A Russian national from Chechnya requested international protection in Croatia, alleging a fear of being called up for military service and subsequently sent to fight in Ukraine in contradiction with his political and moral convictions. He claimed that in December 2022 he received a telephone call instructing him to report for a pre-mobilisation medical examination and argued that practices of forced recruitment existed in Chechnya, combined with a lack of legal guarantees. He alleged that return would expose him to forced mobilisation, imprisonment, or torture. On 23 August 2023, the Ministry of the Interior rejected his application for refugee status and subsidiary protection finding that he had not been called up for military service, he had not received a draft notice and had not been subjected to persecution. It noted that he had certain health problems that would theoretically make him unfit to serve in the army, and therefore he would be entitled to a postponement of military service under Article 23 of the Law on Military Duty and Service. It also noted that mobilisation was focused on reservists with prior military experience. It concluded that he would not be targeted for deployment to Ukraine. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Administrative Court in Zagreb, claiming that the Ministry of the Interior had misapplied the principles of material truth, benefit of the doubt, and sur place assessment, and failed to consider the specific situation in Chechnya. He claimed that forced mobilisations were widespread, that critics and vulnerable groups were at risk, and that his fear was consistent with country of origin (COI) reports. The applicant alleged that the Ministry of the Interior had violated Articles 3 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), Article 33 of the Geneva Refugee Convention (GRC), and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU Charter), as well as the recast Qualification Directive (recast QD). 

The court cited several sources of COI: EUAA confirming that Russian men aged 18–27 were subject to regular conscription, but failure to report was an administrative offence punishable by a fine. Reuters reported that partial mobilisation ended on 31 October 2022. A Chechen decree of September 2022 introduced regular conscription, but not mobilisation to Ukraine. FFM Report ‘Russia - Recruitment of Chechens to the war in Ukrain’ identified 3 forms of Chechen recruitment (patriotic by conscience, monetary rewards and coercion) but according to 2 researchers from the Rondeli Foundation most persons volunteered for financial reasons. Forced mobilisation peaked in late 2022 and declined thereafter, targeting specific groups but not the applicant. RadioFreeEurope source reported that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the Law on Electronic Military Recruitment and therefore, on new electronic draft laws, but the applicant had not received such a notice. 

The Administrative Court in Zagreb noted that the applicant’s claim of receiving only a telephone call to report for military examination implausible, noting that such summons must be issued in writing and no record existed on the Gosuslugi portal. His account was vague, lacking details of the caller or reporting instructions. The court further held that he was not a reservist, as he had never served in the army, and that the partial mobilisation had already ended on 31 October 2022. It emphasised that he legally left Russia on 18 December 2022 without difficulty, which would not have been possible if he had been subject to mobilisation. Finally, the court observed that he did not belong to groups in Chechnya forcibly sent to Ukraine. According to COI, forced recruitment in Chechnya is targeting specific groups: critics of the authorities, activists and members of NGOs, family members of vocal critics and LGBTIQ people. Specifically, LGBTIQ people who are given two options: either to publicly expose their identity, thus leading to being killed or to sign a contract for military service with the Ministry of Defence. It also observed  that no new wave of mobilisation had been reported, only routine calls for regular service. Accordingly, the court held that the applicant was not subject to persecution under Article 20 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. 

Regarding subsidiary protection, no reasons were found to indicate that the applicant would face a threat of death penalty or execution upon return to his country of origin, nor that he would be exposed to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. In addition, it held that it was also not established that there was a serious and individual threat to the applicant's life due to general violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict, since the military authorities had not yet called him up for recruitment or mobilisation, and it had not been established whether he was even fit for military service. Consequently, the court determined that the applicant did not meet the conditions for being granted subsidiary protection pursuant to Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection 

The Administrative Court in Zagreb 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.