Author
When the foreigner lodges a subsequent application, the authority competent to examine the application is the Department for international protection procedure of the Ministry of Interior, the same authority as in the regular procedure. The Department for international protection procedure examines the elements presented in the subsequent application in conjunction with the elements provided in the previous application and/or lawsuit.
The LITP provides a specific procedure for subsequent applications. A subsequent application for international protection is defined as the intention to apply for international protection expressed after an enforceable decision has been taken on the previous application, i.e., the previous application was rejected because the conditions were not met for asylum or subsidiary protection; or conditions were met for exclusion; or the application was rejected as manifestly unfounded as the applicant did not meet the conditions for asylum or subsidiary protection or the procedure was discontinued because the applicant withdrew the application.[1]
If a person decides to submit a subsequent application,[2] an explanation of the subsequent application should be submitted to the Reception Centre for Applicants of International Protection directly in writing or orally if the person is illiterate. The Ministry of Interior must decide on the subsequent application no later than within 15 days from the day of receiving it. This subsequent application must be comprehensible and contain the relevant facts and evidence that arose after the enforceability of the decision or that the applicant, for justified reasons, did not present during the previous procedure and which relate to establishing the conditions for granting international protection. The admissibility of the subsequent application should 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. If 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 revoked. The subsequent application should be dismissed if it is established that it is inadmissible. A subsequent application made by a foreigner under Dublin 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.
In practice under the LITP, the interview for lodging the subsequent application can be omitted when the admissibility of a subsequent application is being assessed.[3]
Under the LITP,[4] if the applicant lodges a subsequent application with the intention of postponing or preventing the enforcement of the decision on expulsion from the Republic of Croatia, he or she shall have the right of residence until the enforceability of the decision on the subsequent application. , The LITP prescribes that the Ministry shall issue a decision to dismiss a subsequent application if it assesses that it is inadmissible,[5] and that, in such cases, lawsuit to the Administrative Court does not have automatic suspensive effect,[6] (which means that the decision of the Ministry is final).[7] Said provision means that the right to residence is applicable only during the first instance procedure. However, there is also a possibility for the lawsuit to contain a request for suspensive effect.[8] If the applicant presents the lawsuit which contains a request for suspensive effect, he or she shall have the right of residence until the delivery of the judgment on granting suspensive effect.[9]
However, applicants who lodge a new subsequent application after a decision has already been issued on a previous subsequent application do not have the right of residence in the Republic of Croatia. [10]
If the conditions for the accelerated procedure are met and the subsequent application is admissible, then the Ministry of Interior must issue its decision within a two-months period. The deadline for the lawsuit in that case is then eight days for the delivery of the first instance decision, however it does not have suspensive effect. Otherwise the 15-day time limit is applicable for the Ministry of Interior to decide on subsequent applications. As in the regular procedure, the Administrative Court is the competent authority for deciding upon a law suit. If the subsequent application is dismissed as inadmissible, the deadline is eight days from the delivery of the first instance decision and does not have suspensive effect.
In 2023, 98 persons lodged subsequent applications (Burundi-15, Russian Federation -14, Turkey-14, Iraq-13, Afghanistan-8, Syria-8, DR Congo-6, Iran-5, Cuba-3, Albania-2, Algeria-2, Eritrea-1, Ethiopia-1, India-1, Nigeria-1, Palestine-1, Somalia-1, Tunisia-1).In 2023, 9 nine subsequent applications (Algeria-2, Burundi-3, Egypt-1, Guinea-1, Nigeria-1, Turkey-1) were dismissed as inadmissible.[11]
[1] Article 4(1)(13) LITP.
[2] Article 47 LITP.
[3] Article 35(8)(3) LITP.
[4] Article 53(3)-(4) LITP.
[5] Article 43(2) LITP.
[6] Article 51(1)(3) LITP.
[7] Article 4(1)(21) LITP.
[8] Article 51(2) LITP.
[9] Article 53 LITP.
[10] Article 53 (4) LITP.
[11] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 8 March 2024.