Author
General
According to data from the MoI, in 2025 Croatia received 14,882 incoming requests in the following categories: 11, 558 take back requests, 804 take charge requests, 1,601 requests for information, 858 requests for the take back reconsideration and 61 requests for reconsideration of take-charge requests.[1]
A total of 1,364 individuals were returned to Croatia, with the majority of incoming transfers originating from
Germany (572), France (178), Switzerland (172), Austria (149), Netherlands (123), Belgium (49), Slovenia (29), Hungary (22) Norway (18) and Sweden (18).[2] Regarding the nationalities of individuals transferred to Croatia, the top ten groups were nationals of Türkiye (297), the Russian Federation (271), Syria (256), followed by the Afghanistan (248), Morocco (43), China including Hong Kong (42), Palestine (19), Algeria (18), Iran (17) and Iraq (16).[3]
In addition to incoming requests, Croatia submitted 3,425 outgoing requests to other Member States in 2025 in the following categories: 2,620 take back requests, 586 take charge requests, 130 requests for information, 86 requests for the reconsideration of take back request and 3 request for reconsideration of a take charge request[4] and carried out 28 outgoing transfers to: Germany (8), Switzerland (5), Spain (4), France (2), Slovenia (2), Portugal (2), while one transfer each was carried out to Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Sweden, and Malta.[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.
Both incoming and outgoing requests were predominantly submitted under Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 604/2013. A significant number of requests in both categories were also made under Articles 12(1), 12(3), and 12(4) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, based on issued visas or residence permits.[7]
In the report for 2025, the Ombudsman for Children stated that in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, in 2025, Member States sent 120 take charge requests to Croatia related to family reunification, of which 59 were accepted, 56 relating to children. Croatia sent 13 requests to other Member States, of which 9 were accepted, 5 relating to children.[8]
Procedure
The Service for Dublin Procedure, among other duties, conducts administrative proceedings and organizes, directs, and coordinates operational tasks related to determining which EU Member State is responsible for examining an application for international protection. It monitors and ensures the quality of business processes and decisions, and organizes transfers both to the Republic of Croatia and from the Republic of Croatia to the responsible Member State.
The Department for Incoming and Outgoing Requests, inter alia, conducts the procedure for determining the EU Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection. Meanwhile, the Department for Transfers, among others, is responsible for organizing transfers both to the Republic of Croatia as the Member State responsible for examining an application, and from the Republic of Croatia to other responsible Member State.
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.[10]
The applicant who refuses to be fingerprinted without justified cause shall have their fingerprints taken by police officers without their consent.[11] This can also be a reason for the Ministry of Interior to issue a decision in an accelerated procedure (see section on Accelerated Procedure).[12]
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.[13] Information is available in Arabic, English, Farsi, French, Croatian, Somali, Turkish, and Urdu.[14] 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,[15] 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)[16] 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.[17]
No information on this matter is available for 2024.
During 2025, Belgium, Slovenia, and Denmark requested individual guarantees for certain approved incoming requests. In 2025, Croatia requested individual guarantees in cases related to the outgoing requests from Bulgaria and the Hellenic Republic.[18]
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. In 2025, there were a total of 1,364 incoming transfers. During 2025, the largest number of persons were transferred from the following ten countries: Germany (572), France (178), Switzerland (172), Austria (149), Netherlands (123), Belgium (49), Slovenia (29), Hungary (22) Norway (18) and Sweden (18).
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.
Through daily direct work with applicants for international protection, Médecins du Monde[19] in 2025 once again observed that many applicants for international protection returned under Dublin III Regulation suffer from various physical and/or mental health issues. In 2025, transfers to Croatia included oncology patients, individuals with chronic illnesses, people with disabilities, newborns, children with serious congenital diseases and individuals who had started treatment in their previous country of residence. It was also noted that transfers often did not include the transfer of medical records, which in some cases delayed the continuation of treatment and disrupted the continuity of care for those arriving in Croatia under Dublin III.
