Author
General
In 2022, Croatia received 11,931 incoming Dublin requests according to the following categories: 8,636 request for re-acceptance (take back), 1,882 requests for the acceptance of responsibility (take charge), 618 requests for information, 743 requests for the reconsideration of requests for re-acceptance and 51 requests for reconsideration of requests for the acceptance of responsibility. The majority of incoming requests came from Germany (5,054), Slovenia (2,687), Switzerland (1,212), France (1,121) and Belgium (1,100). As for outgoing requests, in 2022, Croatia submitted 2,272 outgoing requests under the Dublin Regulation in the following categories: 1,718 requests for reacceptance (take back), 241 requests for the acceptance of responsibility (take charge), 254 requests for information, 36 requests for the reconsideration of applications for reacceptance and 23 requests for reconsideration of requests for the acceptance of responsibility. Most of the outgoing requests were sent to Greece (1,654), Bulgaria (188), Germany (164) and Hungary (36).[1]
In 2022, only 1 outgoing Dublin transfer was carried out to Sweden, while Croatia received a total of 167 incoming transfers mainly from Germany (89), Austria (36), Switzerland (18), Slovenia (8) and France (5).
Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December 2022
| Outgoing Dublin transfers from Croatia | Incoming Dublin transfers to Croatia | ||
| Total | 1 | Total | 167 |
| Sweden | 1 | Austria | 36 |
| Belgium | 2 | ||
| Denmark | 2 | ||
| France | 5 | ||
| Germany | 89 | ||
| Norway | 4 | ||
| Poland | 1 | ||
| Slovenia | 8 | ||
| Sweden | 2 | ||
| Switzerland | 18 | ||
Source: Ministry of Interior, available at: https://bit.ly/3C0HJuR.
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.
In 2022,the most common criterion for both incoming and outgoing requests was Art. 18, para. 1, item b) of the Dublin Regulation.[2]
In June 2020, a meeting was held between representatives of the Ministry of Interior and representatives of the Ministry of Labour, Pension System, Family and Social Policy to improve cooperation in the implementation of family reunification within the Dublin procedure.[3] Following that, a standard operative procedure (SOP) has been drafted to contribute to the coordination in process of family reunification of unaccompanied minors.[4] There is no information available as to whether it has been implemented in practice in 2021 and 2022.
Procedure
Within the Department for international protection procedure, officials working within the Unit for Dublin Procedure conduct Eurodac and Dublin procedures.
According to the information provided by the Ministry of Interior in January 2019, there are eight stationery LiveScan machines for taking fingerprints for Eurodac purposes, two new and one old in the Reception Centre for Applicants for International Protection in Zagreb (1 currently at Border Police Station in Cetingrad in Police administration Karlovačka), one in the Reception Centre for Applicants for International Protection in Kutina, one old and one new in the Reception Centre for Foreigners in Ježevo, one in the Transit Reception Centre in Trilj, and one in Transit Reception Centre in Tovarnik. There are also 24 portable devices: two in the Reception Centre for Applicants for International Protection in Zagreb (1 currently at the Police station Donji Lapac in Police administration ličko-senjska), one in the Reception Centre for Foreigners in Ježevo, one in the Transit Reception Centre in in Tovarnik, while other devices are located in various police administrations and police stations on the Croatian territory. Since October 2017 fingerprinting is done through Eurodac LiveScan machines, which was the reason why portable devices were located in all police administration centres. Only when an applicant or irregular migrant cannot be brought to the police station or the device cannot be brought to the police station where the person is located are fingerprints taken on paper and then scanned to Eurodac LiveScan or are fingerprints taken by the officials in the Reception Centre for Applicants for International Protection once person arrives there.[5]
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.[6]
The applicant who refuses to be fingerprinted without justified cause shall have his or her fingerprints taken by police officers without his or her consent.[7] This can also be a reason for the Ministry of Interior to render a decision in an accelerated procedure (see section on Accelerated Procedure).[8]
According to the Ministry of Interior, 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.[9] Information is available in Arabic, English, Farsi, French, Croatian, Somali, Turkish, and Urdu.[10] 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 the Ministry of Interior, there have been changes in the practice in relation to the CJEU ruling in Case C-670/16 Mengesteab. Authorities apply the Dublin procedure before application for international protection is lodged i.e. from the registration of the intention to apply for international protection[11] and the 3-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 2 months from the Eurodac “hit”.
