How to Stop Extradition from Bulgaria: Grounds for Refusal, Appeals and Deadlines

For conventional extradition from Bulgaria, the relevant district-level court decides whether extradition is admissible; the corresponding appellate court hears the merits appeal. The most effective lawful challenge identifies a specific statutory ground in Articles 6–8 of the Bulgarian Закон за екстрадицията и Европейската заповед за арест (Extradition and European Arrest Warrant Act, ЗЕЕЗА) and supports it with evidence before the first-instance decision. The ordinary merits appeal must be filed within seven days of the decision being announced, and the appellate decision is final.

Which Bulgarian court decides whether extradition can proceed?

The first-instance court is the competent окръжен съд (district-level court) for the area where the requested person is found. The corresponding апелативен съд (Court of Appeal) reviews the first-instance decision under Article 20. In Sofia, the Sofia City Court (Софийски градски съд) acted as the first-instance court in G.S. v. Bulgaria; do not assume that every case is heard by a court whose formal name translates as “Regional Court”. The court and its territorial competence should be confirmed from the actual file.

The Ministry of Justice checks the request and documents under Articles 9–10 and transmits them through the statutory process. It is not a second merits-appeal body. If extradition is refused, Article 21 requires the Minister to notify the requesting state. This page concerns conventional extradition requested by a non-EU state. A European Arrest Warrant (EAW) uses a separate EU surrender procedure; do not import the conventional-extradition deadlines below into an EAW case. See the guide to the full Bulgarian extradition procedure and, for an EAW, the separate EAW procedure.

Under Article 4, a treaty supplements Bulgarian law; if no extradition treaty applies, the Act may operate on reciprocity established by the Minister of Justice. Bulgaria has been party to the European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 024) since 15 September 1994. Bulgaria’s Article 23 declaration requires documents in Bulgarian or, if that is not supplied, an official Council of Europe language. Check the treaty relationship and any protocol, reservation or declaration for the requesting state.

What if an EU citizen is sought by a non-EU state?

If the requested person is an EU citizen who is a national of another Member State and has exercised free-movement rights by lawfully residing in Bulgaria, a request from a non-EU state may also engage Articles 18 and 21 TFEU. Under Petruhhin (C-182/15) and Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (C-398/19), Bulgarian authorities must inform the person’s Member State of nationality of the request and give it a reasonable opportunity to consider issuing a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). If an EAW is issued, the applicable EU surrender route must be assessed before deciding on extradition. This is not automatic immunity: if no EAW is issued within the reasonable period, extradition may proceed subject to EU-law safeguards, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. For a request to enforce a sentence, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München (C-237/21) confirms that extradition may still be justified in particular circumstances, especially where Bulgaria is bound by an international-law obligation to extradite and the requesting state does not consent to enforcement of the sentence in Bulgaria. Ask counsel to raise this EU-law issue immediately; consultation with another Member State does not automatically extend the seven-day conventional-extradition appeal period.

Which grounds require refusal under Articles 6 and 7?

Article 6 identifies categories of people who may not be extradited under the conventional-extradition chapter. Article 7 says extradition must be refused on its listed grounds. Article 8, by contrast, says extradition may be refused: the court has to assess the particular ground and the case, so it is not an automatic bar. Under Article 16(2), the reporting judge terminates the extradition proceedings in an Article 6 case.