Among the documented cases, particular attention was drawn to the transfer of a child with a severe genetic haemoglobin disorder and recurrent crises that could not be adequately treated in Croatia. Following nearly six months of stay and medical treatment in Croatia, the child was formally arranged for a return transfer to Switzerland for the continuation of treatment. The transfer was facilitated through cooperation between the MoI, MdM and a specialist from the Institute for Paediatric Oncology, as well as through the work and advocacy efforts of child’s family members and humanitarian organisations in Switzerland.
In 2025, the increasing trend in the number of applicants with mental health disorders persisted. Notably, more than 60% 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, PTSD, 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 MdM following transfers. Among the documented cases, particular attention was drawn to a woman who was a survivor of gender-based violence and who attempted suicide immediately after her organized transfer to Croatia. Thanks to the prompt response of the medical and psychological support teams, emergency services were called and the patient was first admitted to an acute ward and subsequently hospitalized in a psychiatric facility.
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.[20]
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.
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, 2024 and 2025.[21]
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,[23] 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.
In 2023, 31 outgoing requests were sent to Greece, out of which 28 were outgoing take back requests.[24]
No information is available for 2024 or 2025. During 2025, Croatia requested individual guarantees in cases related to the outgoing requests from Bulgaria and the Hellenic Republic.[25]
In 2025, allegations of pushbacks and mistreatment at the Croatian border continued to be monitored by EU member states’national courts. However, courts across the EU maintained that alleged police misconduct during irregular entries does not constitute evidence of systemic flaws within Croatia’s asylum system. These rulings emphasized that police actions occurring prior to a formal application for international protection are not a determining factor in assessing the stability of the asylum system.[26] This interpretation was further supported by an April 2025 decision from the UN Committee against Torture, which, while acknowledging reports of border ill-treatment, concluded that Switzerland would not breach Article 3 of the Convention agains Torture by transferring an Afghan applicant to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation, stating that the alleged mistreatment during border pushbacks did not automatically imply a personal risk of ill treatment after a Dublin transfer.[27]
More about the suspensions of transfers to Croatia can be found below 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 1,698 incoming transfers under Dublin III.[28] In 2025, there were a total of 1,364 incoming transfers. Of these, the largest number of people were transferred from the following ten countries: Germany (572), France (178), Switzerland (172), Austria (149), Netherlands (123), Belgium (49), Slovenia (29), Hungary (22), Norway (18), and Sweden (18).[29]
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.[30]
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.[31]
According to the Centre for Peace Studies (CPS), the practice of returning individuals to Zagreb Airport without providing them with the information on the nexts steps they are reqired to do as applicants persisted throughtout the 2025. Upon arrival at Zagreb Airport, persons were given a paper containing the address of the Reception centre for Applicants for International Protection. Consequently, they were left to arrange their own transportation, often without prior registration or instructions in a language they understand.[32]
The MDM-BELGIQUE reported that through their daily direct work with beneficiaries, they once again observed that many applicants for international protection returned under Dublin III Regulation suffer from various physical and/or mental health issues. In 2025, transfers included oncology patients, individuals with chronic illnesses, people with disabilities, newborns, children with serious congenital diseases and individuals who had started treatment in their previous country of residence. It was also noted that transfers often did not include the transfer of medical records, which in some cases delayed the continuation of treatment and disrupted the continuity of care for those arriving in Croatia under Dublin III. Among the documented cases, particular attention was drawn to the involuntary transfer of a child with a severe genetic haemoglobin disorder and recurrent crises that could not be adequately treated in Croatia. Following nearly six months of stay and medical treatment in Croatia, the child was formally arranged for a return transfer to Switzerland for the continuation of treatment. The transfer was facilitated through cooperation between the MoI, MdM and a specialist from the Institute for Paediatric Oncology, as well as through the work and advocacy efforts of child’s family members and humanitarian organisations in Switzerland. In 2025, the increasing trend in the number of applicants with mental health disorders persisted. Notably, more than 60% of patients with mental health conditions staying at the Reception centre for applicants for international protection in Zagreb were transferred under 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 team following transfers. Among the documented cases, particular attention was drawn to a woman who was a survivor of gender-based violence and who attempted suicide immediately after her organized transfer to Croatia. Thanks to the prompt response of the medical and psychological support teams, emergency services were called and the patient was first admitted to an acute ward and subsequently hospitalized in a psychiatric facility.[33]
According to information from the CRC,[34] during 2025 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. Additional challenges arose from the increased healthcare needs of Dublin returnees immediately upon arrival, as there was a significant rise in the number of individuals with diagnosed mental health conditions.
