Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

​​

17/07/2025
HR: The Administrative Court in Zagreb dismissed the appeal of a Russian national claiming persecution following draft evasion from the war in Ukraine, finding that his military summons was inconsistent with country of origin information (COI), as it predated mobilisation but was delivered after mobilisation had already ended, and that his lawful departure from Russia demonstrated that he did not face a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of serious harm.
17/07/2025
HR: The Administrative Court in Zagreb dismissed the appeal of a Russian national claiming persecution following draft evasion from the war in Ukraine, finding that his military summons was inconsistent with country of origin information (COI), as it predated mobilisation but was delivered after mobilisation had already ended, and that his lawful departure from Russia demonstrated that he did not face a well‑founded fear of persecution or a real risk of serious harm.

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA Grants
Other Source/Information
Type
Judgment
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR)
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=5590
Case history
Other information
Abstract

Ž.G., a Russian national, requested international protection in Croatia on 6 February 2024, claiming that he left the Russia because of compulsory mobilisation linked to the conflict in Ukraine. He claimed that in January 2023, while he was out for a walk, a draft notice for him was delivered to his parents by 2 police officers in charge of their district. He attached to the case file a military summons ordering him to report to the military office on 10 January 2022. According to his account, his mother informed him immediately and advised him to hide at his grandmother’s residence. He further stated that the police officers, after handing over the draft notice to his parents, noted that it had been delivered. On 14 January 2023, he legally exited Russia using his own passport. He feared that if returned to Russia, he would be sent first to military training and then to the battlefield in Ukraine or could disappear under unexplained circumstances. According to the applicant’s account, the same police officers came a week after he had left Russia and asked where the applicant was. His mother replied that he was out of the country and did not tell them where. 


On 27 November 2024, the Ministry of the Interior rejected the application for refugee status and subsidiary protection. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Administrative Court in Zagreb.  


The Administrative Court in Zagreb found inconsistencies and credibility issues regarding the military summons. The court acknowledged country of origin information (COI) used by the Ministry of the Interior, including a report from the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA). According to the COI, the court acknowledged the following: until April 2023, draft notices in Russia were legally valid only if delivered personally with the draftee’s signature, and delivery through mailboxes or to relatives was deemed illegal and without effect. After April 2023, notices could also be delivered digitally through the Gosuslugi portal. The court further held, based on COI, that the partial mobilisation announced on 21 September 2022 ended on 28 October 2022. Thereafter, recruitment focused only on persons with previous military experience or specific skills, which the applicant lacked, and by December 2023 the Russian authorities publicly stated there was no need for renewed mobilisation due to sufficient volunteer numbers. The court noted that the summons provided by the applicant, dated 10 January 2022, was inconsistent with the prescribed format and content reported in COI. It highlighted that on 10 January 2022, mobilisation had not yet been introduced and, by January 2023, when the applicant's parents allegedly received the call-up for military service, it had already ceased. The court further noted that no one prevented the applicant from legally leaving Russia using his own passport, which would not have been possible if he had been evading conscription. 


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 conditions for refugee status under Article 20 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection, nor subsidiary protection under Article 21 of the Act on International and Temporary Protection.  


Country of Decision
Croatia
Court Name
HR: Administrative Court [Upravni sud]
Case Number
Us I-77/2025-9
Date of Decision
17/07/2025
Country of Origin
Russia
Keywords
Assessment of evidence/assessment of documents
Country of Origin Information
Credibility
EUAA COI Reports
Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription
RETURN