Author
General
According to data from the Ministry of the Interior, Croatia received 24,363 incoming requests under the Dublin Regulation in 2024. Based on these requests, a total of 1,698 individuals were returned to Croatia, with the majority of incoming transfers originating from Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and France. Most of the returned individuals were transported by air, except in cases of returns from neighboring countries such as Slovenia or Hungary, where road transport and police escort were most commonly used.[1]
In 2024, there was an increase in both incoming and outgoing transfers compared to 2023. In 2024, Croatia received a total of 1,698 incoming transfers which were carried out from the following Member States: Austria (249), Belgium (90), Czech Republic (7), Denmark (8), Finland (18), France (215), Greece (1), Germany (514), Hungary (11), Iceland (1), Italy (1), Liechtenstein (1), Luxembourg (12), Netherlands (106), Norway (42), Poland (2), Slovakia (4), Slovenia (57), Sweden (11), and Switzerland (348).[2]
The primary legal basis for the majority of returns was Article 18(1)(b) of the Dublin Regulation, which stipulates that a Member State must accept an applicant whose application is under review and who has submitted an application in another Member State or is present in the territory of another Member State without a residence permit.
Statistics also indicate that the individuals most frequently returned to Croatia were nationals of Afghanistan, Syria, and Russia.
In addition to incoming requests, Croatia submitted 779 outgoing requests to other Member States in 2024 and carried out 18 outgoing transfers to:[3] Austria (4), Belgium (1), Bulgaria (1), France (5), Italy (1), Germany (3), Netherlands (1), and Spain (2).[4]
In the report for 2024, the Ombudsman for Children stated that when unaccompanied children find themselves in Croatia, they generally request reunification with their parents or closest relatives who are already in another EU Member State. In accordance with the Dublin Regulation, in 2024 Member States sent 166 take charge requests to Croatia, of which 74 were accepted, 69 relating to children. Croatia sent 6 requests to other Member States, of which 5 were accepted, 3 relating to children. The duration of the procedure in these cases depends on the available evidence, such as a marriage or birth certificate or a certificate of kinship, and on the decision to accept by the other country. In the event of an accepted request, the Ministry of Interior states that transfers are carried out as soon as possible. The family reunification procedure in another EU country is often complicated and lengthy, so unaccompanied children often choose an illegal and more dangerous way of travelling.[5]
Application of the Dublin criteria
Croatia does not use any national legislation to incorporate the Dublin III Regulation, as it is directly applicable, but refers to it in Articles 2 and 43 LITP, specifying that the application will be dismissed if the responsibility of another Member State has been established. In that respect, the LITP does not establish criteria to determine the State responsible, but the Ministry of Interior, when deciding on a case, simply refers to the criteria listed in the Dublin Regulation. The Dublin procedure is applied whenever the criteria listed in the Dublin Regulation are met.
According to the Ministry of Interior,[6] in 2024 Croatia received 24,363 incoming requests in the following categories: 22,722 take back requests, 914 take charge requests, 151 requests for information, 523 requests for the take back reconsideration and 53 requests for reconsideration of take charge requests. In 2024, there were a total of 1,698 incoming transfers.
The most common criterion used for incoming requests was Article 18(1)(b) of the Dublin Regulation, which states that a Member State has to take back an applicant whose application is under examination and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document. Requests were most often accepted on the grounds of Article 20(5) of the Dublin Regulation, which stipulates that an applicant who is present in another Member State without a residence document or who there lodges an application for international protection after withdrawing their first application made in a different Member State during the process of determining the Member State responsible shall be taken back, under the conditions laid down in Articles 23, 24, 25 and 29, by the Member State in which that application for international protection was first lodged, with a view to completing the process of determining the Member State responsible.
As for outgoing requests, in 2024, Croatia submitted 779 outgoing requests under the Dublin Regulation in the following categories: 682 take back requests, 14 take charge requests, 80 requests for information, 2 requests for the reconsideration of take back request and 1 request for reconsideration of a take charge request. The most common criterion for outgoing requests was Article 18(1)(b) of the Dublin Regulation, which states that a responsible Member State has to take back an applicant whose application is under examination and who made an application in another Member State or who is on the territory of another Member State without a residence document.