Transfers
In practice, if another EU Member State accepts responsibility for the applicant, the time for the transfer to the responsible Member State will depend on the circumstances of each case. According to the information provided by the Ministry of Interior in 2018, the time between the day when another Member State accepts responsibility and the transfer being made is approximately 2 months.[12] More recent information is not available. Nevertheless, Dublin transfers were postponed due to COVID-19 in 2020.[13]
As of 1 June 2021, incoming and outgoing transfers were re-established under the Dublin Regulation, the implementation of which had been suspended in the previous period due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[14]
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. According to the Ministry of Interior, the transfer is usually under escort of two police officers, or in cases of voluntary transfer of a minor it could be arranged that a staff member of the Dublin Unit escorts the minor.[15]
On 13 April 2022, the Dutch Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ruled that the IND is obliged to do further research on the situation of applicants for international protection being transferred to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation. This is due to reports of frequent pushbacks (including of applicants who are transferred to Croatia from another EU member state), which may result in a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. On 30 May 2022, the Minister for Migration announced that until this research is concluded, no Dublin transfers to Croatia will be carried out.[16]
In 2022, German Administrative Court of Stuttgart upheld an appeal against a Dublin transfer to Croatia due to systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure, characterised by the fact that applicants who have withdrawn their application before an assessment on substance are treated as subsequent applicants upon their return, which entails a risk of refoulement. The Court also suggested there may be systemic deficiencies because of the frequent indications both of violent pushbacks and chain deportation of Dublin returnees.[17]
The Belgium Council of Alien Law Litigation in its two decisions in 2022 – 278 106[18] and 278 108[19] suspended Dublin transfers to Croatia due to structural deficiencies identified for what concerned the asylum procedure and reception conditions, namely, absence of legal aid for part of the procedure and absence of a screening process for torture victims.
In Switzerland, in the course of 2022, the Federal Administrative Court rejected several appeals against Dublin transfers to Croatia .[20] The Court considered that reception conditions, although not perfect, were acceptable and that in case they were not applicants could revert to NGOs and courts for help. Cases of mistreatment by border guards were considered as individual isolated acts rather than proof of patterns of violation of international law by Croatia or of a general will to mistreat migrants; medical infrastructure was considered similar to that of Switzerland and any deficiencies could be mitigated thanks to support from NGOs and by the fact that Swiss authorities would inform Croatia of medical needs of the applicants.
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 he or she was 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 8 days from the delivery of the decision.[21]
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.
Complaints have suspensive effect. According to the information available to the Croatian Law Centre, in the past the courts did not always take into account the level of reception conditions,[22] the procedural guarantees and the recognition rates in the responsible Member State when reviewing the Dublin decision. In 2021, there was one case in which the Administrative Court referred the case back to the Ministry of Interior as it failed to take into account the individual circumstances of the client in the administrative procedure, and it did not thoroughly assess the situation in Greece to which the transfer was ordered.[23]
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 and 2022. [24]
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,[26] 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.[27] Although, no such information is available for 2022, in 2022 the highest number of outgoing requests were sent to Greece (1.654). [28]
As for transfers to Croatia, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court issued a reference judgment ordering the determining authority to examine the existence of systemic deficiencies and the general situation in Croatia in 2019. Since then, some cases were sent back to the determining authority for further clarification, e.g. regarding access to healthcare for single men, while other cases involving families with health issues were rejected. The Swiss Court generally takes into consideration reports of push-backs, in particular in the context of ”take charge” cases because the applicant needs to have access to the asylum procedure. In the context of “take back” requests, i.e. where an application for international protection has already been lodged, it is generally assumed that the applicant will not be pushed back. Diverging opinions have also been reported in the Netherlands. While the Regional Court Den Bosch ruled in 2020 that the principle of mutual trust no longer stands with Croatia due to extensive evidence of push-backs, the Council of State considered in July 2021 that the principle of mutual trust should apply to transfers to Croatia.[29]