According to the report prepared by the Swiss Refugee Council in February 2025,[35] the CRC is informed by the MoI 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 under Suspension of transfers).[36]
According to MdM-BELGIQUE, in 2025, for a greater number of Dublin arrivals of applicants for international protection from other EU countries to Croatia, the practice observed in previous years has continued (i.e., 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.[37]
Caselaw from other Dublin countries regarding transfers to Croatia
The UN Committe against Torture issued a ruling in April 2025 that recognised reports of ill treatment at Croatia’s borders, yet ultimately found that such practices did not necessarily apply to individuals subject to a Dublin transfer.[38] The Committe against Torture found that Switzerland would not breach Article 3 of the CAT by transferring an Afghan applicant to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation, stating that the alleged mistreatment during border pushbacks did not automatically imply a personal risk of ill treatment after a Dublin transfer. Furthermore, it dismissed the applicant’s claim regarding a lack of access to the asylum procedure, a risk of refoulement to his home country and complaints related to healthcare in Croatia.
National Courts generally did not find systemic deficiencies in Croatia.[39]
Denmark: The Refugee Appeals Board decided to resume the processing of cases concerning transfers to Croatia after they were previously suspended pending a request for a general guarantee from Croatian authorities ensuring that applicants will have their asylum applications assessed in compliance with EU law and international obligations. The decision to resume processing cases was taken despite the absence of general guarantees from the Croation authorities after 4 months, in light of the Dublin III Regulation’s objective of rapid determination of responsibility. For cases submitted before the suspension was applied, the board decided that Denmark should assume responsibility, applying the discretionary clause under Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation. Regarding cases submitted after the suspension decision, the board decided to remit them to the Immigration Office to decide if deadlines for a transfer had lapsed and if Denmark must examine those cases on their merits.[40]
Slovenia: The Administrative Court of Slovenia found that the alleged police misconduct during irregular border crossings did not demonstrate systemic deficiencies in Croatia’s asylum system, emphasising that to assess the nature and seriousness of the risk of inhuman treatment, only circumstances affecting applicants after a transfer are legally relevant. However, for health reasons, the court annulled the transfer decision and ordered a re-examination. It ruled that his chronic mental illness and schizophrenia could be worsened because of the transfer, and ordered the Slovenian MoI to seek individual guarantees from the Croatian authorities that he will receive adequate care in the event of his return.[41]
[1] Croatian Law Centre: The Croatian Asylum System in 2025- National Report; available at: https://www.hpc.hr/en/2026/06/17/2025-national-asylum-system-report/
[2] Ministry of Interior, Statistics 2025, available at: https://mup.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2026/1/Web%20statistika%2021.%20sijecnja%202026..xlsx?vel=20645.
[3] Croatian Law Centre: The Croatian Asylum System in 2025- National Report; available at: https://www.hpc.hr/en/2026/06/17/2025-national-asylum-system-report/
[4] Croatian Law Centre: The Croatian Asylum System in 2025- National Report; available at: https://www.hpc.hr/en/2026/06/17/2025-national-asylum-system-report/
[5] Ministry of Interior, Statistics 2025, available at: https://mup.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2026/1/Web%20statistika%2021.%20sijecnja%202026..xlsx?vel=20645.