Procedure
Within the Department for international protection procedure, officials working within the Unit for Dublin Procedure conduct Eurodac and Dublin procedures.
Where fingerprinting is temporarily impossible due to medical or other reasons, fingerprints of an applicant shall be taken as soon as those impediments cease to exist.[7]
The applicant who refuses to be fingerprinted without justified cause shall have their fingerprints taken by police officers without their consent.[8] This can also be a reason for the Ministry of Interior to issue a decision in an accelerated procedure (see section on Accelerated Procedure).[9]
According to information provided by the Ministry of Interior in 2019, applicants are informed about Dublin and Eurodac when they express the intention to apply for international protection and during the interview for the purpose of lodging the application for international protection.[10] Information is available in Arabic, English, Farsi, French, Croatian, Somali, Turkish, and Urdu.[11] No new information is available on this matter since 2019.The Ministry of Interior does not provide a written translation of the Dublin decision, but the decision is explained orally by the interpreter during its delivery in a language that the applicant for international protection understands.
According to information provided by the Ministry of Interior in 2018, in relation to the CJEU ruling in Case C-670/16 Mengesteab,[12] authorities apply the Dublin procedure before the application for international protection is lodged (i.e., from the registration of the intention to apply for international protection)[13] and the three-month deadline for issuing a “take charge” request starts running from the moment they receive the notification of registration of intention to apply for international protection by the police station (see Registration), not from the moment the application is lodged. The deadline for a “take back” request is two months from the Eurodac “hit”.
Individualised guarantees
During 2023, Belgium requested individual guarantees from Croatia for all approved incoming requests, while Slovenia and Denmark requested individual guarantees for some approved incoming requests. During 2023, Croatia requested individual guarantees from Bulgaria and Greece for outgoing requests.[14]
No information on this matter is available for 2024.
Transfers
According to the information provided by the Ministry of Interior, the time between submitting an outgoing request and the effective transfer to the responsible Member State in practice will depend on the circumstances of each case, but as a rule it is no longer than 6 months. Requests which are sent based on a Eurodac hit must be sent within 2 months. In the case of “take charge” requests, the deadline for response is 2 months, and if it is a take-back request, the deadline for response is 2 weeks. The transfer is organised within 6 months from the day of the positive response, i.e., acceptance of the request, or final decision on appeal or review in case of suspensive effect.
In the decision on acceptance of responsibility for an individual person, each member State states the conditions of transfer according to which accepted persons should be transferred. Transfers are announced using standardised forms, within the prescribed announcement deadlines. The most frequently used method of transfer from Croatia, as well as to Croatia, is by plane accompanied by police officers. Transfers in Croatia are carried out by land, as a rule, with Slovenia, and in some cases also with Austria, in cases of transfer of families if airline tickets for the same plane are not available.
If it is determined that Croatia is responsible, the Member State that sent the request is obliged to organise the transfer. A transfer is announced for each person and the transfer date is confirmed. The border crossing where the person will arrive and the Service for the Reception and Accommodation of Applicants for International Protection are informed, for prior organisation of adequate reception and accommodation. During 2024, the largest number of persons were transferred from Germany (514), Switzerland (348), Austria (249), France (215), and the Netherlands (106).
All transfers of adults, including voluntary transfers, are accompanied by police officers, as Croatia Airlines requires an escort in all transfer cases to avoid possible inconvenience on the plane. According to experience so far, people agree to transfer to almost all Member States, except to Greece and Bulgaria.
Unaccompanied minors travel accompanied by special guardians, and since these are voluntary transfers, the accompaniment of police officers is not required.
The costs necessary for the transfer are covered by the Member State carrying out the transfer.
