CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 March 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 48892/22 A.R. against Bulgaria lodged on 13 October 2022 communicated on 10 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s removal from Bulgaria, ordered on national security grounds. The applicant is a British citizen who had been pursuing higher education in Bulgaria. The applicant enrolled as a medical student in Pleven in 2017. In February 2021, after returning from a visit to his family in the United Kingdom, he attempted to re-enter Bulgaria but was stopped at the border and denied entry. Afterwards, through a Bulgarian lawyer, he received a decision issued by the State Agency for National Security (hereinafter “the SANS”) on 19   February 2021. The decision withdrew his residence permit and imposed a five ‑ year entry ban. The applicant applied for judicial review. His lawyer was granted access to an excerpt from a classified SANS report. According to that document, the applicant had attempted to form a religious group at the university promoting radical forms of Islam, and had sought to persuade other students to travel to Syria to join Islamist militant organisations. In the judicial ‑ review proceedings, the applicant denied these allegations, arguing that they were untrue, unsubstantiated, and based on unidentified sources. Nevertheless, on 6 October 2021, the Sofia City Administrative Court upheld the SANS decision, finding that the agency had sufficiently established that the applicant posed a threat to national security. The applicant appealed, but the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the lower court’s judgment in a final decision of 22 June 2022. It held that the lower court’s conclusions were correct, that providing more detailed information would have jeopardised the protection of classified material, and that the SANS was the sole authority competent to assess threats to national security. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his removal violated his right to private life, as it prevented him from completing his medical studies in Bulgaria after significant investment of time, effort, and financial resources. He argues that the Bulgarian courts failed to examine whether he genuinely posed a national security threat and instead relied on uncorroborated assertions by the SANS. He further complains under Article   13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 that the domestic courts refused to verify the SANS’s claims, and refused him a “fair and reasonable opportunity” to present his case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? 2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?