Nævnet stadfæstede i maj 2026 Udlændingestyrelsens afgørelse om overførsel til Bulgarien i medfør af udlændingelovens § 48 a, stk. 1, 1. pkt., jf. § 29 a, stk. 1, jf. Dublinforordningen, vedrørende en kvinde, der var i besiddelse af et visum til Bulgarien. Sagen blev behandlet på mundtligt nævnsmøde.
Advokaten henviste som begrundelse for, at klagerens sag skulle behandles i Danmark, blandt andet til de generelle forhold i Bulgarien, herunder for LGBT+-personer. Efter en gennemgang af sagen, udtalte Flygtningenævnet blandt andet: ”Det fremgår af udlændingelovens § 48 a, stk. 1, 1. pkt., at påberåber en udlænding sig at være omfattet af § 7, træffer Udlændingestyrelsen snarest muligt afgørelse om afvisning eller overførsel efter reglerne i kapitel 5 a. Det fremgår videre af kapitel 5 a, jf. § 29 a, stk. 1, at en udlænding kan afvises eller overføres til en anden medlemsstat efter reglerne i Dublinforordningen.
Flygtningenævnet lægger til grund, at klageren havde visum til Bulgarien, da hun indgav ansøgning om international beskyttelse i Danmark. Flygtningenævnet finder på den baggrund, at Bulgarien som udgangspunkt er forpligtet til at tilbagetage klageren, jf. Dublinforordningens artikel 12, stk. 4, og Bulgarien har i overensstemmelse hermed [i efteråret] 2025 accepteret at modtage klageren i medfør af den pågældende bestemmelse.
Klageren har gjort gældende, at hendes asylsag skal realitetsbehandles i Danmark i medfør af Dub-linforordningens artikel 3, stk. 2, og artikel 17, stk. 1. Klageren har nærmere anført, at hun som homoseksuel må betragtes som en særligt sårbar asylansøger, og at det af baggrundsoplysningerne følger, at homoseksuelle asylansøgere generelt behandles dårligt i det bulgarske asylsystem. Klageren har endvidere anført, at der er en stor grad af mangler og problemer med det bulgarske asylsystem. Klageren har subsidiært gjort gældende, at sagen skal hjemvises til Udlændingestyrelsen med henblik på fornyet behandling.
Flygtningenævnet finder, at asylsystemet i Bulgarien efter baggrundsoplysningerne må anses for behæftet med visse mangler. Indkvarteringsforholdene er generelt utilstrækkelige, og der er blandt andet problemer med den basale infrastruktur og hygiejneforhold. Der henvises herved til navnlig AIDA´s seneste rapport, ”Country Report: Bulgaria, Update on 2025”, som er udgivet i maj 2026, og til DRC Dansk Flygtningehjælps Landerapport – Bulgarien, som er udgivet i april 2026.
Om de generelle forhold for Dublin-returnees i Bulgarien, herunder sårbare ansøgere, er i den nævnte rapport fra AIDA anført blandt andet følgende, side 57:
“Asylum seekers who are returned from other Member States in principle do not face any obstacles in accessing the territory of Bulgaria upon return. Prior to the arrival of Dublin returnees, the SAR informs the Border Police of the expected arrival and indicates whether the returnee should be transferred to a reception centre or to immigration pre-removal detention facility. This decision depends on the phase of the Bulgarian asylum procedure of the Dublin returnee as outlined below:
-If the returnee has a pending asylum application in Bulgaria, or the procedure was terminated because of the returnee’s absconding, he or she is transferred to a SAR reception centre. In the past, the SAR usually suspended asylum procedures when asylum seekers had left Bulgaria before their procedures were completed. After the amendments of the law in 2020, the SAR obtained the right to directly terminate (discontinue) the asylum procedure in such cases without passing through a stage of suspension. In both cases, no decision on the merits is issued, therefore the procedure can be reopened.
-If, however, the returnee’s asylum application was rejected with a final decision on the merits before, or after, leaving Bulgaria, and the decision was served in absentia and therefore became final, the returnee is transferred to one of the immigration pre-removal facilities, usually to the Busmantsi detention centre in Sofia, but also to the Lyubimets detention centre near the Turkish border. Such refusal and serving of the refusal’s decision in absentia is legally possible, if an interview has been conducted with the returnee prior their absconding from Bulgaria and if based on the information gathered from the interview the case worker could form an opinion about the credibility of the asylum claim. In the case of families, when returned, parents whose application was finally rejected are usually detained together with their children. In exceptional cases children may be placed in childcare social institutions while their parents are detained in immigration facilities, however it is applied only when an expulsion order on account of threat to national security is issued to any of the parents.
