A Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity requested international protection in Croatia, claiming persecution due to his conversion to Catholicism, rejection by his family, injury in a dispute over Kurdish issues, and an arrest warrant accusing him of terrorist propaganda and support for the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and the People's Protection Units (YPG). He alleged that his conversion exposed him to violence, that Kurds were systematically discriminated against, and that return to Türkiye would expose him to imprisonment and mistreatment. On 20 May 2025, the Ministry of the Interior rejected his application for international protection. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision, alleging that the Ministry of the Interior had ignored medical and arrest warrant documents, and had failed to assess the implementation of constitutional guarantees for Kurds. He claimed that the Ministry of the Interior reused reasoning from a previously annulled decision, contrary to Article 115(5) of the General Administrative Procedure Act, and that his arrest warrant and medical report proved persecution.
The Administrative Court in Zagreb held that the applicant had not provided a credible or consistent account of his conversion to Catholicism. It noted contradictions in the timeline (claiming conversion both five years earlier and in 2021), his lack of baptism, and limited knowledge of basic Christian doctrine. The court also observed that he sought baptism in Croatia through a Protestant group rather than the Catholic Church, which further weakened his claim. Referring to COI, the court noted that Christianity is not prohibited in Türkieye and that the applicant himself acknowledged this.
Regarding his political and ethnic claims, the court mentioned that the applicant referred to one isolated incident of injury during a dispute over Kurdish issues, but the medical report recorded the cause as a fall. It found that he had not substantiated systematic persecution. The court held that the arrest warrant submitted by the applicant accusing him of terrorist propaganda and support for the PKK/YPG, was obtained through intermediaries and lacked corroboration. It also found that the medical report submitted did not establish individualised persecution under Article 20 of the Law on International and Temporary Protection (LITP), especially given the applicant’s inconsistent testimony.
The court also held that there was no risk for the applicant regarding death penalty or execution, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or an individual threat to life due to arbitrary general violence in a situation of international or internal armed conflict upon return to Türkiye. It cited data from ACLED which established that in the period from 13 May 2024 to 11 May 2025 in Türkiye, 41 deaths caused by security incidents occurred. The court held that, considering that Türkiye had a population of 87,644,635, it was estimated that 0.05 deaths occurred per 100,000 inhabitants, which indicated that there was no security risk in the territory of Türkiye that would constitute serious harm under Article 21 of the LITP.
The court rejected the applicant’s argument that the Ministry of the Interior had improperly reused reasoning from a previously annulled decision. It noted that the Ministry of the Interior had carried out a translation of the applicant’s medical and arrest warrant documents and that it took into account the reasons that the applicant had raised before the court hearing.
Based on this reasoning, the court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution under Article 20 of the LITP, or serious harm under Article 21 of the same law. It upheld the Ministry of the Interior’s decision and dismissed the claim as unfounded.