Bulgaria, CJEU (Second Chamber), Aleb, C-718/24, 5 February 2026

Facts:

On November 2, 2023, an unaccompanied minor and Syrian national (NP) applied for international protection in Bulgaria. Before illegally entering Bulgarian territory, NP is believed to have stayed in the Republic of Türkiye for one month. His brothers remained in Türkiye, where three of his sisters also live with their husbands.

On June 18, 2024, the Chairperson of the Bulgarian National Refugee Agency (DAB) rejected NP’s application, refusing him both refugee and humanitarian status. The Chairperson acknowledged that the internal armed conflict in Syria meant a real threat to his life or person. However, the application was denied because the authority classified Türkiye as a "safe third country" where NP could safely settle. Additionally, the authority relied on public sources indicating that the Turkish Government provides temporary protection and covers the basic needs of Syrian refugees.

NP appealed the rejection to the Administrative Court of Sofia City. Upon inquiry from the court, the DAB Chairperson admitted  that the agency relied on Decision No 247 to classify Türkiye as a “safe third country”, but had not developed a specific methodology for applying this concept as required by EU Directive 2013/32, and acknowledged that NP had never been expressly informed of his right to challenge the application or the existence of a connection between himself and Türkiye.

Based on the facts, the national court addressed the following questions to the CJEU:

1)     Adopting a broad interpretation of recital 46 and of point (c) of Article 33(2) [of Directive 2013/32], read in conjunction with Article 38, is it possible for an application to be regarded as inadmissible based on the "safe third country" concept during a procedure where the application is already being examined?

2)     Does the conjunction reading of Recital 46 and point (c) of Article 33 (2) of Directive 2013/32 with Article 38 of the same Directive permit national legislation to reject an application solely because the applicant can benefit from a safe third country, without formally declaring the application manifestly unfounded or inadmissible? Especially when no legal methodology has been developed in national law, and the authority recognises that the applicant meets the criteria for protection due to armed conflict in their home country.

3)     Does the conjunction reading of point (b) of Article 38(2) of Directive 2013/32 with recital 46 of the same Directive permit an authority apply the safe third country concept to a particular applicant solely based on publicly available sources and an executive decision (such as a Council of Ministers list), without a specific methodology being provided for in national law?

4)     Based on point (a) of Article 38(2) of Directive 2013/32, is it mandatory for Member States to lay down criteria in their national law to determine whether there is a sufficient connection between the applicant and the third country, making it reasonable for the person to go there?

5)     If national legislation fails to provide for judicial review regarding the lawfulness of the connection between the applicant and the third country, must the court hearing the appeal declare that it has jurisdiction and rule on whether such a connection exists?

Decision & reasoning:

Questions 1 & 2:

The Court noted that Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32 provides an exhaustive list of situations where Member States can consider an asylum application to be inadmissible, which includes the "safe third country" concept.  (para 33) The Court tied Article 33 to Recital 43, noting that the legislative purpose behind inadmissibility rules is to relax the obligation of Member States to conduct a full substantive examination if the applicant can reasonably receive sufficient protection in another country. (para 35)

Under Article 32(1), a Member State may only reject an application as unfounded if a substantive examination has established that the applicant does not qualify for international protection under Directive 2011/95. Article 32(2) allows applications to be further classified as "manifestly unfounded," but only under specific circumstances that do not relate to the safe third country concept. (para 39)

Article 46(1)(a) provides distinct and separate rights to an effective remedy against decisions considering an application unfounded (clause i) and decisions considering an application inadmissible (clause ii). (para 40)

By reading Articles 32, 33, and 46 together, the Court concluded that the EU legislature demonstrated an "unequivocal intention" to maintain a clear boundary between rejecting an application on its merits (unfounded) and rejecting it on procedural grounds (inadmissible). Applying an inadmissibility ground can only result in the application being formally rejected as inadmissible. The Court noted that national legislation, such as point 14 of Article 13(1) of the Bulgarian law at issue (DV No 54 of 31 May 2002), breaches the structural requirements established by Articles 32 and 33 of the Directive. (para 43)

