DJ, a Russian national who had been granted international protection in Norway in 2003, travelled to Croatia to reunite with his partner, JJ, and their two minor children, who had applied for international protection in Croatia. DJ also applied for international protection on 11 April 2025, claiming that he had left Norway because he had not been allowed to reunite with his family there.

In his application, DJ stated that he had married twice: the first time with ČJ in 2008, with whom he has 4 children, all of whom live in Ukraine; and the second with JJ in 2019, with whom he has 2 children. He did not submit a marriage certificate for the second marriage.

Citing the EUAA Recommendations on Family Reunification within the Dublin Procedure, the Croatian Ministry of the Interior held that “family unity is an internationally recognised legal principle which acknowledges and protects the family as a ‘group' unit entitled to protection from society and the state”. It then concluded that the legal requirements for recognising a valid marriage between the applicant and JJ, his second partner, had not been met. Accordingly, the Ministry did not consider her a family member within the meaning of Article 2(g) of the Dublin III Regulation. On 21 May 2025, the Ministry rejected his application as inadmissible, finding that responsibility lay with Norway, which had accepted responsibility on 15 April 2025.

The applicant challenged the decision before the Administrative Court in Zagreb, arguing that a further separation from his family would violate his rights and those of his minor children, and requested that the Croatian authorities exercise their discretionary power under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation and examine his application.

At the hearing before the Administrative Court, the applicant testified that his first marriage had been dissolved on 4 March 2024 and that his first wife, ČJ, had filed for divorce in Ukraine in 2017. He also stated that he was living with his second wife, JJ, and their two children in a reception centre in Croatia. Subsequently, he submitted a March 2024 decision of the Khmelnytskyi City District Court in Ukraine confirming the dissolution of his first marriage.

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated that his first marriage had already been dissolved at the time he submitted his application for international protection. Although he had not provided documentation proving that his second marriage had been formally concluded, the Administrative Court held that the relationship was nonetheless equivalent to marriage under Article 11 of the Croatian Family Act (which extends the legal effects of marriage to an extramarital union between an unmarried woman and an unmarried man that has lasted for at least three years, or for a shorter period where the couple have children together).

On this basis, the court found that the applicant's partner could be regarded as a family member for the purposes of the Dublin III Regulation and that their relationship should have been taken into account. As the Ministry of the Interior had failed to examine this circumstance, the court annulled the contested decision and remitted the case for reconsideration, requiring the Ministry to consider whether to exercise the discretionary clause under Article 17 of the Dublin III Regulation, and to take into account the best interests of the child, enshrined in Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), given that the transfer of the applicant to Norway would result in the separation of the family.