During 2024, a significant number of individuals that had returned to Croatia from other Member States suffered from severe mental and physical health conditions, posing a considerable challenge for institutions and organizations operating within the system in Croatia. Officials from the Ministry of the Interior, as well as non-governmental organizations providing support at the Reception Center for Applicants for International Protection, face daily difficulties in ensuring adequate accommodation, medical care, and psychosocial support for those in urgent need. Many individuals were returned to Croatia unexpectedly, often in the middle of the night, without prior notice and without the opportunity to collect their personal belongings or medical documentation. This practice further complicated the provision of timely medical assistance and support, particularly for vulnerable groups such as individuals with chronic illnesses and trauma survivors. Additionally, the forced separation from family members at the time of return further worsened their emotional and psychological well-being, deepening feelings of insecurity and distrust in the international protection system.[15]
The transfer to the responsible Member State is organised by the Unit for Dublin procedure of the Ministry of Interior, in cooperation with the receiving Member State.
For examples of relevant case law from different EU countries on appeals against decisions allowing Dublin transfers to Croatia, see The situation of Dublin returnees.
Personal interview
There is no special interview conducted in the Dublin procedure, since questions relevant to that procedure are part of the interview when expressing the intention to apply for international protection before the police, and also of the first interview that is conducted by the officials of the Reception Centre for Applicants for international protection upon the lodging of the application.
If there are elements in connection with the Dublin procedure which were not mentioned in the application, for instance there is a Eurodac hit and the applicant has not mentioned that they were in another Member State, an additional interview can be conducted.
The same procedural rules as for the regular procedure apply during this part of the procedure, and the same guarantees as for the first interview in the regular procedure will apply (see section on Regular Procedure: Personal Interview).
Appeal
The decision on the transfer includes the grounds for the application of the Dublin Regulation and information on how to lodge a lawsuit against the decision. The lawsuit, for which applicants receive free legal assistance, must be lodged before the Administrative Court within eight days from the delivery of the decision.[16]
The courts and their judges are not specialised in asylum cases. The court examines the lawfulness of the Dublin decision. A personal hearing can be omitted on the decision of the judge: therefore, in some cases the oral procedure is conducted in absentia (with only the legal representative present). In Dublin cases, it happens when the complainant disputes only the application of the law and not the facts of the case, and the parties have not made a request for a hearing to be held. However according to the knowledge of the Croatian Law Centre, in practice hearings are held in Dublin cases as well.
A lawsuit against a decision determining the responsibility of another EEA Member State for examining the application for international protection has suspensive effect. According to the information available to the Croatian Law Centre, in the past courts did not always take into account the level of reception conditions,[17] the procedural guarantees and the recognition rates in the responsible Member State when reviewing Dublin decisions. However no updated information on this is available as of 2024.
There is no publicly available data on how many Dublin decisions on transfers to other Member States were actually challenged before the Administrative Court since Croatia became an EU Member State. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn on whether the Administrative Court takes into account the conditions and guarantees in the responsible Member state when reviewing the Dublin decision. The Administrative Court in Zagreb reported that information on Dublin cases should not be entered in the “eSpis” application (an application used by courts), so no information is available on Dublin Cases before the Administrative Court in Zagreb in 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024.[18]
Legal assistance
The same rules as in the regular procedure apply for access to free legal assistance during the Dublin procedure, meaning that free legal aid includes assistance in the preparation of the lawsuit and representation before the Administrative Court,[19] if requested by the applicant.
Suspension of transfers
After accessing the EU, Croatia suspended transfers of applicants for international protection to Greece. Where there was no responsible Member State other than Greece, in previous years Croatia took responsibility for the examination of the asylum application. However, from data provided by the Ministry of Interior, it can be inferred that this changed in 2017. The Ministry of Interior reported that, according to the Commission Recommendation of 8 December 2016, the Dublin Unit began sending requests to Greece in cases where, under the conditions of the Dublin Regulation, it was found out that Greece is responsible for examining an application for international protection. According to their information until August 2018, all received answers were negative and no transfer has been carried out since 15 March 2017.[20]
In 2023, 31 outgoing requests were sent to Greece, out of which 28 were outgoing take back requests.[21]
No information is available for 2024.
More about the suspensions of transfers to Croatia can be found above under The situation of Dublin returnees.
The situation of Dublin returnees
The number of applicants for international protection arriving from European Union countries under the Dublin III Regulation to Croatia began to rise again in 2022, with a total of 167 seekers transferred, followed by a significant increase in 2023 (897 incoming transfers). In 2024, Croatia saw a record number of incoming transfers under Dublin III. Official statistical data from the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia indicate that 1,698 incoming transfers were recorded in 2024, with the highest numbers of people coming from Germany (514), Switzerland (348), Austria (249), France (215), the Netherlands (106), Belgium (90), Slovenia (57), and Norway (42).[22]
Applicants who are returned from other Member States in principle do not face any obstacles in accessing the procedure for granting international protection in Croatia. However, according to the information from 2016 those who had left Croatia before the end of procedure and therefore had their case suspended, have to re-apply for international procedure (if they wish) once they return to the country, and thereby re-enter their initial procedure, in line with Article 18(2) of the Dublin III Regulation. On the other hand, persons whose application was explicitly withdrawn or rejected before leaving Croatia are considered subsequent applicants upon return, contrary to the requirements of the Regulation.[23]
For persons whose applications would be considered as subsequent applications, the admissibility of the subsequent application must be assessed based on the facts and evidence it contains, and in connection with the facts and evidence already used in the previous procedure. The LITP states that a subsequent application by a foreigner under a transfer shall be considered in the responsible Member State of the European Economic Area, but a subsequent application lodged in the Republic of Croatia shall be dismissed as inadmissible. The subsequent application must be comprehensible and contain the relevant facts and evidence which arose after the decision on their initial application has become final, or which the applicant, for justified reasons, did not present during the previous procedure relating to establishing the fulfilment of the conditions for approval of international protection. The admissibility of the subsequent application shall be assessed on the basis of the facts and evidence it contains, and in connection with the facts and evidence already used in the previous procedure. When it is established that the subsequent application is inadmissible, the Ministry of the Interior shall decide on the subsequent application no later than within 15 days from the day of receiving it. The subsequent application shall be dismissed if it is established that it is inadmissible. When it is established that the subsequent application is admissible, a decision shall be issued once again on the substance of the application, and the previous decision is revoked. The Ministry of the Interior shall then issue a decision in an accelerated procedure no later than within 2 months from the day an admissible subsequent application is lodged.[24]
According to the Centre for Peace Studies (CPS), persons transferred to Croatia under the Dublin Regulation were often not informed about the transfer procedure itself, the possibility of challenging it, or the available legal remedies. At the same time, they were not provided with adequate access to legal remedies against unlawful police conduct during the execution of their transfer to Croatia. Namely, CPS stressed that there have been reports of police violence by law enforcement officers from other countries during transfers, including the case of a woman to whom the CPS provided legal assistance after she was forcibly returned from Switzerland just two days after a spontaneous miscarriage. CPS also reported that in the first half of 2024, individuals arriving at Zagreb Airport were mostly registered as applicants for international protection and had to organize their own transportation to the Reception Centre for Applicants for International Protection in Zagreb, while vulnerable groups, including families with young children, were transported to the Reception Centre for Applicants for International Protection in Kutina, which is primarily intended for families and vulnerable groups. However, the situation worsened in the second half of the year. Returned individuals began reporting that police officers at the airport merely provided them with the address of a reception centre and immediately instructed them to leave the airport. One returnee who received legal assistance from the CPS described being returned from Germany together with two families with small children. He was only given the address of the Kutina centre and was told to leave the airport immediately. Another individual reported spending two days at the airport without food or money until a local citizen helped her get in touch with CPS.[25]