On 13 April 2022, the Dutch Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ruled that the IND is obliged to do further research on the situation of applicants for international protection being transferred to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation. This is due to reports of frequent pushbacks (including of applicants who are transferred to Croatia from another EU member state), which may result in a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. On 30 May 2022, the Minister for Migration announced that until this research is concluded, no Dublin transfers to Croatia will be carried out.[30]
The situation of Dublin returnees
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, 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.[31]
According to the report prepared by the Swiss Refugee Council, Dublin returnees are transferred to Zagreb airport. No NGO is available at the airport, even though for very serious cases, a psychologist may be made available. Normally, an official from the Ministry of the Interior is assigned to collect arriving people at the airport. Asylum seekers are placed in a Reception centre for applicants for international protection. There is no different treatment or procedure for persons with special vulnerabilities. In reception centres, Dublin returnees are in general subjected to initial health examination and screening, during which basic screening of mental health difficulties are assessed. This is conducted through MdM. According to their information, the outcome of this assessment may be shared with the Ministry of Interior, if the patient agrees with it. This is the case especially if special needs regarding the accommodation become apparent.[32]
As for the transfers to Croatia, national courts developed different practices in the evaluation of the conditions that returnees would face in the country (see more above under: Suspension of transfers).[33]
[1] Croatian Law Centre, The Croatian Asylum System in 2022 – National Report. The report was prepared as part of the project “Legal Assistance and Capacity Building for Access to Territory and Asylum in Croatia“, with financial support of UNHCR Croatia, available in English at: https://bit.ly/434T7RL.
[2] Croatian Law Centre, The Croatian Asylum System in 2022 – National Report. The report was prepared as part of the project “Legal Assistance and Capacity Building for Access to Territory and Asylum in Croatia“, with financial support of UNHCR Croatia, available in English at: https://bit.ly/434T7RL.
[3] At the time of the meeting the name of the Ministry was still the Ministry for Demography, Family, Youth and Social Policy
[4] EMN, Bulletin number 31, August 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3dy8fR4.
[5] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 28 January 2019.
[6] Article 33(6) LITP.
[7] Article 33(7) LITP.
[8] Article 41(1)(10) LITP.
[9] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 28 January 2019.
[10] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 28 January 2019.
[11] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 10 August 2018.
[12] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 10 August 2018..
[13] EMN, Special Annex to the 30th EMN Bulletin EU Member States & Norway: responses to COVID-19 in the migration and asylum area, January – March 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3sypjKV; Ombudsman, Annual report 2020, available in Croatian at: https://bit.ly/3aaQXar.
[14] EMN Bulletin Number 35, April – June 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3IEjUup.
[15] Ibid.
[16] EMN, Bulletin n.39, April-June 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/4047pBf.
[17] Administrative Court of Stuttgart :Decision A 16 K 360/22,available at: https://bit.ly/3NgKDlT.
[18] Available at: https://bit.ly/3qnlZa3.
[19] Available at: https://bit.ly/3ONIgIc.
[20] Federal Administrative Court: F-3903/2022 available at: https://bit.ly/3MCrVU4; F-5089/2022 available at: https://bit.ly/42mmE8W; E-4341/2022 available at: https://bit.ly/3IPdavY.
[21] Article 43(3) LITP.
[22] Information provided by the attorney at law, 21 January 2020.
[23] Information provided by the attorney at law, 11 January 2022.
[24] Information provided by the Administrative Court in Zagreb, 31 January 2022.; 23 January 2023.
[25] State funded free legal aid for applicants for international protection before the Ministry of Interior ended on 31 March 2020.
[26] Article 60(2) LITP.
[27] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 10 August 2018.
[28] Croatian Law Centre, The Croatian Asylum System in 2022 – National Report. The report was prepared as part of the project “Legal Assistance and Capacity Building for Access to Territory and Asylum in Croatia“, with financial support of the UNHCR Croatia: available in English at: https://bit.ly/434T7RL.
[29] ECRE, The implementation of the Dublin III Regulation in 2020, September 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3xfv1an.
[30] EMN, Bulletin n.39, April-June 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/4047pBf.
[31] ECRE, Balkan route reversed, December 2016, 30.
[32] Swiss Refugee Council, Situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection with mental health problems in Croatia, available at: https://bit.ly/3DZ09MS.
[33] ECRE, The implementation of the Dublin III Regulation in 2020, September 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3xjuHYr.