E.L., a Nepali national, had been living in Croatia under a seasonal work permit that expired on 17 December 2025. On 18 January 2026, she was issued with a return decision granting her a period for voluntary departure until 19 February 2026. After applying for international protection on 17 February 2026, E.L. was accommodated at the Porin Reception Centre. The following day, however, a decision was issued ordering her detention in the Trilj Reception Centre for Foreigners for the shortest possible period, not exceeding 3 months.

E.L. challenged the detention measure before the Administrative Court in Split, which, on 6 July 2026, annulled the decision and ordered her immediate release. Her application for international protection was still pending at the time of the judgment.

The court based its decision on Article 54 of the International and Temporary Protection Act (ITPA), which provides that an applicant's freedom of movement may be restricted only where this is necessary for the purposes of establishing the facts and circumstances on which the application for international protection is based (…) particularly where it is considered that there is a risk of absconding; or to carry out removal proceedings where (…) it is reasonably presumed that the application for asylum intends to delay or impede the enforcement of an expulsion and/or return decision.

The court recalled that, under Article 54(5) of the ITPA, the available measures include a prohibition on leaving the reception centre, a prohibition on leaving a specified area, a reporting obligation, the deposit of travel documents, and detention. Pursuant to Article 54(6), detention may be imposed only where an individual assessment establishes that the purpose of restricting freedom of movement cannot be achieved by any less restrictive measure.

The court held that the case file did not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that the detention measure was proportionate or that the required individual assessment had been properly carried out. The court emphasised that, while the choice of measure falls within the authority's discretion, the legality of such a decision depends on clear reasoning enabling judicial review. Finding that the detention decision neither demonstrated that an individual assessment had been conducted nor explained why less restrictive measures had not been applied, the Administrative Court in Split annulled the detention order and directed that the applicant be released immediately.