Since 2020, the LAR explicitly provides for the mandatory reopening of an asylum procedure with respect to an applicant who is returned to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation, provided that s/he has not been issued a decision on merits while in absentia. The SAR’s practice following this particular amendment has been so far in line with the law, and returnees whose asylum procedures had been only terminated (discontinued) after their absconding do not face obstacles in principle to have their determination procedures reopened. However, it does not secure their access to state provided food and accommodation in reception centres as these are guaranteed only to vulnerable applicants.”
Om forholdene for sårbare asylansøgere er i samme rapport anført følgende, side 66 ff.:
”Several initiatives on vulnerability were undertaken in previous years. …
In 2025, both vulnerability assessment and identification, but most of all follow-ups on identified cases, remained substandard, to the point this continued to present the most significant violation of existing obligation in the context of the asylum procedure in the course of already several years. … Therefore, in 2025 needs assessment as well as planning and provision of support measures with respect to applicants with identified vulnerabilities were still carried out unsystematically. In its reply to the findings of this report the SAR stated that it took all necessary measures to meet the specific needs of persons from vulnerable groups, where all individuals from vulnerable groups were accompanied to medical facilities with interpretation and transport provided. Thе SAR also stated that where treatment was required outside the coverage of the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), assistance was sought from NGOs for funding, and there were also cases where the staff from reception centers purchased medicines for children and individuals. …
Although moderate, the efforts made for the vulnerability identification resulted in a notable increase in the absolute number of asylum seekers formally recognised to have special needs or vulnerabilities. …
NGOs continue to play key role in early identification and assessment of applicants´vulnerability and their referral and according treatment. …”
Om sårbare asylansøgere fremgår det videre på side 101 f.:
”The law provides a definition of vulnerability. According to the provision “applicant in need of special procedural guarantees” means an applicant from a vulnerable group who needs special guarantees to be able to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations provided for in the law. Applicants who are children, unaccompanied children, disabled, elderly, pregnant, single parents taking care of underage children, victims of trafficking, persons with serious health issues, psychological disorders or persons who suffered torture, rape or other forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence are considered as individuals belonging to a vulnerable group.
There are no specific measures either in law or in practice to address the needs of these vulnerable categories, except for some additional practical arrangements in place to ensure the provision of medication or nutrition necessary for certain serious chronic illnesses, e.g. diabetes, epilepsy, etc. The law only requires that vulnerability has to be taken into account when deciding on accommodation, but this is applied discretionally, and no guidelines on the application of such a criterion are provided by the SAR. In 2018, the SAR adopted new internal rules of procedure whereby social experts provide assistance to its staff during the initial medical examination so as to enable the early identification of vulnerable applicants and their special needs. If an applicant is identified as vulnerable, the new rules foresee that the vulnerability will be added to the registration form, including a detailed explanation and a follow-up assessment to be described in an appendix. Additionally, an early identification questionnaire was established for applicants who experienced traumatising experiences in order to determine their special needs and to facilitate the referral to adequate psychological or medical care.
Monitoring in 2025
In 2025, both vulnerability assessments and identification - as well as all follow-ups on identified cases -, remained substandard, to the point this continued to represent the most significant violation of existing obligation in the context of the asylum procedure in the course of already several years. SAR social workers conducted a total of 273 vulnerability assessments and identified 115 applicants with vulnerabilities or special needs. SAR acknowledged to have dealt with 1,127 applicants with vulnerabilities as defined by the law in 2025. These figures obtained through monitoring indicated that just 24% of all asylum applicants with vulnerabilities received proper assessments of their needs. Moreover, SAR affirms that the social experts who carry out the vulnerability assessment do file their assessments and support plans in the case management registry for the case worker to be able to review and collect them into the respective individual file, while copies of these documents remain with the social experts for subsequent work with the vulnerable person, according to the planned activities. In 2025, the monitoring of these processes established that in 88% of the cases, an initial assessment form was present in the file of asylum seekers who were falling within the vulnerability definition under national law. Thus, vulnerability assessments and support plans were still missing in 12% of the monitored cases of asylumeekers, who otherwise should have been assessed and supported as persons with specific needs or vulnerabilities. The subsequent support plan however, was present in just 20% of the cases, and in 100% of them no information was available whether any of the support measures, included in the plan were actually implemented or not. Therefore, in 2025 need assessments as well as planning and provision of support measures with respect to applicants with identified vulnerabilities were still carried out unsystematically.
The situation of an applicant belonging to a vulnerable group has to be taken into account by the authorities when deciding on accommodation. In practice, except the two safe-zones for unaccompanied children, other separate facilities for vulnerable applicants, families, single women or traumatised asylum seekers do not exist in the reception centres.”
Flygtningenævnet bemærker generelt, at Dublinforordningen er baseret på princippet om gensidig tillid mellem medlemsstaterne, og der gælder således en formodning om, at behandlingen af asylansøgere i hver enkelt medlemsstat er i overensstemmelse med kravene i de internationale konventioner, herunder EU´s charter om grundlæggende rettigheder.
