Greg Ó Ceallaigh KC and Abby Buttle of Garden Court represented the Applicants in a challenge to the lawfulness of removal to Bulgaria, instructed by Jamie Bell and Simon Robinson of Duncan Lewis.
Judgment in R (FH and Ors) v SSHD was handed down by the Upper Tribunal on 10 March 2026.
Greg Ó Ceallaigh KC and Abby Buttle acted for all three Applicants, AS, MA and FH, all of whom were Syrian nationals.
The Tribunal quashed the decisions certifying as “clearly unfounded” the human rights claim made by AS – one of three Applicants in this test case – on the basis of his vulnerability and the evidence on conditions in Bulgaria, in particular, the risk of homelessness and lack of access to adequate healthcare.
After fleeing Syria, and before arriving in the UK, AS, MA and FA had each travelled through Bulgaria where they experienced appalling treatment. The Bulgarian authorities had granted each of the Applicants subsidiary protection such that, after certifying the Applicants’ human rights claims and declaring their asylum and humanitarian protection claims inadmissible, the Secretary of State proposed to return them to Bulgaria.
When AS first arrived in Bulgaria, he was stripped naked and beaten so badly that he suffered a herniated disk. The detention conditions in which he was kept were so poor he lost a quarter of his body weight. He was beaten repeatedly by the guards. He was then released to street homelessness where he was left to beg for food until he left Bulgaria.
He had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a severe depressive episode. In two decisions, the Secretary of State certified AS’s claim that return to Bulgaria would breach Article 3 ECHR as “clearly unfounded” and he challenged those decisions.
The Tribunal considered a significant volume of country evidence concerning the harsh conditions faced by beneficiaries of international protection (“BIPs”) on return to Bulgaria. The Applicants argued that this evidence demonstrated a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR, including homelessness, inadequate access to healthcare, violence and discrimination.
It was against this backdrop that the Tribunal found that “a First-tier Tribunal judge might conclude that, if AS were left street homeless on return and unable to access his medication, this could have a serious impact on his physical and mental health, further impairing his ability to integrate and seek the medical assistance that is available to him.” (§165).
The Tribunal quashed the certification decisions in respect of AS.
The Tribunal dismissed the claims of MA (who had already been returned to Bulgaria) and FH on the basis that they were not sufficiently vulnerable and were therefore likely to be able to access support in Bulgaria.
The full judgment is available to view here: R (FH and Ors) v SSHD
