G.P., a Burundian national, left Burundi and arrived in Croatia, where he was arrested and issued an order to leave the country. He subsequently travelled to Slovenia, then Italy and Switzerland, from where he was returned to Croatia, where he requested international protection. The applicant claimed that in 2022 he was pressured to finance the ruling National Council for the Defense of Democracy - Forces for the Defense of Democracy (CNDD-FDD, from its French name) party, and when he stopped, he was beaten and mistreated by party members and by Imbonerakure. He alleged that the authorities would not protect him and that he faced risk of torture or death if returned. He submitted hospital certificates and invoked reports documenting political harassment, murders, and repression in Burundi. Finding his statements inconsistent and unconvincing, on 8 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. It accepted his identity and citizenship but concluded that his persecution claims were based only on subjective fear. It noted that his hospital certificates did not clearly show the cause of injuries, and that he admitted not knowing their content. It relied on country of origin information (COI), including the official website of CNDD-FDD official sources, UN report of 1 November 2023, ABP Burundi News Agency article "Assessment of the achievements of the CNDD-FDD party during 2023", Crisis24 and the “Burundi Crisis Response Plan 2024-2026” report, which indicated political security improvements, voluntary refugee returns, and reduced tensions. It concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or 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 ignored decisive facts, misapplied UNHCR guidance on subjective and objective fear, and failed to consider trauma and evidentiary difficulties. He claimed that persecution by CNDD-FDD and Imbonerakure was notorious, and that the Ministry of the Interior selectively cited COI reports. He invoked the principles of the benefit of the doubt and non-refoulement and requested the annulment of the decision. 

The Administrative Court in Zagreb held an oral hearing on 29 August 2025. It declined to rehear the applicant, noting he had already been interviewed in detail during the administrative proceedings and that the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) does not require the re-hearing of applicants at the stage of judicial review. It examined the case file and the Ministry of the Interior’s reasoning. The court emphasised that the applicant’s testimony was inconsistent, as he admitted having financed CNDD-FDD without knowing its leadership or symbols and claimed ignorance of his own medical certificates. The court further found that the applicant had not made a genuine effort to substantiate his claim and was therefore not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. It also noted that it transpired from the case file that the applicant was not politically active, was not a member or supporter of any party, and had avoided politics, concluding that there was no link between his alleged mistreatment and protected grounds (race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, political opinion). It noted that COI reports acknowledged sporadic incidents of violence and harassment, but data for Bujumbura, where the applicant resided before leaving Burundi, showed a decrease in incidents. The court concluded that general insecurity did not reach the threshold of persecution under Article 20 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection or risk of serious harm under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. 

The court found that the Ministry of the Interior had adequately explained its reasoning and taken all relevant circumstances into account, and held that there had been no violation of the principles of establishing the material truth or of the free assessment of evidence in the proceedings.. 

The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution under Article 20 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection, or risk of serious harm under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection. It dismissed the claim as unfounded under Article 114(3) of the Administrative Disputes Act and upheld the Ministry of the Interior’s decision.