CCPR/C/132/D/2787/2016Advance unedited version
related to these specific situations, such as those covered in the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, among others”.
3.7
The authors in particular argue that the best interest of their children would be violated
if returned to Bulgaria. The Danish authorities, however, have not assessed the best interests
of the authors’ children, failing the requirements of article 24 of the Covenant, and of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
3.8
In conclusion, the authors request the Committee to consider their communication
admissible and to find that their deportation to Bulgaria would, if implemented, violate the
authors’ and their two minor children’s rights under articles 7 and 24 of the Covenant.
State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 23 December 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
and the merits of the communication.
4.2
As to the facts, on 4 June 2015, the authors entered Denmark without valid travel
documents, and applied for asylum the same day for themselves and their children.
4.3
On 1 June 2016, the Danish Immigration Service refused the authors’ and their
children’s applications for asylum pursuant to section 29b of the Aliens Act, as the authors
and their children had been granted residence in the form of refugee status in Bulgaria. The
negative decision was appealed to the Refugee Appeals Board (Board). On 15 February
2016,7 the authors brought the case before the Committee, claiming that their deportation to
Bulgaria would constitute a breach of articles 7 and 24 of the Covenant. On 18 July 2016, the
Board upheld the decision of the Danish Immigration Service.
4.4
On 19 July 2016, the Board suspended the time limit for the departure of the authors
and their children from Denmark until further notice.
4.5
In its decision of 18 July 2016, the Board considered as a fact that the male author and
his spouse have been granted residence in Bulgaria until 17 April 2020 as refugees under the
Convention on the Status of Refugees on 2 April 2015. Section 29b of the Aliens Act provides
that residence can be refused under that provision only if the conditions for considering the
relevant country a country of first asylum have been met because the alien has previously
obtained protection in that country. Some of the requirements of such refusal of residence are
that the alien must be protected against refoulement and that the alien will be re-admitted to
the country of first asylum and is permitted to remain there. The personal integrity and safety
of the alien must also be protected, but it cannot be required that the alien must have
completely the same social living standards as the nationals of the country of first asylum.
However, a refugee must be treated in accordance with recognized basic human standards in
the country of first asylum.
4.6
The Board’s case law has taken into account, inter alia, whether the alien has access
to accommodation and medical assistance, the possibility of employment in the private or
public sector, the possibility of settling freely and the possibility of owning real estate. The
Board finds that it is possible for the author and his family to be re-admitted to Bulgaria and
be permitted to remain there and that the author and his family will be protected against
refoulement in Bulgaria. It is observed that the author and his family have obtained protection
in Bulgaria, a member of the EU, bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union and the Refugee Convention, including compliance with the principle of
non-refoulement.
4.7
Concerning the authors’ personal situation and experiences during their stay in
Bulgaria, the State party submitted that the Board accepted as facts that the authors and their
children were essentially in good health, although the children are affected by their
experiences in Syria, and that they had not experienced any personal conflicts in Bulgaria.
The adult authors have not provided specific information about the circumstances of their
stay in Bulgaria or about their personal situation. The female author only stated that she has
suffered from pain in the legs and back, and attributed this pain to her worries about the future
of the family, for which reason she did not ask for treatment of this pain. She also stated at
7
4
The State party has mistakenly referred to 15 February 2016; the correct date has been 15 July 2016.