[6] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council; The European Annual Asylum and Migration Report (2025), available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52025DC0795.
[7] Croatian Law Centre: The Croatian Asylum System in 2025- National Report; available at: https://www.hpc.hr/en/2026/06/17/2025-national-asylum-system-report/
[8] Ombudswoman for Children: Report on the work of the Ombudswoman for Children in 2025, available at: https://dijete.hr/hr/download/izvjesce-o-radu-pravobraniteljice-za-djecu-za-2025-godinu/.
[9] Amendments of Decree on the internal structure of the Ministry of Interior, Official Gazette 90/2025 available in Croatian at: https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2025_06_90_1250.html.
[10] Article 33(6) LITP.
[11] Article 33(7) LITP.
[12] Article 41(1)(10) LITP.
[13] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 28 January 2019.
[14] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 28 January 2019.
[15] CJEU, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) in Case C‑670/16, 26 July 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/4cl8U3y.
[16] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 10 August 2018.
[17] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 8 March 2024.
[18] Croatian Law Centre: The Croatian Asylum System in 2025- National Report; available at: https://www.hpc.hr/en/2026/06/17/2025-national-asylum-system-report/
[19] Information provided by MdM, 17 February 2026.
[20] Article 43(3) LITP.
[21] Information provided by the Administrative Court in Zagreb, 31 January 2022.; 23 January 2023., 12 January 2024, 4 February 2026.
[22] State funded free legal aid for applicants for international protection before the Ministry of Interior ended on 31 March 2020.
[23] Article 60(2) LITP.
[24] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 8 March 2024.
[25] Croatian Law Centre: The Croatian Asylum System in 2025- National Report; available at: https://www.hpc.hr/en/2026/06/17/2025-national-asylum-system-report/
[26] EUAA: Jurisprudence related to the Dublin Procedure in 2025; Fact sheet EUAA/IAS/2026/43 February 2026, available at: https://www.euaa.europa.eu/publications/jurisprudence-related-dublin-procedure-2025.
[27] UN: The Committee Against Torture found that Switzerland would not breach Article 3 of the Convention by transferring an Afghan applicant to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation, stating that the alleged mistreatment during border pushbacks did not automatically imply a personal risk of ill treatment after a Dublin transfer; available at: https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=5233.
[28] Ministry of Interior, Statistics 2024, available at: https://mup.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2025/1/Statistika%20medjunarodna%20zastita%202024.xlsx.
[29] Ministry of Interior, Statistics 2025, available at: https://mup.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2026/1/Web%20statistika%2021.%20sijecnja%202026..xlsx?vel=20645.
[30] ECRE, Balkan route reversed, December 2016, p. 30, available at: https://bit.ly/3mWZAyE.
[31] 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.
[32] Information provided by Centre for Peace Studies, 2 March 2026.
[33] Information provided by MDM-BELGIQUE, 17 February 2026.
[34] Information provided by the Croatian Red Cross, 13 February 2026.
[35] 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.
[36] ECRE, The implementation of the Dublin III Regulation in 2020, September 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3xjuHYr.
[37] Information provided by MDM, 17 February 2026.
[38] UN Committee against Torture: Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the Convention, concerning communication No. 1107/2021, available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT%2FC%2F82%2FD%2F1107%2F2021&Lang=en
[39] EUAA: Jurisprudence related to the Dublin Procedure in 2025, available at: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2026-02/Factsheet43_jurisprudence_Dublin_procedure_in_2025_EN.pdf;
[40] EUAA: Jurisprudence related to the Dublin Procedure in 2025, available at: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2026-02/Factsheet43_jurisprudence_Dublin_procedure_in_2025_EN.pdf; Denmark: Refugee Appeals Board [Flygtningenævnet], available at: https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=5511
[41] EUAA: Jurisprudence related to the Dublin Procedure in 2025, available at: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/2026-02/Factsheet43_jurisprudence_Dublin_procedure_in_2025_EN.pdf; https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=5505