CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 November 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15363/22 Mohamed Sharif Husein AHMED against Bulgaria lodged on 18 March 2022 communicated on 28 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was born in 1982 in Syria where he lived until March 2014. He submits that he fled Syria due to the civil war and arrived in Bulgaria in October 2014. The State Agency for Refugees granted the applicant with a refugee status in a decision of 3 February 2015. It appears from the case file that, later, in final judgments delivered on unspecified dates in 2017 in two sets of criminal proceedings, the domestic courts found the applicant guilty of the commission of three criminal offences (using a forged document before a national authority, assisting a foreign national to illegally cross the border or to reside in the country, as well as driving a motor vehicle without a license). The courts sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment. Consequently, by a decision of 21   February 2019, the State Agency for Refugees revoked the applicant’s refugee status on the grounds that he had been convicted for a serious criminal offence within the meaning of Article 93(7) of the Criminal Code. In an order of 10 June 2020, the Migration Department within the Ministry of Interior imposed on the applicant a coercive administrative measure “return to a country of origin, transit or a third country” due to the revocation of his international protection. By a final decision of 23 April 2021, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that order. In a communication of 17 June 2024, the applicant’s representative indicated that the applicant was serving an imprisonment sentence at the Sofia Prison at that time, and that no actions in relation to his expulsion have been undertaken by the Bulgarian authorities so far. The applicant complains that the expulsion order of 10 June 2020 is enforceable and that a return to Syria, his country of origin, would expose him to the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He adds that he did not benefit from a remedy as required by Article 13 to protect his rights under Article 3. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Would the return of the applicant to Syria, his country of origin, if carried out based on the order of 10 June 2020 by the Migration Department within the Ministry of Interior be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see L.M. and others v. Russia , nos. 40081/14 and 2 others, 15   October 2015, and O.D. v. Bulgaria , no. 34016/18, 10 October 2019)? Does the current situation in Syria, per se , make any return to that country incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention? Have the competent authorities examined the applicant’s allegations that he would be exposed to the risk of death and/or inhuman and degrading treatment if he was returned to Syria?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, an effective domestic remedy which he could have used to protect himself against a return in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?