Author
During the procedure for international protection, detention is possible under all types of procedures, where the conditions prescribed by the LITP are met. However, the majority of applicants for international protection are not detained but are accommodated in open centres. In that sense, it is not likely that any category of applicants would spend the whole status determination procedure in detention. The main reasons for the detention of applicants are situations where they request international protection after having been issued with a deportation order and situations where they left or attempted to leave Croatia before the completion of the procedure for international protection.
Croatia has three detention centres: the Reception Centre for Foreigners located in Ježevo, with a total capacity of 95 places; the Transit Reception Centre in Trilj with a total capacity of 62 places; and the Transit Reception Centre in Tovarnik with a total capacity of 62 places.[1] This brings the total capacity of detention centres to 219 according to information provided by the Ministry of Interior in 2019. However, no information is available on whether this has changed in the period from 2020 until the end of 2025.
The Centre in Dugi Dol was opened at the end of 2023, with a capacity to accommodate a maximum of 500 applicants for international protection. It was established due to the increased number of applicants in that area in previous years, in order to conduct the registration of applicants, who would then be sent either to reception centres for international protection applicants or, based on the assessment, to reception centres for foreigners. The establishment of the Centre aimed to relieve the police (border) stations in the area, as they did not have sufficient capacity to handle the increased number of applicants.
In 2025, new amendments to the Regulation on the Internal Organisation of the Ministry of the Interior entered into force.[2] For the performance of tasks within the remit of the Service for the Reception and Accommodation of Applicants for International Protection, the amendments established the Reception Centre for Applicants for International Protection Dugi Dol, with its seat in Krnjak. However, despite the scope of work of the Reception Centre in Dugi Dol, as defined by the Regulation, according to unofficial sources, the center’s purpose extends beyond accomodating applicants for international protection (for which 500 spots are reportedly allocated) and will also be used for screening (500 places) and return procedures (500 places).
During the visit of the Ombuswoman’s employees in 2024, under the role of the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) deficiencies at the Reception Centre in Dugi Dol Centre, primarily concerning the lack of comprehensive records on the number, demographics, and duration of stay of persons were identified. Furthermore, material conditions were found to be inadequate and below CPT standards, characterized by a lack of mattresses, bedding, and hot water.[3]
Building upon these findings, the follow-up NPM visit in April 2025 revealed the following:
- The Reception Centre in Dugi Dol still does not maintain records regarding the number and demographics of persons, nor the time of their arrival, discharge, or the total duration of their stay in the Centre. The data currently being recorded pertains to the registration of intention, personal data statements, and official notes on searches and the seizure of items. Other data, including records of security checks and procedures following admission to the Centre, are kept at police stations according to the place of apprehension. As noted by the Ombudswomen, maintaining unified, comprehensive, and continuous records constitutes a fundamental mechanism for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty, as it allows for insight into the legality and the manner of treatment by the Reception Centre in Dugi Dol toward detained persons.
- Due to the lack of adequate records, it was not possible during this visit either to determine the legal basis or the duration of stay/detention, although police officers stated that the length of stay does not exceed 24 hours. To determine the actual duration of stay/detention, NPM representatives subsequently visited the Karlovac Police Administration. However, access to data from the MoI’s Information System was not granted, despite Article 5 of the Law on NPM and Article 20 of OPCAT stipulating the NPM’s right to access all relevant data, regardless of the method of storage.
- Subsequently submitted documentation showed that one individual had been held at the Centre for more than two days.
- It was also established that upon arrival at the Reception Centre in Dugi Dol, an additional security search is conducted, during which personal items and electronic devices are seized. No vulnerability assessment is performed, as police officers are not trained to identify vulnerable groups. Medical care is not organized, and in emergencies, the Emergency Medical Service is called.
- Material conditions of accommodation at the Reception Centre in Dugi Dol remained inadequate, particularly for families with children and vulnerable groups. Individuals were housed in containers without mattresses or bedding, with no guaranteed access to showers, hot water, or proper sanitary facilities, while chemical toilets are located outside the living quarters. Only dry rations are provided, and clothing is supplied through donations from the Croatian Red Cross.[4]
In April 2025, the Ombudswoman, together with the Ombudswoman for Children, the Ombudswoman for Gender Equality and the Ombudsman for Persons with Disabilities, submitted a joint contribution for Croatia’s fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the UN Human Rights Council.[5] The contribution also stressed shortcomings in detention of both irregular migrants and applicants for international detention, including difficulties in identifying vulnerable persons, limited access to legal assistance and the detention of vulnerable groups, including children.
