Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2018:327
Date: 2018-05-17
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary Conclusions on the Concept of ‘Effective Protection’ in the Context of Secondary Movements of Refugees and Asylum-Seekers, (Lisbon Expert Roundtable, 9 and 10 December 2002), February 2003 (available at: http://www.unhcr.org/protection/globalconsult/3e5f323d7/lisbon-expert-roundtable-summary-conclusions-concept-effective-protection.html). 65 I would point out that the return of an asylum applicant to a country from which he or she risks being expelled to his or her country of origin constitutes indirect refoulement contrary to Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. A country of first asylum must therefore offer a genuine guarantee that the principle of non-refoulement will be observed with regard to the applicant. I would also point out in this connection that, although it is host to an egregious number of Palestinian refugees, Jordan is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention. 66 I would mention in this connection that a number of cases of refoulement of Palestinian refugees, in particular, Palestinian refugees coming from Syria, have been recorded by Human Rights Watch in Jordan; see Global Detention Project (GDP), Immigration Detention in Jordan, March 2015 (available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/556738404.html), p. 11. On Jordan’s observance of the principle of non-refoulement, see also Human Rights Watch, World Report, 2018, p. 307. 67 Jordan has been issuing Palestinians who left the Gaza Strip in 1967 with a temporary passport which attests to their residence in Jordan. On the effect of such temporary passports, see the study by A. Tiltnes and H. Zhang, Progress, challenges, diversity — Insights into the socio-economic conditions of Palestinian refugees in Jordan (available at: https://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/insights_into_the_socio-economic_conditions_of_palestinian_refugees_in_jordan.pdf), p. 32. The study highlights the conditions of poverty afflicting Palestinians coming from the Gaza Strip who do not hold Jordanian nationality and restrictions on their access to social services, education and healthcare, even where they hold a temporary passport; see, in particular, p. 258 et seq. Registration with UNRWA does not seem to improve significantly their access to certain essential services: see, regarding healthcare, p. 99 et seq. 68 Cited in footnote 16. 69 See paragraph 22(IV)(k) of the guidelines. 70 Jordan hosts approximately two million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons. On their living conditions there, see the study by A. Tiltnes and H. Zhang, Progress, challenges, diversity — Insights into the socio-economic conditions of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, cited above. 71 Despite the fact that the body of the order for reference mentions the concept of ‘safe third country’, within the meaning of Article 38 of Directive 2013/32, the wording of the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Administrativen sad Sofia-Grad (Administrative Court, Sofia) does not specifically ask the Court about the ground of inadmissibility laid down in Article 33(2)(c) of Directive 2013/32.