ECRE is currently working on redeveloping the website. Visitors can still access the database and search for asylum-related judgments up until 2021.
ECtHR – M.A. and Others v. Bulgaria, Application no. 5115/18, 20 February 2020
Printer-friendly version
PDF version of Summary
Country of Applicant:
China
Date of Decision:
20-02-2020
Citation:
European Court of Human rights, M.A. and Others v Bulgaria, Application no 5115/18, 20 February 2020.
Additional Citation:
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0220JUD000511518
Court Name:
European Court of Human Rights (Fifth section)
Keywords:
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 2
Council of Europe Instruments > EN - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms > Article 3
Headnote:
The fact that many Uighurs who have returned to China have been detained in “re-education camps”, or have otherwise faced the risk of imprisonment and ill-treatment, combined with the applicants’ individual circumstances, establishes substantial grounds to believe that the applicants would be at real risk of arbitrary detention, and inhuman treatment, or even death, if they were removed to their country of origin.
If implemented, the applicants’ removal to China would be in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
Facts:
The applicants are Uighur Muslims from the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR). All of them arrived to Turkey at different dates and through different routes. In 2017, Turkish authorities undertook to deport Uighurs residing in the country back to China. The applicants therefore decided to leave Turkey and crossed the Turkish-Bulgarian border on 26 July 2017 where they were apprehended by the Bulgarian border police. One day later, the authorities issued decisions ordering the applicants’ repatriation to the country of origin, the transit country or a third country under section 41(1) of the Aliens Act. Those decisions were notified to the applicants through an interpreter in Turkish.
In December 2017 the applicants applied for asylum but their application was rejected. They applied for judicial review but the competent court rejected their actions stating that the applicants failed to substantiate their claim of fear of persecution.
In parallel proceedings, in five decisions dated 24 January 2018 the head of the State Agency for National Security ordered the applicants’ expulsion on national security grounds; they appealed against the decisions. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeals of the second, third and fourth applicant considering in three identical judgments that their previous stay in Syria raised terrorist concerns. The Court noted that the facts presented by the Government were sufficient for its own assessment and that it had been convincingly shown that the applicants posed a threat to national security. It noted that the factual information was confidential and that this was a permissible restriction in national security cases.
The applicants complained before the ECtHR that, if returned to China, they would face persecution, ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and could even be executed in violation of their rights under Article 2 and 3 ECHR.
Decision & Reasoning:
Article 3
First, the Court reiterated the difficulties that states are facing in their efforts to protect their citizens against terrorism but observed that the prohibitions under Article 3 are absolute and states need to examine the possibility of such risk in expulsion cases. In the present case, the Court considered that the Supreme Administrative Court failed to examine the applicants’ allegations that they faced a risk of ill-treatment in case of expulsion as the authorities had only stated that the applicants did not leave China due to persecution based on their ethnicity or religion. However, information on the current situation in the XUAR shows that the Chinese authorities have detained “hundreds of thousands or even millions of Uighurs in “re-education” camps”, where ill-treatment and torture has been reported.[68-73]
Second, the Court stated that the governmental repression against Uighurs in China is based on terrorism-related justifications ,so that it is therefore significant that the applicants have undergone training for the East Turkistan Islamic Movement. Many Uighurs who have returned to China have been detained in “re-education camps”, or otherwise faced the risk of imprisonment and mistreatment. In the light of this general information combined with the applicants’ individual circumstances (terrorism charges and flight from China), the Court stated that these are substantial grounds to believe that the applicants would be at real risk of ill-treatment, or even death, upon return. [73-78]
The Court further observed that no countyr of destination was indicated in the decisions for repatriation, nor in the expulsion decisions. By reference to Auad v. Bulgaria, the Court concluded that there were no guarantees of a rigorous examination of the applicants’ risk upon return to China, or the risk of chain refoulement following return to a third country. [78-84]
The Court concludes that, if implemented, the applicants’ removal to China would be in breach of articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
Article 13
Regarding the complaint of the applicants under Article 13 ECHR, the Court ruled that given the findings on Articles 2 and 3 ECHR there was no need for separate examination on this part of the complaint too.
Outcome:
Violation of Article 2 and 3 ECHR.
It is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
Observations/Comments:
This summary was written by Marie De Rycke.
Case Law Cited:
ECtHR - A.M. v. France, no. 12148/18, 29 April 2019
ECtHR - O.D. v. Bulgaria, no. 34016/18, 10 October 2019
ECtHR - M.M. v. Bulgaria no. 75832/13, 8 June 2017
ECtHR - Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, 11 October 2011
ECtHR - Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), Application no 332/57
ECtHR - Daoudi v. France, Application No. 19576/08
ECtHR - Ismoilov v Russia (2008) (Application no. 2947/06)
ECtHR - Ocalan v Turkey (2005) (Application no. 46221/99)
Attachment(s):
Other sources cited:
Information provided by the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (on XUAR)
The United Kingdom Home Office Country Policy and Information note on “China to the state” of November 2018 (on the situation in the XUAR)
The United States Department of State 2018 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in China of March 2019 (in respect of the XUAR)
The United States Department of State 2017 Country Reports on Terrorism of September 2018 (on the situation in the XUAR)
The United States Department of State 2018 Country Reports on Terrorism of October 2018 (on the situation in the XUAR)
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018 (on the situation in the XUAR)
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2019 (on the situation in the XUAR)
Human Rights Watch, “Eradicating ideological viruses: China’s campaign of repression against Xinjiang’s Muslims”
Amnesty International’s Annual Report 2017-18
Concluding observations on the combined fourteenth to seventeenth periodic reports of China (including Hong Kong, China and Macao, China), September 2018, CERD/C/CHN/CO14-17
Authentic Language:
English
State Party:
Bulgaria
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Section 8 (1) and 9 (1) of the Asylum and Refugees Act
Section 41 (1) and 44 (a) of the Aliens Act
