The court further allowed the remaining part of the appeal as admissible. It first found that the contested decision was issued by a competent authority, in compliance with administrative procedural rules and following the required form for its motivation. It reiterated the EU and national legal framework regulating eligibility for temporary protection as well as rights and benefits of beneficiaries to affirm that Member States must respect human rights. Moreover, pursuant to Article 13 of the TPD, Member States must ensure that beneficiaries of temporary protection have access to adequate accommodation or are provided with adequate means to find suitable accommodation.

It noted that the adopted Program for Humanitarian Support and Integration of Displaced Persons from Ukraine with Temporary Protection in the Republic of Bulgaria defines vulnerable applicants under section V ‘risk group' which includes children aged 0 to 12 years old, accompanied by one parent or by another adult taking care of them by proxy. Such definition was found contrary to the definition provided by §1, item 17 of the Additional Provisions of the Law on Asylum and Refugees (LAR), narrowing down the risk group to children aged 0 -12 years who are accompanied by one parent or another adult acting as guardian by proxy. By contrast, the LAR includes minors and unaccompanied minors under the vulnerable group, amongst others. The court also noted that Article 3(1) of the Family Act expressly stipulates that persons who did not reach the age of 14 are to be considered minors.

The Supreme Administrative Court found that the restrictive requirement introduced by the contested decision according to which the child must be accompanied by one parent or another adult violates the principle of family integrity. It emphasised that, according to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to family life is a fundamental right, and the relationship between parents and children is key to their psychological development, any restriction or violation resulting into irreversible consequences for the well-being of both the child and the parents. This is even more important in a context as the one in the present case where the children are present in a country other than their country of origin, thus the relationship with both parents is extremely important to prevent any serious harm and to ensure respect for the best interests of the child.

Against this background, the court held that the limitation provided under item 5.1, b. "a" of section "V. Risk groups" of the contested decision, was contrary to Article 27(3) of the UN CRC, which states that States Parties must take the necessary measures to assist parents and other persons responsible for the child to exercise this right and, when necessary, to provide material assistance and assistance programs, especially offering nutrition, clothing and housing. Consequently, the contested requirement contradicts the UN CRC for the express separation of children according to age in the context of access to housing and accommodation. Secondly, the criterion introduced in item 5.1, b. "a" of the contested decision, conditioning the placement of a child in accommodation with only one parent directly contradicts the UN CRC, violating the right to family life since a child has the right to live with both his parents.

In conclusion, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled parts of the contested decision, specifically those restrictions under item 5.1, letter "a" and under item 5.2, letter "a" of Section "V. Risk groups".