Question 3:

Based on Article 38 (2) of Directive 2013/32, the Court ruled that a Member State can provide for a case-by-case consideration of the third country's safety, use a national designation of countries considered generally safe, or use a combination of both methods. Additionally, reading Article 38 considering Recitals 44 and 46, the Court noted that EU law authorizes Member States to designate a country as a generally safe third country through an act of general application, such as a list decided by the executive branch, based on reports from organizations like the European Union Agency for Asylum (formerly EASO) and the UNHCR. (paras 61-63)

The Court also added that under Article 38 (2) (c), Member States must establish rules that allow for an individual examination of whether the third country is safe for a particular applicant. It guarantees the applicant the right to challenge the application of the safe country concept based on their specific, individual circumstances, as well as the right to challenge the existence of a "connection" between themselves and that country. (para 64)

Question 4:

The Court read Article 38 (2) (a) in the light of Recital 44, reasoning that the connection defined by national law must be substantial enough to make it "reasonable" for the applicant to return to that country. The Court ruled that Article 38(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 obligates Member States to provide specific criteria in their national law for establishing a connection between the applicant and the third country. (para 56)

Question 5:

The Court stated that the remedy provided in Article 46 of the Directive must be interpreted in line with Article 47 of the Charter, which reaffirms the principle of effective judicial protection and is a directly applicable provision. (para 73)

Under Article 38(2)(a), the existence of a "connection" between the applicant and the third country is a mandatory, cumulative condition for declaring an application inadmissible. Furthermore, Article 38(2)(c) grants the applicant the right to challenge the existence of this connection. For a national court to fulfil its duty to conduct a "full and ex nunc examination," it is absolutely required to thoroughly verify whether all cumulative conditions are satisfied. (para 74)

The Court concluded that a national court hearing an appeal against an inadmissibility decision based on the "safe third country" concept must actively verify whether a valid connection exists between the applicant and the third country. Article 47 of the Charter is sufficient to grant judicial power, the national court must conduct this examination even if its own national law does not explicitly grant it the power to do. (para 79)

Outcome:

1.      Article 33(2)(c) and Article 38 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as meaning that:

– the ground for inadmissibility set out in Article 33(2)(c) of that directive does not necessarily have to be applied when examining the merits of an application for international protection;

– an application under substantive examination may be rejected as inadmissible on the grounds that a third country is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant, even when the competent authority has found that the applicant meets the conditions for granting international protection laid down in Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted. By contrast, such an application maybe rejected as unfounded, or even manifestly unfounded, only under the conditions set out in Article 32 of Directive 2013/32 and may not, in any event, be rejected as unfounded on the grounds of inadmissibility provided for in Article 33(2)(c) of that directive.

2.      Article 38(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that Member States must provide in their national law criteria for considering that there is a connection between the applicant for international protection and the third country concerned, it being specified that that connection must be sufficient to make the applicant’s movement to that country reasonable.

3.      Article 38(2)(b) and (c) of Directive 2013/32 must be interpreted as meaning that the determining authority may apply the concept of ‘safe third country’ on the basis of information from publicly available sources and a decision of the executive which draws up a list of safe third countries, provided that national law also defines the methodology applicable for assessing, on a case-by-case basis, according to the particular circumstances of the applicant for international protection, whether the third country concerned satisfies the conditions for being regarded as safe for that applicant and the possibility for that applicant to challenge the existence of a connection, within the meaning of Article 38(2)(a) of that directive.

4.      Article 38(2)(c) and Article 46(1) and (3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the national court hearing an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection on the basis of the ground of inadmissibility relating to a safe third country, referred to in Article 33(2)(c) of that directive, must verify whether there is a connection, within the meaning of Article 38(2)(a) of that directive, between the applicant and the third country concerned, even if its national law does not grant it such a power.

Subsequent proceedings:

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.