The MDM-BELGIQUE reported that through their daily direct work with beneficiaries, they observed that many applicants for international protection returned under Dublin III Regulation suffer from various physical and/or mental health issues. In 2024, transfers included oncology patients, individuals with chronic illnesses, people with disabilities, children with developmental disorders and special needs, and individuals who had started treatment in their previous country of residence (including interruptions in hospitalization). There was also an increase in patients undergoing psychiatric and psychotherapeutic treatment for severe mental health conditions. It was noted that transfers often did not include the transfer of medical records, which delayed the continuation of treatment and disrupted the continuity of care for those arriving in Croatia under Dublin III. In 2024, there was also an increase in the number of applicants suffering from mental health disorders. Notably, 64% of patients with mental health conditions staying at the Reception Center for Applicants for International Protection in Zagreb were transferred under the Dublin III Regulation. These patients had previously been treated for various disorders, including paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified non-organic psychosis, suicidality, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive episodes, addiction syndrome, anxiety disorders, panic disorders, personality disorders, and adjustment disorders. In many cases, symptoms were exacerbated or new mental health issues developed after the transfer. This situation led to frequent crisis interventions and hospitalizations organized by the MDM-BELGIQUE team following transfers. Given the intense and often traumatic stress associated with involuntary transfers, it is crucial to highlight the retraumatizing risks of transferring applicants for international protection under Dublin III, especially for vulnerable individuals – people with pre-existing mental health conditions, severe chronic or acute conditions, individuals who have scheduled medical procedures, those subjected to force during transfer, people separated from family or support networks, and individuals who have lived in the transfer country for an extended period.[26]
The same was reported by the UNICEF Office in Croatia.[27]
According to information from the Croatian Red Cross (CRC),[28] during 2024 they encountered challenges in working with applicants for international protection who were returned under the Dublin procedure. Those applicants refused to cooperate with the staff of the Reception Center and to participate in social activities while expressing dissatisfaction with the accommodation and the Dublin return. A common problem with these applicants was medical assistance upon arrival (as they included persons who had undergone surgery immediately before return, mothers with newborns, persons with chronic diseases requiring necessary medications and treatment, etc.).
According to the report prepared by the Swiss Refugee Council,[29] the Croatian Red Cross (CRC) is informed by the Ministry of Interior about the number of announced Dublin transfers and later receives additional details about the number of people actually expected. Upon arrival in Croatia, the border police at the airport verify whether the individual has already submitted an application for international protection. If not, the transferred person is registered at the airport. According to information provided by the Ministry of Interior to the Swiss Refugee Council, the mode of transport to the reception centre varies depending on capacity: some arrivals are transported by the border police, others travel independently and, occasionally, staff from the reception centre pick up returnees at the airport.
Switzerland predominantly transfers very vulnerable individuals, seriously ill persons, and large families to Croatia. According to the CRC, incoming Dublin returnees are often transferred without their belongings. Those affected report that they were not given sufficient time to pack their suitcases before being transferred.
As for the transfers to Croatia, national courts developed different practices in the evaluation of the conditions that returnees would face in the Croatia (see more above under: Suspension of transfers).[30]
According to MdM-BELGIQUE, in 2024, it was observed, for a greater number of Dublin arrivals of applicants for international protection from other EU countries to Croatia, that the transfer of persons with serious illnesses does not include the transfer of their medical documentation, which delays the continuation of treatment and continuity of care for the most vulnerable applicants for international protection who were transferred to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation.[31]
Caselaw from other Dublin countries regarding transfers to Croatia
For examples of relevant case law from different EU+ countries on appeals against decisions allowing Dublin transfers to Croatia, see below.
