An Egyptian national, A.H.Č.C., requested international protection in Croatia, claiming that he had incurred a large debt to moneylenders in Egypt, which he could not repay, and that return would expose him to threats, violence, or even death. He argued that the state would not protect him, and that his economic vulnerability was linked to political repression and systemic human rights violations. He invoked reports from Amnesty International and other NGOs documenting Egypt’s austerity measures, IMF programs, and their impact on social rights, arguing that economic hardship in Egypt was inseparable from political oppression. On 26 March 2025, 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 that he had left Egypt for economic reasons, had not suffered persecution, and was not threatened with serious harm upon return. It noted that unemployment in Egypt had decreased, that men formed the majority of the workforce, and that Armed Conflict Location & Event Data monitoring organisation (ACLED) data showed only one incident of violence against civilians in the Gharbia region (population over 4.6 million) during March 2025. It concluded that there was no generalised or individualised risk of serious harm. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Administrative Court in Zagreb, arguing that the Ministry of the Interior’s reasoning was unfounded and incomplete, that it ignored the political dimension of economic hardship, and that his debt exposed him to real danger. He claimed that he was both economically and politically threatened, and that refusal to comply with Egypt’s ruling elite could lead to torture or repression. He insisted that his case was not merely economic migration. 

The Administrative Court in Zagreb held an oral hearing on 8 September 2025. The applicant testified that he borrowed money to support his family, including his ill father and unemployed mother, and came to Croatia to earn money to repay the debt. He stated that if he returned to Egypt without money, creditors could kill him, and the state would not protect him. He admitted that he had repaid part of the debt while working in Croatia but continued to support his family and had not cleared the full amount. In its reasoning, the court emphasised that the applicant consistently admitted that he came to Croatia to work and repay debts, confirming economic motives. It noted that the applicant had not been subjected to torture, mistreatment, or violence in Egypt, nor had he been targeted on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The court concluded that there was no well-founded fear of persecution under Article 20 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. 

Regarding subsidiary protection, the court cited country of origin information (COI), specifically Ahram Online and Trading Economics data indicating declining unemployment, and ACLED data showing minimal incidents of violence in Gharbia, where the applicant lived prior to arriving in Croatia. It concluded that the general security situation did not reach the threshold of posing a real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. The court further found no indication that the applicant would face the death penalty or execution, be exposed to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or find a situation of armed conflict upon return. It reasoned that the applicant’s fear was subjective and not corroborated by objective evidence. 

The court concluded that the applicant’s departure was motivated solely by economic reasons, that his debt and the circumstances he would face upon return did not amount to persecution or risk of serious harm, and that his claim was unfounded. It dismissed the appeal under Article 116(1) of the Administrative Disputes Act and upheld the ministry of the Interior’s decision.