Author
Article 54(9) LITP provides a maximum detention time of three months, which may be extended by another three months. Where detention is applied in a Dublin procedure, however, it cannot exceed six weeks from the establishment of the responsibility of another Member State of the European Economic Area. If an administrative dispute has been initiated, the time limit of -six weeks shall be counted from the time the decision on dismissal becomes final.[1]
The Ministry of Interior reported that they do not keep records on the average duration of the restrictions on the freedom of movement at the Reception Centres for Foreigners. Measures for the restriction of freedom of movement are imposed as long as there are reasons listed in Article 54 paragraph 2 of the Law on International and Temporary Protection, for up to 3 months. Exceptionally, for justified reasons, measures may be extended for a maximum of three additional months.[2]
In 2024, the Ombudswoman Office conducted an investigation regarding an applicant for international protection who had been detained in a reception centre for more than eight months. The LITP provides for a maximum duration of detention of three months, with the exceptional possibility of a further extension of up to three months. In this particular case, after the maximum period expired, instead of being released from the Reception Centre for Foreigners, the person was deprived of his liberty pursuant to the Law on Foreigners, because his application for international protection had been rejected in the meantime. The High Administrative Court annulled the decision on his deprivation of liberty, stating that the the Law on Foreigners does not apply to him, but rather, since the decision on his application is enforceable, the LITP applies, on the basis of which he was previously deprived of his liberty for the maximum period. At the explicit request of the Office of the Ombudsman to the Ministry of Interir to provide them with all decisions on the deprivation of liberty of that person, the Ministry of the Interior did not provide the judgment of the High Administrative which established that the last measure of deprivation of liberty was unlawful. It should be noted that the High Administrative Court had already issued a ruling with this legal understanding a year earlier.[3]
[1] Article 54(10) LITP.
[2] Information provided by the Ministry of Interior, 8 March 2024.
[3] Ombudswoman: Report of the Ombudswoman for 2024, page 271, available at: https://www.ombudsman.hr/hr/download/izvje-e-pu-ke-pravobraniteljice-za-2024-godinu/?wpdmdl=20339&refresh=67efca50785f31743768144.