R.D., a Russian national from Chechnya requested international protection in Croatia in November 2023, claiming risk of persecution due to his son’s conscription and mobilisation for the war in Ukraine. He alleged that the fear of persecution also included himself since the authorities could use him to pressure and intimidate his son, including torture, kidnapping and threats to his family. The applicant argued political and moral convictions contrary to the Russian and Chechen authorities, and invoked EU and international law, stressing that family members of conscripts form a particular social group under Article 22(1)(5) of the Act on International and Temporary Protection and recital 36 of the recast Qualification Directive (recast QD). The applicant cited CJEU judgment 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), of 4 October 2018, which recognises that international protection may extend to family members when persecution of a relative renders them potentially subject to persecution. He also referred to UNHCR and ECtHR jurisprudence requiring ex officio assessment of individual risk.  

On 14 May 2024, the Ministry of the Interior rejected his application for international protection and ordered him to leave the European Economic Area within 15 days. The Ministry found no evidence of persecution. It argued that international protection is granted based on personal circumstances, not those of family members, and that the applicant remained in Russia for more than a year after his son’s departure without being persecuted. It noted that the son had no military importance, that Kadyrov’s decree of 2022 was no longer relevant, and that the applicant’s age and disability excluded conscription. Shortly thereafter, the Ministry also rejected the asylum request made by the applicant’s son. Both decisions were appealed before the Administrative Court in Zagreb. The applicant submitted sources from EUAA, UN, Amnesty International, and media confirming forced mobilisation, torture, and lack of remedies. He insisted that Russia could not be considered a safe country of origin. He also argued that the Ministry of the Interior violated Articles 6, 9, 10, 28, 29 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection, as well the principle of non-refoulement. He also argued that the decision did not take into account the individual circumstances of the applicant, family unity, the risk of persecution and serious harm and was adopted contrary to Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

The Administrative Court in Zagreb reviewed the case file and decided without an oral hearing under Article 98(6) of the Administrative Disputes Act. In its reasoning, the court emphasised that international protection was not automatically granted because a family member of the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution or is exposed to a real risk of serious harm. The court stated that, however, in the individual assessment of an application for international protection, such threats to the family member of the applicant had to be considered in order to determine whether the applicant, by reason of his family connection with that endangered person, would be exposed to threat of persecution or serious harm. The court noted that according to Recital 36 of the recast QD, and CJEU judgment 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), of 4 October 2018, family members of a person at risk of persecution are generally at risk and may themselves be targeted. 

The court noted that Article 4 of the recast QD required consideration of threats to family members to determine whether the applicant himself was exposed to persecution or serious harm. The court noted that although the applicant’s adult son did not fall within the statutory definition of ‘family member’ under Article 4(1)(18) of the Act on International and Temporary Protection, facts from the son’s case could be decisive for assessing the father’s claim. The court noted that authorities in Chechnya often targeted relatives of conscripts to exert pressure, meaning the applicant could be indirectly persecuted. 

In conclusion, the court held that the Ministry of the Interior failed to consider Recital 36 and Article 4 of the recast QD in issuing its negative decision, ignoring relevant EU and international standards, and did not properly assess risk of persecution or serious harm through family connection. The court found that the contested decision relied narrowly on the applicant’s age and disability, without considering indirect persecution or intimidation. The Administrative Court in Zagreb annulled the Ministry of the Interior’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration, binding the Ministry of the Interior to follow its legal views.