Ground	Legal effect in Bulgaria	Evidence to prepare
Bulgarian nationality, asylum granted in Bulgaria, relevant immunity, or lack of criminal responsibility under Bulgarian law	Article 6: extradition is not admitted, subject to the applicable treaty exception for Bulgarian nationals. Nationality, Bulgarian asylum and immunity are assessed when the request is received.	Proof of nationality and its date; the Bulgarian asylum decision and status documents; immunity instruments; age or criminal-responsibility records.
Political or connected offence; qualifying military offence	Article 7(1)–(2): mandatory refusal, subject to offences that law or a binding treaty excludes from the political-offence category. A politically sensitive allegation is not automatically a political offence.	The charging instrument, alleged facts, timeline, relevant treaty text, and reliable evidence of the purpose or nature of the prosecution.
Trial or sentence before an extraordinary tribunal	Article 7(3): refusal is required if the person would be tried by an extraordinary tribunal in the requesting state or a sentence imposed by one would be enforced.	The law establishing the tribunal, its jurisdiction and composition, and documents showing which court would hear the case or enforce the sentence.
Discriminatory prosecution or a risk of prejudice	Article 7(4): refusal is required where the purpose is prosecution or punishment on a listed ground, or the person risks prejudice for such a reason.	Official statements, charge-selection history, comparable cases, the person’s circumstances, and current country evidence linked to the individual.
Torture, violence, prohibited punishment, or inadequate procedural/sentence safeguards	Article 7(5): refusal is required where the statutory risk or rights test is met. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Convention against Torture may also be relevant.	Recent independent reports, the applicable offence and sentencing provisions, detention conditions, prior threats or abuse, medical records where relevant, and a clear link to this person.
Amnesty, limitation, or a final Bulgarian judgment for the same offence	Article 7(6)–(7): mandatory refusal where the statutory amnesty or limitation condition is met under Bulgarian or requesting-state law, or an enforceable Bulgarian judgment concerns the same offence.	Final judgments or termination orders, key dates, applicable limitation rules, and a comparison of the conduct alleged in each case.
Death penalty	Article 7(8): extradition can proceed only if sufficient assurances establish that the death penalty will not be imposed, will not be carried out, or will be replaced by another penalty.	The applicable law and likely sentence; the original assurance and translation; the issuing authority; the charges covered; and evidence of enforceability and monitoring.
Bulgarian jurisdiction or proceedings; certain in-absentia convictions; some extraterritorial offences	Article 8(4) permits discretionary refusal if the judgment was imposed in absentia and the person did not know of the prosecution, unless the requesting state gives sufficient assurances of a retrial with defence rights. Other Article 8 grounds include Bulgarian jurisdiction or proceedings and certain extraterritorial offences.	Bulgarian case records; where the conduct occurred; the foreign trial record; evidence of notice or lack of notice; and the exact retrial assurance, if any.

Keep grounds distinct: a final Bulgarian judgment for the same offence falls under Article 7, while a pending Bulgarian case falls under Article 8. A limitation argument must identify the governing law and dates; a political-motive argument needs evidence of purpose or risk of prejudice, not just disagreement with the requesting government.

How should the defence prove a real risk of torture or prohibited punishment?

A general statement that the requesting country has a poor human-rights record is not enough. Link current, reliable information to the person, charge, likely sentence and expected detention setting. If a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment is established, the Article 3 ECHR prohibition is absolute, regardless of the accusation’s seriousness.

Define the harm: corporal punishment, death sentence, torture during questioning, detention conditions, discriminatory prosecution or lack of a genuine defence opportunity.
Prove the legal and practical basis: provide current offence and sentencing provisions, authoritative evidence of application and recent independent reports. Distinguish a theoretical maximum from a realistically foreseeable penalty.
Individualise the risk: submit threats, past abuse, relevant medical records, witness statements and facts about the person or charge. Date and translate key documents.
Test assurances: identify the issuer, legal force, person and charges covered, monitoring options and compliance record. An assurance is neither automatically sufficient nor automatically worthless.

Article 17(3) allows the court to request supplementary information and set a deadline. Identify the exact gap and why it matters; the request is not itself a refusal or stay.

In G.S. v. Bulgaria (no. 36538/17, 4 April 2019), the ECtHR held that extradition to Iran would breach Article 3 because the applicant faced possible corporal punishment, including up to 74 lashes; a Rule 39 measure had been indicated. In M.G. v. Bulgaria (no. 59297/12, 25 March 2014), it held that extradition to Russia would breach Article 3 on the evidence of a real, individual risk of torture or ill-treatment, and continued the interim measure until finality or further order. Both are fact-specific, not blanket bans on extradition to any destination.

What are the detention and appeal deadlines?

Gather evidence immediately. The table separates provisional detention, detention after a full request and the merits appeal. Check the actual order and hearing record; calculate each deadline from its stated legal trigger.

Event	Time limit under the Act	Immediate action
Provisional arrest before a full request	Article 13(5): prosecutorial detention for up to 72 hours; a court may order provisional detention for up to 40 days, or another period set by a binding treaty (Article 13(7)).	Record the arrest time, request counsel and an interpreter, obtain the court order and check the treaty period and whether the full request arrived in time.
After the full extradition request arrives	Article 14(2): the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office may detain the person for up to 72 hours while the local prosecutor arranges the next steps. The court then decides the measure under Article 15.	Do not confuse this separate 72-hour period with the earlier provisional-arrest period. Obtain both orders and their timestamps.
Appeal against a detention ruling	Three days under Article 13(8) or Article 15(3), depending on the ruling.	Challenge the specific detention order promptly before the corresponding appellate court. The three-day deadline is not the merits-appeal deadline.
First-instance hearing	Article 16(1): the court must schedule the hearing no later than seven days after receiving the file.	Prepare the statutory ground and supporting documents early. This is a court scheduling deadline, not an extra seven days for the defence to file.
Appeal against the extradition decision	Article 20(1): seven days from announcement of the first-instance decision.	Record the announcement date and file a reasoned appeal in time; do not assume the deadline starts when a written copy later arrives.
Appellate review	Article 20(2): the appeal or prosecutorial protest is examined within ten days after it reaches the appellate court. The appellate decision is final under Article 20(3).	Ensure the appellate file contains the key evidence and legal grounds. The ten-day period is for the court’s examination.
Consent to immediate extradition	Article 19: if consent is voluntary and informed and no Article 7 ground applies, the court issues a final immediate-extradition decision within 24 hours. Article 19(5) excludes this route where proceedings or a sentence for a different offence remain pending.	Do not consent before independent advice about the consequences. Consent to immediate extradition is not the same as waiving a hearing or resolving every speciality issue.

