X, a Palestinian national*, applied for international protection on 30 September 2025. On 6 October 2025, Belgium requested the Croatian authorities to take back the applicant under the Dublin III Regulation, which they agreed to do. Consequently, on 23 October 2025, the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) rejected the application for international protection and issued a decision on a Dublin transfer to Croatia.

Firstly, CGRS stated that an applicant can appeal the responsibility of a Member State under the Dublin III Regulation, while referring to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Secretary of State for Security and Justice (Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie). Furthermore, CGRS noted that X had the choice not to apply for international protection in Croatia and to leave the territory and made reference to the CJEU judgment N.S. and others v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (United Kingdom), which stated that each Member State is obliged to examine whether a transfer to another Member State could lead to a real risk of exposure to circumstances contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter) and that the applicant must demonstrate, on the basis of concrete facts and circumstances, if a transfer to Croatia poses a real risk of exposure to circumstances that could constitute a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR or Article 4 of the EU Charter. CGRS also referenced different reports, such as the Asylum Information Database – Country Report: Croatia – 2024 update' (AIDA report), and found that applicants who are transferred to Croatia under the Dublin III Regulation, are welcomed and informed and, in general, have unhindered access to the asylum procedure. CGRS noted that reports which refer to occasional problems do not lead to the conclusion that there are structural shortcomings in this area.

On 24 November 2025, X appealed the decision before the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL), requesting the suspension of the order to leave the territory and the decision to transfer him. He argued that he was forced to register his fingerprints and to apply for international protection in Croatia, claiming that he was beaten and detained by the Croatian police and argued that there are structural deficiencies in the asylum and reception system in Croatia. He alleged violations of provisions of the Dublin III Regulation, of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR and of Article 4 of the EU Charter.

CGRS argued that the appeal should be dismissed because it was not accompanied by a copy of the contested decision but rather by a non-existent and falsified decision.

CALL rejected the appeal of X and upheld the decision on a Dublin transfer and found no sufficient grounds to suspend or annul the decision, while noting that the reasoning of the decision met the legal requirements and that there was no violation of Article 3 of the ECHR or Article 4 of the EU Charter or any other provision. The CALL noted that X did not show any serious health problems, on which further explanations would be required and that it was not necessary to contact the Croatian authorities.

Regarding the lack of a copy of the contested decision, CALL held that it had been misled by the lawyer of the applicant, who attached to the appeal a translation in French of the original decision, a translation which he had made and this had become obvious to CALL only when CGRS forwarded to CALL a copy of the original decision drafted in Dutch. CALL noted that the document submitted by the applicant's lawyer contained a logo of the administration, a signature of an official and a photograph of the applicant, so there was no indication that it was a translation and it was almost indistinguishable from an authentic document. As a consequence of the submission of this French translation by the lawyer, the appeal procedure was initiated in French and had to be adapted later on by adopting additional administrative measures. CALL stated that although the lawyer's conduct was irresponsible, the fact that the lawyer produced a copy of the decision, which was manipulated, possibly by means of artificial intelligence, is not sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal, as the applicant's actions did not prevent the CGRS from taking measures to implement the decision. It also stated that it was not plausible that the applicant's lawyer would have deliberately attempted to obtain any advantage in such an awkward manner.

Thus, CALL held that although its conclusion is  that an appeal filed by a lawyer cannot be considered as manifestly abusive within the meaning of Article 39/73-1 of the Law of December 15, 1980, this does not negate the fact that the lawyer concerned, who used artificial intelligence, acted with great negligence, irresponsibility and that his conduct demonstrated a lack of respect for CALL. CALL therefore deemed it necessary to inform the relevant Bar Association and the President of the Legal Aid Office of the lawyer's actions.

Palestine(*) - This designation shall not be construed as recognition of a State of Palestine and is without prejudice to the individual positions of the Member States on this issue.