Det er endvidere ikke foreneligt med Dublinforordningens formål og system, hvis enhver tilsidesættelse af EU´s direktiver på asylområdet ville være tilstrækkeligt til at forhindre overførsler af asylansøgere til den ansvarlige medlemsstat, jf. herved EU-domstolens dom af 21. december 2011 i de forenede sager N.S. m.fl. (C-411/10 og C-493/10) præmis 84-85. Den anmodende medlemsstat er som udgangspunkt alene udelukket fra at overføre en asylansøger til den ansvarlige medlemsstat, når der i forbindelse med eller efter overførslen er en alvorlig risiko for umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling som omhandlet i artikel 4 i EU´s charter om grundlæggende rettigheder eller artikel 3 i Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention, jf. blandt andet EU-domstolens dom af 19. marts 2019 i sagen Jawo (C-163/17) præmis 87-88. Dette kan enten være begrundet i systemmæssige mangler ved asylproceduren og modtageforholdene for asylansøgere i den ansvarlige medlemsstat eller andre konkrete omstændigheder, som medfører en krænkelse af de nævnte bestemmelser i EU-chartret eller Menneskerettighedskonventionen.
Flygtningenævnet traf [i efteråret] 2025 afgørelse om, at der ikke var væsentlige grunde til at antage, at der var sådanne generelle systemfejl i modtage- og indkvarteringsforholdene i Bulgarien, at det kunne begrunde, at der ikke kunne ske overførsel til Bulgarien i medfør af Dublinforordningen af enlige mænd, der ikke kan anses for sårbare, i tilfælde, hvor der ikke er truffet en materiel afgørelse i asylsagen.
Flygtningenævnet finder efter de aktuelle baggrundsoplysninger, at det samme må gælde for en enlig, sort kvinde, der identificerer sig som LGBT+-person, også selvom det fortsat må lægges til grund, at der er mangler ved asylsystemet i Bulgarien, herunder omkring indkvarteringsforholdene. Det bemærkes herved, at princippet om gensidig tillid mellem medlemsstaterne også må indbefatte en formodning om, at Bulgarien behandler også asylansøgere, der identificerer sig som LGBT+-personer, i overensstemmelse med kravene i de internationale konventioner, og at denne formodning ikke afkræftes af baggrundsoplysningerne eller andre oplysninger i sagen.
Flygtningenævnet finder således, at de generelle forhold, som klageren må forventes at blive mødt med i Bulgarien, ikke er af en sådan karakter, at Danmark er afskåret fra at overføre hende til Bulgarien, jf. Dublinforordningens artikel 3, stk. 2, 2. led.
Spørgsmålet er herefter, om der foreligger sådanne konkrete omstændigheder, herunder af humanitær karakter, at der er grundlag for at behandle klagerens asylansøgning her i landet i medfør af Dublinforordningens artikel 17, stk. 1.
Hovedprincippet i Dublinforordningen er, at en ansøgning om asyl kun skal behandles af én medlemsstat, som identificeres ud fra de objektive kriterier i forordningens kapitel III. Henset hertil er det Flygtningenævnets opfattelse, at der i det enkelte tilfælde bør foreligge særlige grunde til at fravige det nævnte hovedprincip. Dette gælder uanset, at Dublinforordningens artikel 17, stk. 1, er en diskretionær bestemmelse.
Flygtningenævnet finder, at den omstændighed, at klageren identificerer sig som LGBT+-person og er enlig, sort kvinde, i en vis grad gør hende sårbar, men det kan ikke begrunde, at hun må antages at have særegne modtagelsesbehov, som ikke kan opfyldes af asylsystemet i Bulgarien.
Klageren har i dag forklaret om [allergi], og at hun har oplevet forstyrrelse af sin hjerterytme. Hun har fået medicin mod allergi, og lægen har sagt, at hun skal komme igen, hvis det ikke virker. Lægen har sagt, at det nok skyldes stress, at hun har oplevet hjerterytmeforstyrrelse. Klageren er ikke i behandling angående hjertet, og hendes helbredsforhold kan ikke begrunde, at hun anses for særligt sårbar og derfor må antages at have særegne modtagelsesbehov.
Efter en samlet vurdering finder Flygtningenævnet, at der ikke foreligger sådanne særlige omstændigheder af humanitær karakter, at der er grundlag for at behandle klagerens asylansøgning her i landet i medfør af Dublinforordningens artikel 17, stk. 1.
Flygtningenævnet finder derfor ikke grundlag for at omgøre Udlændingestyrelsens afgørelse om overførsel til Bulgarien, jf. udlændingelovens § 48, stk. 1, 1. pkt., jf. § 29 a, jf. Dublinforordningen.” Dub-Bulg/2026/3