Under Article 13(12), release after provisional detention expires does not prevent later arrest or extradition if the full request arrives afterward. An INTERPOL Red Notice or alert may trigger action under Article 4(3), but is not a final judicial decision granting extradition.

The INTERPOL track is separate. A Red Notice asks police worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender or similar legal action; it is not an international arrest warrant, and each country applies its own law. A request to the independent Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) may seek access to, correction of or deletion of INTERPOL data. It does not replace a Bulgarian court appeal or automatically stop surrender. See the legal effect and limits of a Red Notice and CCF representation and removal requests.

Can the Supreme Court or Constitutional Court reopen the case?

Under Article 20(3), the appellate extradition decision is final; the Act provides no ordinary cassation appeal after it. Put decisive facts and arguments before the first-instance court and preserve them in the seven-day appeal.

Article 150(2) of the Constitution allows any court to refer a constitutional question about a law applicable to the specific pending case, on a party’s request or on its own initiative. The provision must affect the case’s outcome; the Constitutional Court does not reweigh evidence or act as a third appeal. The case continues, but the court whose decision is final issues its judicial act after the Constitutional Court proceedings conclude. An individual cannot file this referral directly after the extradition case is final. A request alone should not be treated as an automatic stay of transfer.

Can Strasbourg or the UN Committee against Torture intervene?

Bulgaria has been bound by the ECHR since 7 September 1992. After effective domestic remedies, an application may be available for a substantiated complaint about Bulgaria’s decision and a foreseeable risk to life or of Article 3 treatment. The ordinary deadline is generally four months from the final domestic decision, subject to admissibility rules. An application does not automatically suspend extradition. Russia ceased to be an ECHR party on 16 September 2022, but Bulgaria’s own Convention obligations still apply to its transfer decision.

Rule 39 is exceptional and concerns imminent risk of irreparable harm. The urgent request should identify the transfer date, feared harm, individual evidence, domestic decisions and why later redress would be inadequate. Submit it without delay through the ECtHR’s official channel. Only a measure actually indicated by the Court provides the protection associated with it; a request alone is not a stay. The Court indicated such measures in G.S. and M.G..

Bulgaria recognises the UN Committee against Torture’s competence under Article 22 to receive individual communications. If admissibility requirements are met, a communication and request for interim protection may be considered, but this is separate from a Bulgarian appeal and is not an automatic stay. Check admissibility, exhaustion, urgency and current procedure. See the ECtHR application guide.

Does refugee status granted abroad automatically stop extradition?

Article 6(1)(2) expressly bars conventional extradition where asylum has been granted in Bulgaria. The relevant date for assessing Bulgarian nationality, Bulgarian asylum and immunity is the date the extradition request is received. Provide the decision and proof of status, together with the date of the request.

Do not treat all foreign protection statuses alike. Separately from Article 6, the Court of Justice of the EU held in Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm (C-352/22, 18 June 2024) that a third-country national definitively granted refugee status by another EU Member State cannot be extradited by Bulgaria to that person’s country of origin while the status remains in force. Bulgarian authorities must contact the authority that granted the status. If that authority revokes or withdraws it, Bulgaria must still independently determine that the person is not, or is no longer, a refugee and assess the risk prohibited by Article 19(2) of the EU Charter, including the death penalty, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. This rule is not an automatic bar for every foreign status or every destination. In M.G. v. Bulgaria (no. 59297/12, 25 March 2014), prior protection decisions in Poland and Germany were relevant to the individual Article 3 risk assessment concerning Russia. Provide the full protection decisions, their reasons, validity and any revocation or review information. A pending asylum claim is not a final grant of asylum in Bulgaria; asylum, removal/deportation and extradition remain distinct procedures.

What should be ready before the hearing?

