The PROME project, based at South-West University “Neofit Rilski,” examines a deceptively simple question: Why do legal systems struggle to protect the rights of migrants, and what principle could help them do better? Although Europe is the home of some of the world’s most advanced human rights institutions, notably the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), migrants continue to experience inconsistent, unpredictable, and sometimes contradictory forms of legal protection. PROME aimed to bridge this gap. Drawing on legal theory, sociology, and political philosophy, it investigated the deeper structural reasons behind those inconsistencies and identified patterns of exclusion that remain hidden beneath the surface of individual court judgments. Originally, it asked whether an overarching legal principle might help courts respond more coherently to the challenges raised by migration, including in cases concerning discrimination, particularly vulnerable persons, and state security policies.
Several goals originally outlined in the proposal were refined as the project unfolded, reflecting the evolving realities of migrant protection in Europe. With no ECtHR cases having emerged at this stage on the fate of Ukrainian refugees, the research shifted toward areas where legal developments were most dynamic and consequential: Bulgaria’s case law on national security expulsions and the structural problems revealed by the Greek “hotspot” cases. This focus allowed PROME to address issues of immediate legal and political significance while still advancing its core ambition of understanding how legal systems respond to, but also often reproduce. forms of migrant exclusion during moments of heightened tension. The project’s findings are especially timely in light of the growing instrumentalisation of migrants at Europe’s borders by Belarus and Russia, which has further reinforced the prominence of national security arguments in both domestic and international adjudication.