Germany: After the Regional Administrative Court overturned the decision regarding a Dublin transfer of an Iraqi family to Croatia, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) lodged an onward appeal. The Higher Administrative Court of Lower Saxony upheld the appeal and ruled that, although country information on Croatia showed that there were allegations of repeated pushbacks from Croatia to Serbia or Bosnia-Herzegovina, there was insufficient evidence that ‘chain deportations’ or other violations of rights under Article 4 of the EU Charter and Article 3 of the ECHR occurred for Dublin returnees. As regards reception conditions, the Court decided that the mere fact that two of the applicants were minors did not preclude the transfer to Croatia, because basic care was also sufficiently provided to families with minor children there.[32]
Netherlands: The Council of State ruled that the principle of mutual trust for Dublin transfers to Croatia may be relied upon. A Syrian applicant challenged a decision on a Dublin transfer, arguing that in Croatia he would be exposed to serious risks, including pushbacks and inadequate reception conditions. The Council of State referred to the CJEU judgments of Jawo (Case C-163/17) and X v State Secretary for Justice and Security (C-392/22). The Council found that, while pushbacks are conducted by Croatian authorities, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Dublin claimants faced a real risk of being ill-treated. The Council stated that, according to available reports, Dublin claimants were admitted to the asylum procedure without any known obstacles following a transfer. The Council also noted that the mere theoretical possibility of a pushback because Dublin claimants cannot be distinguished from other asylum applicants, as they receive the same asylum applicant identification card, was not enough to establish a real risk as required by Dutch courts. The Council of State also held that access to reception facilities was generally sufficient, as Croatia had an occupation rate of approximately 61% by the end of 2023, and Croatia was largely a transit country with only a small fraction of arrivals applying for asylum and requiring accommodation. The Council also referenced the efforts of the authorities to manage inflow, noting that a new reception facility with 520 spaces opened in Dugi Dol in November 2023, aimed at assisting with initial registration and screening before transferring individuals to the main centres in Zagreb and Kutina. The Council also noted that reports from the Croatian Law Centre and the Croatian Ombudsperson confirmed that instances of overcrowding were isolated rather than systemic issues. The Council found no evidence that the applicant’s individual circumstances would result in a real risk of ill-treatment, as Croatia provided asylum applicants with access to the procedure and to reception, as well as an asylum applicant identification card and legal assistance.[33]
Slovenia: In Slovenia, the Supreme Court determined that there were no personal circumstances that would prevent the transfer of the applicants to Croatia owing to a well-founded risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under the Dublin III Regulation. In appeals against decisions on Dublin transfers to Croatia, the Supreme Court ruled that the applicants did not provide any arguments or evidence on personal circumstances that would lead to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment upon a transfer. The Supreme Court found in the second case that allegations of pushbacks in Croatia as evidence of systematic deficiencies in the asylum procedure were irrelevant because upon a Dublin transfer the applicant will already have the status of an applicant for international protection under the Dublin III Regulation.[34]
In another case, the Slovenian Supreme Court ruled that there were no systemic deficiencies in Croatia’s asylum and reception system that would prevent the applicant and their minor child from being transferred under the Dublin III Regulation, citing the principle of mutual trust, and that the minor’s situation did not constitute an exceptional circumstance that would violate Article 4 of the EU Charter upon transfer. The case concerned a family with a 6-month-old child that contested a decision regarding a Dublin transfer to Croatia on grounds of inadequate reception conditions and an alleged violation of the principle of the best interests of the child. The Administrative Court allowed the appeal and stated that the Ministry of Interior incorrectly assessed the best interest of the child and that individual guarantees were needed. In an onward appeal submitted by the Ministry of the Interior, however, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision and reiterated the scope of the principle of mutual trust between Member States. It stated that a breach of the recast RCD is not sufficient to rebut such a presumption. On the best interest of the child, it found it to be unproven that the child faced any exceptional situation preventing the transfer. The court underlined that the lower court requested too high standards when conditioning the transfer to an equivalent accommodation in Slovenia.[35]
In the third case the Supreme Court confirmed the Administrative Court’s decision that there is a distinction between the police treatment of those who illegally cross the border and the treatment of those transferred to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation, concluding that there were no systemic deficiencies in Croatia preventing the Dublin transfer. In an onward appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the lower court’s decision which validated the transfer. The court clarified that the alleged mistreatment by the police cannot be claimed as if there was a difference between foreigners who illegally enter and may face mistreatment, and those who are transferred under the Dublin III Regulation and have the status of applicants for international protection. The court reiterated the findings in the cases of MSS v Belgium and Greece from the ECtHR and X v State Secretary for Justice and Security from the CJEU to state that Member States have a duty, on their own initiative, to consider any information on possible systemic deficiencies which they are or should be aware of that can lead to a treatment contrary to Article 4 of the EU Charter. However, the court ruled that this obligation does not apply ex officio and without any procedural obligation for the applicant to adduce evidence, based on publicly available information, to shift the burden of proof to the Ministry of the Interior.[36]
[1] Croatian Law Centre: Perspectives and Challenges of the Dublin Procedure at the First Coordination for Asylum, 31 March 2025, available at: https://www.hpc.hr/en/2025/03/31/perspectives-and-challenges-of-the-dublin-procedure-at-the-first-coordination-for-asylum/.
