A Syrian national born in Aleppo, currently residing in the Reception Center for International Protection Applicants in Zagreb, requested international protection in Croatia on 26 February 2024. He argued that he left his country of origin because of the war in Syria. He explicitly denied any problems due to national, ethnic, religious, political or other affiliation. He alleged to have received a call for mobilisation. He indicated that he was wounded in the shoulder in an airstrike during the battle for Aleppo fought between 2012 and 2016. He stated that his house was destroyed and that he later hid at his father’s house since his life was in danger and eventually took a taxi from Aleppo to Türkiye without valid documentation. He believed that he was in danger if returned to Syria, alleging that his brother, who returned, was kidnapped and had to pay to release him. He claimed that even if he left 11 years ago, the situation related to the state of war in Syria had not changed in terms of security and he even believed that the actual situation was even worse since there was no army or police force. His wife and four children live in Türkiye, and he hoped to obtain family reunification from Croatia. 

On 13 September 2024, the Ministry of the Interior rejected his application for refugee status and subsidiary protection and ordered him to leave the European Economic Area within 15 days. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Administrative Court in Zagreb. During the hearing held on 22 July 2025, the applicant presented a video allegedly filmed in a hospital in Aleppo on 6 August 2012 to support his injury account.  

The Administrative Court in Zagreb analysed the applicant's account and noted that the reason for seeking protection was the situation in the country of origin, since the applicant explicitly stated that he left Syria due to the state of war, and denied that he was persecuted on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political belief, or membership of a particular social group. Therefore, the court held that it could not be established that the applicant was persecuted in Syria under Article 20 of the Act on International Protection and Temporary Protection. 

The court emphasised that the applicant left Syria more than 10 years ago, after which the security and economic situation has changed. The court referred to reports from the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) which were already cited by the Ministry of the Interior. Based on this country of origin information (COI), the court concluded that most Syrian territory is now under control of government forces; it is possible to live in some areas within Syria where there is no threat of any danger (Damascus, Tartus, Homs); the number of security incidents is almost negligible; and that Syria has even reopened to tourism. Regarding subsidiary protection, it concluded that the applicant would not be at risk of serious harm in the sense of being subjected to arbitrary violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict if returned to Syria, under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection.  

The court further noted that the applicant’s brother, who remained in Syria and was wounded like him, also refused to join the Syrian army, but this did not have any negative consequences in the sense that the authorities sought him out or imprisoned him. In conclusion, the court found no foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, death penalty or execution upon return to the country of origin.  

The Administrative Court in Zagreb dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ministry of the Interior’s decision, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for refugee status or subsidiary protection. The Administrative Court in Zagreb dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ministry of the Interior’s decision concluding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for refugee status under Article 20 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection or subsidiary protection under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection.