G.E., a Russian national, submitted an application for international protection in Croatia on 19 July 2023. Her daughter (S.E.) and husband (K.E.) had previously applied for international protection in Croatia and were granted refugee status on 7 February 2023 and 8 August 2023, respectively, on religious grounds. The proceedings concerning the applicant’s son (G) were ongoing at the time of the appeal.

On 19 August 2025, the Ministry of Interior rejected G.E.’s application for international protection. This decision was subsequently appealed before the Administrative Court in Zagreb (the court) arguing that the asylum authority had failed to consider her personal circumstances and her right to family unity.

The court decided the case without a hearing and upheld the appeal. It noted that, unlike in her lawsuit, G.E.’s initial application had not linked her husband’s prosecution for financing an extremist organisation and her sister’s arrest to their affiliation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The court reasoned that, while a request for international protection cannot be granted solely because a family member of the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution or faces a real risk of serious harm, the asylum authority must still assess whether such persecution or risk could be extended to the applicant due to her family relationship.

Citing the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Nigyar Raul Kaza Ahmedbekova and Raul Emin Ogla Ahmedbekov v Deputy Chair of the State Agency for Refugees (Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite, C-652/16, 4 October 2018), the court held that the Ministry of Interior had failed to consider Recital 36 and Article 4 of the recast Qualification Directive in issuing its negative decision. The court further held that, in conducting an individual assessment of G.E.’s claim, the asylum authority was obliged to consider the fact that her husband and daughter had been granted asylum precisely on account of a well-founded fear of persecution that could extend to the applicant.

Consequently, the court found that the contested decision had been adopted in breach of Article 4 of the recast Qualification Directive, annulled it and remitted it to the asylum authority for reconsideration.