CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sEAE3FFDB { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF9195E13 { margin-top:24pt; 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 } .s35B69855 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 November 2025 FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23441/25 A.M. against Bulgaria lodged on 1 August 2025 communicated on 6 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicant is an Uzbek national who arrived in Bulgaria in August 2022 and applied for international protection. The State Agency for Refugees refused his application, and the competent administrative court upheld that refusal. A subsequent application for international protection by the applicant was not admitted for examination, and the competent administrative court upheld that decision. The applicant then lodged a second subsequent application for international protection. At first, it was likewise not admitted for examination, but that decision was quashed following a judicial review claim by the applicant. The State Agency for Refugees then refused the application, and the administrative courts upheld the refusal. 2.     In February 2023, following the dismissal of the claim for judicial review of the refusal of the applicant’s initial application for international protection, the migration authorities made an order for his removal to Uzbekistan. His claim for judicial review of that order was dismissed with final effect in July 2025. 3.     The applicant has for the time being not been removed to Uzbekistan. Since June 2025 he has been in immigration detention. 4.     He complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the Bulgarian authorities and courts did not properly assess whether he would be at risk of treatment contrary to that Article if removed to Uzbekistan, and that, since that risk is real, such removal would be in breach of that Article. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s assertions and the documents which have been submitted, does he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if removed to Uzbekistan?   2.     Did the examination of the applicant’s applications for international protection comply with the requirements flowing from the Court’s case‑law (see, in general, F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 119-27, 23 March 2016, and J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 85-105, 23   August 2016)? In particular, did the Bulgarian authorities and courts comply with their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to assess adequately and rigorously, before removing the applicant to Uzbekistan, the risk that he might be subjected to treatment contrary to that provision in that country (compare, mutatis mutandis , M.D. and M.A. v.   Belgium , no. 58689/12, §§ 56, 57, 64-65, 19 January 2016; M.S. v. Slovakia and Ukraine , no. 17189/11, §§ 121 and 127, 11 June 2020; T.K. and Others v.   Lithuania , no. 55978/20, §§ 70, 80-82, 85 and 89, 22 March 2022; M.A.M.   v. Switzerland , no. 29836/20, §§ 74 and 78, 26 April 2022; S.H.   v.   Malta , no. 37241/21, §§ 79, 84-87 and 94-96, 20 December 2022; A.M.A. v. the Netherlands , no. 23048/19, §§ 70, 72, 75-78, 24 October 2023; J.A. and A.A. v. Türkiye , no. 80206/17, §§ 61, 65 and 74, 6 February 2024; and A.B. and Y.W. v. Malta , no. 2559/23, §§ 65 and 68-69, 4 February 2025)?