[2] Ministry of Interior, Statistics 2024, available at: https://mup.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2025/1/Statistika%20medjunarodna%20zastita%202024.xlsx.
[3] Croatian Law Centre: Perspectives and Challenges of the Dublin Procedure at the First Coordination for Asylum, 31 March 2025, available at: https://www.hpc.hr/en/2025/03/31/perspectives-and-challenges-of-the-dublin-procedure-at-the-first-coordination-for-asylum/.
[4] Ministry of Interior, Statistics 2024, available at: https://mup.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2025/1/Statistika%20medjunarodna%20zastita%202024.xlsx.
[5] Ombudswoman for Children: Report on the work of the Ombudswoman for Children in 2024, page 200, available at: https://dijete.hr/hr/download/izvjesce-o-radu-pravobraniteljice-za-djecu-za-2024-godinu/
[6] Croatian Law Centre: The Croatian Asylum System in 2024- National Report; available at: https://www.hpc.hr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/National-Asylum-Report-2024_CLC.pdf.
[7] Article 33(6) LITP.
[8] Article 33(7) LITP.
[9] Article 41(1)(10) LITP.
[10] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 28 January 2019.
[11] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 28 January 2019.
[12] CJEU, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) in Case C‑670/16, 26 July 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/4cl8U3y.
[13] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 10 August 2018.
[14] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 8 March 2024.
[15] Croatian Law Centre: Perspectives and Challenges of the Dublin Procedure at the First Coordination for Asylum, 31 March 2025, available at: https://www.hpc.hr/en/2025/03/31/perspectives-and-challenges-of-the-dublin-procedure-at-the-first-coordination-for-asylum/.
[16] Article 43(3) LITP.
[17] Information provided by the attorney at law, 21 January 2020.
[18] Information provided by the Administrative Court in Zagreb, 31 January 2022.; 23 January 2023., 12 January 2024.
[19] Article 60(2) LITP.
[20] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 10 August 2018.
[21] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 8 March 2024.
[22] Ministry of Interior, Statistics 2024, available at: https://mup.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2025/1/Statistika%20medjunarodna%20zastita%202024.xlsx.
[23] ECRE, Balkan route reversed, December 2016, p. 30, available at: https://bit.ly/3mWZAyE.
[24] EUAA: Information on procedural elements and rights of applicants subject to a Dublin transfer to Croatia, available at: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-05/factsheet_dublin_transfers_hr.pdf.
[25] Information provided by Centre for Peace Studies, 27 February 2025.
[26] Information provided by MDM-BELGIQUE, 17 February 2025.
[27] Information provided by UNICEF Office for Croatia, 4 February 2025.
[28] Information provided by the Croatian Red Cross, 20 January 2025.
[29] Swiss Refugee Council: Reception conditions in Croatia: Report on the situation of asylum applicants and beneficiaries of international protection in Croatia, February 2025, available at: https://www.refugeecouncil.ch/publications/dublin-state-situation-reports.
[30] ECRE, The implementation of the Dublin III Regulation in 2020, September 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3xjuHYr.
[31] Information provided by MDM-BELGIQUE, 17 February 2025.
[32] EUAA: Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law, March 2024, available at: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2024-03/2024_EUAA_Quarterly_Overview_Asylum_Case_Law_Issue1_EN.pdf.
[33] EUAA: Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law, December 2024, available at: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2024-12/2024_EUAA_Quarterly_Overview_Asylum_Case_Law_Issue4_EN.pdf.
[34] EUAA: Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law, June 2024, available at: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2024-06/2024_EUAA_Quarterly_Overview_Asylum_Case_Law_Issue2_EN.pdf.
[35] EUAA: Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law, September 2024, available at: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2024-09/2024_EUAA_Quarterly_Overview_Asylum_Case_Law_Issue3_EN.pdf.
[36] EUAA: Quarterly Overview of Asylum Case Law, September 2024, available at: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2024-09/2024_EUAA_Quarterly_Overview_Asylum_Case_Law_Issue3_EN.pdf.