An Azerbaijani national requested international protection in Croatia on 13 September 2024, stating that he feared compulsory military service despite suffering from medical conditions (scoliosis and foot deformities), and that refusal would result in imprisonment and inhuman treatment. He submitted medical documentation and argued that alternative service was unavailable. He further alleged that Azerbaijani prisons were corrupt and abusive, and that return would expose him to torture.  

On 25 March 2025, the Ministry of the Interior rejected his application for refugee status and subsidiary protection, finding his statements inconsistent. It noted that he had previously said he left Azerbaijan to pursue a sports career in Europe and to support his family financially. It concluded that his departure was motivated by economic reasons, not persecution. It found that his medical certificate did not prove permanent exemption from military service, and that his health condition did not prevent service. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Administrative Court in Zagreb, claiming that the Ministry of the Interior ignored his medical evidence and failed to consider the risk of imprisonment and torture.  

The Administrative Court in Zagreb dismissed the appeal. It recalled that according to the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, a migrant is a person who, for reasons not included in the definition of refugee, had voluntarily left his country in order to take up residence elsewhere. He/she may be motivated by a desire for change or adventure, by family or other private reasons. If motivated to leave solely for economic reasons, the person is an economic migrant and not a refugee. The court held that it was clear that the applicant voluntarily left his country of origin on 20 January 2024 solely for economic reasons, and not due to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The court noted that the applicant’s initial target country was Sweden, where he worked and did not apply for international protection, and only afterwards requested international protection in Croatia.  

Regarding military service, the court recalled that, according to the UNHCR’s Handbook, fear of being persecuted and punished for deserting from the army or avoiding mobilisation did not in itself constitute a well-founded fear of persecution. According to this source, in countries where military service is compulsory, failure to fulfil that obligation is often punishable by law with the imposition of penalties which may vary from country to country and which are generally not considered persecution. The court cited ‘oxu.az’ as country of origin information (COI) from 13 December 2024, according to which some citizens were exempted from military service in Azerbaijan. The court also noted another source from 31 December 2024, according to which Azerbaijan passed a decree making military service mandatory for male citizens between the ages of 18 and 30. Those who refuse to serve in the army will not be able to leave the country and will face two years in prison. It noted that, since the applicant legally left his country of origin with a visa, the applicant upon return to Azerbaijan will not be imprisoned, but will be obliged to serve in the military. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution under Article 20 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection since he had not proved persecution in the country of origin linked to race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social group or political opinion.  

In assessing subsidiary protection, the court held that the applicant, upon return, would not face death penalty or execution, would not be exposed to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or a serious and individual threat to life under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. The court based this conclusion on COI, specifically an ACLED report (March 2025) establishing that 4 security incidents were recorded nationwide in the past year in Azerbaijan, none involving civilians, and no incidents were recorded in Ismayilli district, where the applicant lived. Considering that Azeribaijan has a population of 10,381.301 million as determined in the previously mentioned report, the court determined that the applicant was not at risk in the event of returning to Azerbaijan.  

The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution under Article 20 or serious harm under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. His claims were inconsistent, his medical evidence did not prove exemption, and his departure was motivated by economic reasons. The court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unfounded under Article 116(1) of the Administrative Disputes Act and upheld the Ministry of the Interior’s decision.