Administrative Court – Sofia City annuls a D visa refusal for study purposes: an unreasoned refusal is unlawful
AS Legal has won proceedings against the refusal of a long-stay (D) visa for the purpose of study at a Bulgarian university. Our client, a third-country national, was represented by Aglaya Samokovliyska, attorney-at-law. The court annulled the refusal and remitted the file to the administration with binding directions.
1. Background
The client had been admitted as a full-time student to a bachelor's programme taught in English at an accredited Bulgarian higher education institution, preceded by a preparatory language course.
The consular service refused the application under Article 10(1), items 17 and 24 FRBA. The only factual reason recorded was that no sufficiently reliable evidence of secure and reliable means of subsistence had been produced.
2. The case advanced by AS Legal
In the appeal we argued that the refusal had been issued in breach of the requirement as to form and in breach of essential procedural rules:
- The authority had set out no specific factual grounds for the legal basis it invoked.
- The evidence produced had not been discussed at all, whether individually or as a whole.
- The purpose of the stay was established by an official certifying document, the probative force of which the authority was bound to acknowledge.
- The conditions of the stay and the means of subsistence were duly evidenced in writing.
- It was impossible to establish on the basis of which information sources the authority had reached its conclusion.
3. The court's ruling
The Administrative Court – Sofia City allowed the appeal and annulled the refusal. The court held that where an administrative act is issued in writing, it must set out the factual and legal grounds on which it is based. Those elements reveal the authority's reasoning, enable the person concerned to organise his or her defence, and enable the court to review the lawfulness of the act.
In the present case, the act referred formally to the statutory provision alone. It did not describe why the authority considered that the applicant had failed to adduce sufficiently reliable evidence of means of subsistence. The court expressly held that such evidence had in fact been produced to a sufficient standard.
As regards the ground under item 24, the court found that the refusal failed to identify which document gave rise to doubt, what the doubt consisted of, and on the basis of what verification the conclusion had been reached; nor was there any indication that the authority had examined any particular document or requested further clarification. In the absence of any particularisation, the court is unable to review either the existence or the merits of the alleged doubts.
The court emphasised that Article 10(1), items 17 and 24 FRBA are framed in general and open-ended terms, and that the issuing authority is required to give them concrete content by reference to the individual applicant, rather than to advance considerations in the abstract. The absence of specific reasons is an unconditional ground for annulment, consistent with the settled case law of the Supreme Administrative Court.
The court was equally clear on a further point: reasons cannot be supplied retrospectively in the course of the proceedings challenging the refusal.
The refusal was annulled, the file was remitted to the administrative authority for a fresh decision in compliance with the court's directions on the interpretation and application of the law, and the costs incurred were awarded to the client.
4. Practical significance
The ruling confirms a well-established, yet frequently disregarded, line of authority:
- A bare reference to Article 10 FRBA does not amount to a statement of reasons.
- A general assertion of insufficient means of subsistence does not relieve the authority of its duty to examine the evidence produced.
- Doubts invoked under item 24 must be particularised and substantiated.
- A D visa refusal is subject to judicial review under Article 26(1) FRBA in conjunction with Articles 145–178 of the Administrative Procedure Code, and the appeal deadline is short.
5. How AS Legal can assist
The firm advises and represents foreign nationals, employers, universities and foreign companies at every stage of visa and migration proceedings in Bulgaria – from preparing the application and assembling the supporting evidence through to challenging refusals before the administrative courts and the Supreme Administrative Court.
If you, or a prospective student, employee or representative of your organisation, have received a D visa refusal, contact us for an assessment of the prospects of a successful appeal.
