CCPR/C/118/D/2569/2015
2.5
As one of the requirements for receiving a residence permit is to have an address,
B.M.I. went to Sofia to rent an apartment, while they were still living in the camp. On an
unknown date, the authors received a residence permit and were informed that they could
no longer stay in the camp. They did not receive medical insurance cards, but the
authorities informed them that they could receive medical assistance along with the
residence permit.2
2.6
The authors submit that once they had received a residence permit for Bulgaria, they
were expelled from the camp and then moved to Sofia to an apartment they had rented. At
an unknown date, during their stay in Sofia, their daughter fell ill with a high fever. They
went to the emergency receptions of three different hospitals, all of which rejected them
with the explanation that the hospitals did not receive refugees and because they did not
have a medical insurance card. 3 The authors therefore had to ask for help from their
neighbours, who took them to their own doctor.
2.7
The authors had limited financial resources and were concerned about their own
economic situation, lack of access to health care and safety, while N.A.K. was then
pregnant. They therefore decided to leave Bulgaria on 28 June 2014. They arrived in
Denmark with only €20. On 2 July 2014, N.A.K. gave birth in a Danish hospital, only two
days after their arrival in Denmark. She was informed that her daughter was weak and that
she needed to stay in hospital for observation. N.A.K. became depressed and expressed a
desire to commit suicide on several occasions. 4 The authors submit that their eldest
daughter has breathing difficulties and is seen by a nurse every other week in Denmark.
2.8
On 14 July 2014, the Danish Immigration Service requested the Bulgarian
authorities to take the authors and their children back, in compliance with the Dublin III
regulation. On 30 July 2014, the Bulgarian authorities informed the Danish Immigration
Service that the authors had been granted refugee status and residence in Bulgaria on 17
March 2014 and 14 April 2014, respectively. On 9 October 2014, the Immigration Service
refused asylum to the authors, making reference to Bulgaria as the first country of asylum.
The authors consider that, as the Dublin III regulation does not regulate the situation for
people once they have been granted international protection, their asylum application
should not be rejected in Denmark, since the safety of their stay cannot be guaranteed in
Bulgaria. On 20 January 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision of the
Immigration Service, denying the authors asylum in Denmark and referring to the
possibility that the authors could take up residence in Bulgaria as the first safe country of
asylum. The authors were ordered to leave Denmark within 15 days of the date of the
Board’s decision.
2.9
The authors claim that they have exhausted all available and effective domestic
remedies, as the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 20 January 2015 is final and
cannot be appealed. The authors have not submitted their communication to any other
procedure of international investigation or settlement. They contend that the Board based its
negative decision on the fact that they had received refugee status and residence permits in
Bulgaria, that they did not risk refoulement from Bulgaria, that they could enter and reside
there legally (as the country of first asylum) and that they might live there in adequate
socioeconomic conditions.
2
3
4
No details have been provided on the authorities to which the authors refer.
The authors indicated to the Refugee Appeals Board that the female author had been mistakenly
entered in the asylum registration system as a man and that it had taken two months to have the entry
corrected.
The female author has a past history of suicide attempts.
3