In her 2025 Annual Report, the Ombudswoman noted that migrants and their attorneys reported being denied access to the international protection system. This occurred, inter alia, in reception centres for foreigners, where forced return proceedings continued despite their expressed intention to seek international protection. In some instances, access to the asylum system was granted following the Ombudswoman’s inquiries, whereas in others, the proceedings concluded with forced removal. [6]
During 2025, 34 third-country nationals asked for international protection at the Reception Centre for Foreigners (Azerbaijan-1, Bangladesh-4, Bosnia and Herzegovina-1, Egypt-4, India-6, Iraq-1, China-7, Nepal-4, Pakistan-1, Russia-1, Türkiye-4), 57 at the Transit Reception Centre for Foreigners in Tovarnik (Türkiye-12, Syria-10, China-10, Afghanistan-5, India-1, Pakistan-3, Bangladesh-3, Iran-3, Nepal-9, Myanmar-1)[7] and 131 third-country nationals asked for international protection at the Transit Reception Centre for Foreigners in Trilj.[8]
During 2025, 122 applicants for international protection were placed in detention. The distribution across detention facilities was as follows: in the Reception Centre for Foreigners in Ježevo 95 applicants for international protection were detained (90 men, including one boy in the 0-13 age group, accompanied by his parents, and 5 women); in the Transit Reception Centre in Tovarnik 3 men and in the Transit Reception Centre in Trilj 24 persons (22 men and 2 women) were detained. Regarding the nationalities of detainees, the most represented groups were citizens of the Russian Federation (33), followed by Syria (10), Türkiye (9), Pakistan (8) and Egypt (8). One stateless male applicant for international protection, was detained in the Reception Centre for Foreigners in Ježevo. During the year, 10 individuals with special reception needs were placed in detention facilities.[9]
In March 2024, the MoI reported that they do not keep records on the average duration of the restrictions on the freedom of movement i.e. detention at the Reception Centres for Foreigners. Measures for the restriction of freedom of movement are imposed as long as reasons listed in Article 54 paragraph 2 of the LITP exist, and so for up to 3 months. Exceptionally, for justified reasons, measures may be extended for a maximum of three additional months.[10]
In 2024, a case related to extradition detention was declared inadmissible by the ECtHR.[11] The applicant, who had been arrested in Türkiye on terrorism-related charges linked to the activities of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), was held in extradition detention in Croatia pending extradition to Türkiye pursuant to an international arrest warrant, even though he had previously been granted refugee status in Switzerland. He pursued legal proceedings before Croatian courts to challenge his extradition, but the courts initially approved the extradition. However, the Constitutional Court overturned the domestic courts’ decisions, stating that, following the applicant’s recognition as a refugee in Switzerland, he enjoyed protection within the territory of European Union Member States under the rules of the Dublin Regulation. It found that extradition would violate the principle of non-refoulement. Following the Constitutional Court’s decision, the domestic courts rejected the request for the applicant’s extradition and, in July 2018, released him from extradition detention after 372 days of detention. In December 2023, the County Court in Vukovar fully granted the claim for reimbursement of the applicant’s legal representation costs in the extradition proceedings. Meanwhile, the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court ruled that the unjust deprivation of liberty constituted a serious violation of the applicant’s rights and awarded him 12,400 EUR for non-pecuniary damages. Before the ECtHR, the applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention of unjustified detention in extradition custody with the intention of extraditing him to Türkiye, despite the domestic authorities being informed from the beginning about his refugee status in Switzerland; under Article 6 of the Convention regarding the failure of the domestic court to decide on his request for reimbursement of legal costs; and under Article 3 of the Convention that the unjustified deprivation of liberty caused him mental suffering. Regarding Article 5 of the Convention, the ECtHR stated that the complaint was premature, since the domestic court had awarded the applicant 12,400 EUR for non-pecuniary damage, found that the competent authorities had failed to properly consider his refugee status when deciding on the extradition request, and acknowledged that the extradition detention had caused him mental suffering. Given that the appeal proceedings are still ongoing, the ECtHR concluded that there is no reason to doubt that the national courts, including the Constitutional Court if necessary, will address the matter in accordance with the relevant criteria of the ECtHR, and therefore rejected this part of the application under Article 35 of the Convention. Furthermore, examining the alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention, the ECtHR noted that the competent County Court in Vukovar had fully decided on the applicant’s request for reimbursement of legal costs in the extradition proceedings, and that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies concerning the excessive length of the proceedings. Therefore, the ECtHR also rejected this part of the application under Article 35 of the Convention. Finally, considering the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the ECtHR observed that, in the civil proceedings, the applicant sought compensation for non-pecuniary damages relying on previously presented arguments. Since those proceedings are still pending before the second-instance court, the ECtHR also rejected this complaint as premature under Article 35 of the Convention.
In 2025, progress was noted in the execution of ECtHR judgment in the case of M.H. and Others v. Croatia, which also concerns detention practices. Namely, in June 2025, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe examined the execution of the judgment. The Committee noted progress and closed its examination of certain issues, including the prolonged placement of children in transit centres with prison-type elements and restrictions on access to legal counsel.
Under the Voluntary Return and Reintegration Project implemented by FRONTEX – the EU Reintegration Programme (EU RP), 225 foreign nationals were returned to their countries of origin from the Reception centre for foreigners in Ježevo. During 2025, five FRONTEX staff members were deployed at the Reception Centre for Foreigners, participating in the Standing Corps Return Specialist Implementation Plan operation. They carried out tasks involving counselling third-country nationals on assisted voluntary return to their countries of origin (under the EU Reintegration Programme – EU RP project), consular cooperation, and operational assistance in the identification of third-country nationals and the procurement of travel documents. Regarding the Transit Reception Centre for Foreigners in Tovarnik, 89 foreign nationals were returned to their countries of origin under the Voluntary Return and Reintegration Project organized by FRONTEX. As for the Transit Reception Centre for Foreigners in Trilj, 141 foreign nationals utilized the option of assisted voluntary return.[12] These figures represent the total number of foreign nationals who utilized the assisted voluntary return mechanism, and are not limited to individuals who had previously applied for international protection.
[1] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, Border Directorate, 6 February 2019.
[2] 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.
[3] Ombudswoman: Report of the Ombudswoman for 2024, page 276-277, available at: https://www.ombudsman.hr/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Izvjesce-pucke-pravobraniteljice-za-2024.-godinu-2.pdf
[4] Ombudswoman: Annual Report for 2025, available at: https://www.ombudsman.hr/hr/download/izvjesce-pucke-pravobraniteljice-za-2025-godinu/?wpdmdl=23118&refresh=69cd1d3691f351775050038.
[5] Written contribution for the 4th Review of Croatia under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on the situation of human rights by the UN Human Rights Council Joint submission by the Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia in cooperation with the Ombudswoman for Children, Ombudswoman for Gender Equality and the Ombudsman for Persons with Disabilities, available at: https://www.ombudsman.hr/hr/download/written-contribution-for-the-4th-review-of-croatia-under-the-universal-periodic-review-upr/?wpdmdl=22376&refresh=69b02c32002281773153330.
[6] Ombudswoman: Annual Report for 2025, available at: https://www.ombudsman.hr/hr/download/izvjesce-pucke-pravobraniteljice-za-2025-godinu/?wpdmdl=23118&refresh=69cd1d3691f351775050038.
[7] Government of the Republic of Croatia, 169th Session, 14 May 2026, Draft Report on the Work of the Police in 2025, available at: https://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/2016/Sjednice/2026/Svibanj/169_sjednica_VRH/169%20-%2013.docx?vel=6827361.
[8] 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/
[9] 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/
[10] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 8 March 2024.
[11] ECtHR DECISION Application no. 3745/18; N.O. against Croatia; available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-234056%22]}.
[12] Government of the Republic of Croatia, 169th Session, 14 May 2026,Draft Report on the Work of the Police in 2025, available at: https://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/2016/Sjednice/2026/Svibanj/169_sjednica_VRH/169%20-%2013.docx?vel=6827361.