The full request, arrest warrant or judgment, description of the alleged offence, relevant foreign-law provisions and translations. Article 9 specifies the core documents, including the alleged conduct, time and place, applicable law and limitation rules.
A chronology of the alleged conduct, foreign proceedings, any trial or conviction, Bulgarian proceedings, request receipt, arrest and each court decision.
For each Article 6 or 7 ground, the exact provision and the evidence satisfying its elements. For an Article 8 ground, include Bulgarian case records, where the conduct occurred, the foreign trial record and proof of notice or non-notice.
For risk claims, dated independent country information, the individual evidence and the precise feared treatment or sentence. For assurances, include the original, translation, issuing authority, scope and monitoring details.
For a proposed constitutional referral, identify the statutory provision, explain why it applies to the pending case and show why the constitutional answer could affect its outcome.

Show the source and date of each document. Country reports must be current enough for the decision date; explain how each report applies to this person, charge, sentence or detention setting.

Which mistakes weaken a refusal argument?

Using the wrong deadline: three days for the relevant detention appeal is not seven days for the merits appeal.
Saving the key risk argument for Strasbourg. Raise it with evidence before the Bulgarian courts. In G.S., the ECtHR examined why the corporal-punishment risk had not been properly raised domestically.
Treating a Red Notice as the final extradition decision, or assuming it proves that all statutory documents are present.
Calling an Article 8 discretionary ground an automatic bar, or blending it with a separate Article 7 ground.
Relying on general political claims, old reports or unsupported allegations while ignoring contrary evidence or the wording of assurances.
Assuming there is an ordinary third appeal or a ministerial rehearing after the appellate court’s final decision.

Hypothetical example: a focused challenge

Hypothetical: A person in Bulgaria is wanted by a non-EU state on a charge carrying possible corporal punishment. The defence identifies Article 7(5), files the current offence and sentencing provisions and person-specific risk evidence, addresses any assurance and asks for clarification under Article 17(3) if needed. If extradition is allowed, appeal within seven days of announcement. If transfer is imminent and irreparable harm is evidenced, consider an urgent Rule 39 request—but do not assume it has been granted unless the Court indicates a measure.

Decision tree: which route should be considered first?

Identify the instrument. For conventional extradition, check the treaty and Articles 5–8. For an EAW, use the separate EU surrender rules and verify the current EAW text; Article 20’s seven-day deadline is not automatically the EAW deadline.
Check any EU-law overlay. For an EU citizen of another Member State who has exercised free movement and lawfully resides in Bulgaria, raise the Petruhhin information/consultation route. If another EU Member State definitively granted refugee status and the request comes from the country of origin, assess the separate protection under C-352/22.
Check Article 6. Confirm nationality and any treaty exception, asylum granted in Bulgaria, immunity and criminal responsibility; use the request-receipt date where required.
Prioritise Article 7. Consider documented risk of torture or prohibited punishment, a death-penalty issue without sufficient assurances, limitation, a final Bulgarian judgment for the same offence or discriminatory purpose.
Then assess Article 8. Identify the relevant Bulgarian jurisdiction or proceedings, the in-absentia issue or the extraterritoriality point, and explain why refusal is justified in the specific case.
Protect every live deadline. Separate detention appeals from the merits appeal. After the appellate decision, do not assume ordinary cassation exists; consider only a genuinely applicable constitutional or international route.

Frequently asked questions

Can I appeal after the seven-day deadline?

The ordinary Article 20 appeal period is seven days from announcement. Do not assume a late appeal will be accepted or that another appeal exists; ask Bulgarian counsel to inspect the court record immediately.

Does an ECtHR application stop extradition automatically?

No. An application alone does not suspend transfer. Rule 39 is exceptional, and the Court must actually indicate an interim measure.

Does refugee status from another EU state automatically bar extradition?

Does refugee status granted abroad automatically stop extradition? It depends. Asylum granted in Bulgaria is a bar under Article 6. Under CJEU judgment C-352/22, a person definitively granted refugee status by another EU Member State cannot be extradited by Bulgaria to their country of origin while that status remains in force; the granting authority must be consulted. Other foreign statuses or requests by a state other than the country of origin require a separate assessment.

Can an individual appeal directly to the Bulgarian Constitutional Court?

No. A court hearing a pending case may refer an applicable law under Article 150(2), but an individual cannot use that provision as a direct appeal after the extradition case becomes final.

Sources and official materials

The team coordinates cross-border defence with local counsel. A case-specific assessment should start with the actual request, the latest court order, the next deadline and the evidence for each proposed ground. You can request an initial review.