An Egyptian national requested international protection in Croatia, claiming that he owed 8,000 euros with unfavorable interest to intermediaries in Egypt for arranging his employment abroad in Croatia, and that, if returned, he would face a high probability of imprisonment for debt. He argued that this amounted to serious harm under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. On 6 May 2025, the Ministry of the Interior rejected his application, concluding that he had left Egypt for economic reasons, he had not suffered persecution, and was not threatened with serious harm upon return. It cited general information on human rights in Egypt but it did not specifically assess the applicant’s debt claim or the risk of debtor’s prison. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Administrative Court in Zagreb, arguing that the Ministry of the Interior had failed to establish decisive facts and ignored his specific circumstances. He maintained that imprisonment for debt was a real risk in Egypt, as supported by country of origin information (COI) reports documenting widespread use of debtor’s prison and its harsh conditions. 

The Administrative Court in Zagreb held a hearing on 4 September 2025, and found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for refugee status under Article 20 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection, since his departure was linked to employment and not persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. However, the court found that the Ministry of the Interior had failed to properly assess the possibility of serious harm under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. The court emphasised that the applicant made a clear statement that he owed a significant sum and feared imprisonment. It noted the available COI (e.g. 75 debtors to leave prison Thursday in coordination with civil society: Egyptian pardon committee member - EgyptToday, https://missingperspectives.com/posts/in-egypt-2c-women-become-prisoners-of poverty/) confirming the existence of debtor’s prison in Egypt.  

It further noted the Ministry of the Interior’s omission to examine the credibility of the applicant’s debt claim, the application of debtor’s prison in Egypt, and the actual risk of imprisonment upon return. 

The court held that the Ministry of the Interior’s decision was unlawful for lack of sufficient reasoning and failure to assess relevant circumstances. It annulled the decision and remanded the case for retrial, binding the Ministry of the Interior to follow the court’s legal views. The court also noted that the lawsuit had suspensive effect by law, since the contested decision rejected the claim on the merits without invoking exceptions under Article 51 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection.