C.Ž.V., an undocumented Bangladeshi applicant, arrived in Croatia and, on 17 June 2026, expressed his intention to apply for international protection. He initially provided a different name and claimed to be an Indian national, correcting this information on 25 June 2026 when he formally lodged his application.

Following the screening conducted on 17 June 2026, during which he did not identify any special reception or procedural needs and stated that he intended to continue onwards to Italy, his application was channeled into the border procedure pursuant to Articles 45(1) and 42(1)(j) of the Asylum Procedures Regulation (APR), on the basis that Indian nationals have a recognition rate of 20% or less.

Reasoning that actions under the border procedure are subject to short deadlines, making it necessary to ensure the applicant's continuous presence for the conduct of the procedure, and considering the risk of absconding in light of his declared intention to continue onwards to Italy, the authorities assessed which measures would be appropriate to secure his availability during the procedure. The authorities found that legal grounds for detention were not met, considered imposing reporting obligations or requiring the provision of financial or other guarantees pursuant to Article 54(2) of the International and Temporary Protection Act (ITPA), and ultimately required the applicant to reside at the Reception Centre for Applicants for International Protection Dugi Dol for a maximum period of 12 weeks.

The applicant challenged both the decision to examine his application under the border procedure and the restriction on his freedom of movement. He argued that the decision had been based on the recognition rate for Indian nationals rather than Bangladeshi nationals, that it failed to explain why he was considered to present a risk of absconding, and that the conditions at Dugi Dol were inadequate. In particular, he submitted that accommodation in containers without air conditioning or adequate protection from the sun during periods of high temperatures posed a risk to his health.

The court accepted the Ministry of the Interior's arguments in full and dismissed the applicant's “administrative dispute” on all grounds. As regards the applicability of the border procedure to Bangladeshi applicants, the court observed that Bangladeshi nationals likewise have a recognition rate of 20% or less and that Article 42(1)(j) of the APR had therefore been correctly applied. It further held that, even if this had not been the case, Article 45(1)(b) of the APR requires applications for international protection to be examined under the border procedure where applicants provide misleading information.

With regard to the obligation to reside in a designated reception centre, the court noted that both Article 54 of the APR and Article 42 of the ITPA establish that, as a general rule, applicants should be required to reside at or in proximity to the external border or transit zones, or in another designated location within the territory of the Member State. The court reasoned that, although this requirement is not automatic, departures from the general rule must be interpreted restrictively. It therefore held that it is for the applicant to demonstrate that, in the particular circumstances of the case, there are reasons justifying an exception to that rule.