On May 30, 2025, the Administrative Court-Varna suspended legal proceedings initiated by FAR and referred a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the right to social assistance for Ukrainian nationals residing in Bulgaria with permanent residence permits. This referral led to case C-375/25 being registered with the CJEU.
Facts of the Case
The case concerns a family of Ukrainian citizens – a married couple with two minor children – who reside in Bulgaria based on permanent residence permits. The mother applied for family benefits under Article 7 of the Family Benefits Act (ZSPD). However, the Social Assistance Directorate (DSP) denied the application based on Article 3, point 5 of the ZSPD, which stipulates that such assistance is only provided if foreseen by another law or an international treaty to which the Republic of Bulgaria is a party.
An appeal was filed against the DSP's refusal, and legal proceedings were initiated before the Administrative Court-Varna. The court found that the facts of the case fall within the scope of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, as the applicant and her family members are third-country nationals within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the Directive, who are legally and long-term resident in the Republic of Bulgaria.
Court's Considerations for Referring a Preliminary Question
The Administrative Court-Varna emphasized that in their practice of applying Article 7, paragraph 1 of the ZSPD to persons with permanent resident status, some Bulgarian courts, to overcome the explicit norm of Article 3, point 5 of the ZSPD, directly invoke Articles 2 and 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They then annul refusals to provide family benefits on grounds of non-discrimination. The present panel of the Administrative Court-Varna does not share this practice, considering that this differential treatment of foreign nationals permanently residing in Bulgaria compared to Bulgarian citizens is justified by their different legal status and is, in principle, permissible according to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
The court deemed Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC on equal treatment to be relevant, insofar as Article 3, point 5 of the ZSPD essentially restricts the rights of long-term residents within the meaning of Directive 2003/109. Specifically, Article 11, paragraph 4 of Directive 2003/109/EC is significant, stating that "in the area of social assistance, Member States may restrict equal treatment to core benefits."
In this regard, the Administrative Court-Varna noted: "For its part, Recital 13 of the Directive, in conjunction with which Article 11, paragraph 4 thereof should be interpreted, defines core benefits as minimum subsistence income, benefits in case of sickness, pregnancy, parental assistance (aide parentale), or long-term care. The wording of Recital 13 of the Directive, and in particular the use of the indefinite phrase 'parental assistance,' raises the question of whether all social payments that can be defined as 'parental assistance' are included in core benefits, or if they must also meet the criterion of being a 'core benefit.' The practice of the Court of Justice of the EU concerning Directive 2011/95/EU, whose Recital 45 also includes the same concept 'aide parentale' (in the Bulgarian version – 'family benefits for children') in the context of derogating social assistance for persons under international protection to core benefits, does not establish an interpretation that delineates the concept of 'aide parentale.'"
To establish the applicability of Article 11, paragraph 4 and Recital 13 of Directive 2003/109/EC to the national legal framework for family benefits, as laid down in the ZSPD, the Administrative Court-Varna referred the following questions to the CJEU:
"1. Does the principle of equal treatment under Article 11 of Directive 2003/109 permit a national legal provision such as Article 3, paragraph 5 of the ZSPD, which restricts the right to family benefits for children under Article 7, paragraph 1 of the same law for third-country nationals permanently residing in the Republic of Bulgaria, when the receipt thereof is not provided for in another law or an international treaty to which the Republic of Bulgaria is a party?
- Should Article 11, paragraph 4, read in conjunction with Recital 13 of Directive 2003/109, be interpreted to mean that any family benefit constitutes a core benefit within the meaning of these provisions, or should the national court assess whether the specific benefit is a core benefit? In the latter case, by what criteria should this assessment be made, and what circumstances should be considered?
- Does it matter for the classification of a family benefit, such as the one in question, as a core benefit, that applicants are entitled to other social benefits intended to satisfy basic needs, under the same conditions as Bulgarian citizens, but have not exercised that right or do not meet the conditions for it?"
The CJEU's decision in case C-375/25 will be crucial for access to social assistance for individuals with permanent residence permits in Bulgaria, including those from Ukraine or other third countries.
- Log in to post comments
