CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sF6EC97F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s424290C5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E503E34 { width:34.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3567CF33 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE03C66E7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B3B4BB { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .s756AA39C { width:164.45pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF Y.K. v. CROATIA (Application no. 38776/21)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (procedural) • Expulsion • Removal of Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity without allowing him access to the international protection procedure • Denial of contact of applicant with his lawyer aimed at preventing assistance with his legal situation • Domestic authorities took advantage of applicant’s vulnerable situation to induce him to consent to a so-called voluntary return • Applicant’s departure to North Macedonia via Serbia not voluntary • Applicant could not be considered to have validly renounced protection guaranteed by Art   3 • No examination of the applicant’s safety, his access to effective and adequate asylum procedures, or whether he would be exposed to risk of chain refoulement and treatment prohibited by Art   3 Art 13 (+ Art 3) • Lack of effective domestic remedy with automatic suspensive effect • Lack of access to a lawyer prevented applicant from effectively pursuing any legal remedy   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 17 July 2025   FINAL   17/10/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Y.K. v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   38776/21) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Y.K. (“the applicant”), on 24 July 2021; the decision to give notice to the Croatian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 3, 13 and 34 of the Convention concerning the Croatian authorities’ alleged repeated refusals to allow the applicant access to the international protection procedure, the applicant’s allegedly not having an effective domestic remedy to challenge his removal from Croatia and the authorities’ allegedly denying the applicant access to his lawyer, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision not to give notice of the present application to the Republic of Türkiye having regard to the Court’s considerations in the case of I   v.   Sweden (no. 61204/09, §§ 40-46, 5 September 2013); the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court); the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the Centre for Peace Studies, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the Croatian authorities’ alleged repeated refusals to allow the applicant, a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity, access to the international protection procedure. It also concerns a complaint regarding the applicant’s allegedly not having an effective domestic remedy to challenge his removal from Croatia (Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3), and the Croatian authorities’ allegedly denying the applicant access to his lawyer (Article   34 of the Convention). THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1984. He was initially represented before the Court by Ms S. Bezbradica Jelavić, and then by Mr I. Jelavić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. 3.     The applicant’s current place of residence is unknown, but he maintains contact with his lawyer for the purpose of pursuing the present case before the Court. The last letter confirming contact between the applicant and his lawyer and the applicant’s wish to pursue the case was received by the Court on 14 February 2025. 4 .     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 5.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGrOUND TO THE CASE 6.     The applicant is a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnicity. He submitted that he had been tortured and prosecuted numerous times in Türkiye owing to his political activism, and that in 2019 he had fled that country. The applicant’s entry TO croatia and his placement in an immigration centre 7.     On 16 February 2021 the applicant and four other Turkish nationals clandestinely entered Croatia from Serbia. They took a taxi from the border to Zagreb, where they spent the night in an abandoned house. 8.     On 17 February 2021 the applicant was arrested at the Zagreb Bus Station and brought to a police station. According to the report on his arrest, the applicant, in the presence of an interpreter, waived his right to a lawyer and said that he did not want his family or the Turkish Embassy in Croatia to be informed of his arrest. The police informed the Turkish Embassy of the applicant’s arrest and notified the applicant thereof. 9 .     On 17 February 2021 the Illegal Migration Service of the Zagreb Police ( Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske, Policijska uprava zagrebačka, Sektor za granicu, Služba za nezakonite migracije ) issued a decision ordering that the applicant be expelled from Croatia ( rješenje o protjerivanju ) and banning him from re-entering the European Economic Area for a period of one year. The decision noted that the applicant had already been prohibited from re ‑ entering the European Economic Area by the Greek authorities, that he had entered Croatia illegally and that he had intended to continue his journey to Germany. It specified that the applicant would be forcefully returned to Türkiye, to a country from which he had entered Croatia or, with his approval, to another third country. Pursuant to section 193(1) of the Croatian Aliens Act ( Zakon o strancima , Official Gazette no. 133/2020, as in force at the material time), and section 26(1) of the Croatian Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o upravnim sporovima , Official Gazette nos. 20/2010, 143/2012, 152/2014, 94/2016 and 29/2017, as in force at the material time) no appeal lay against that decision and an action for judicial review, which could have been lodged within 30   days from its receipt, had no automatic suspensive effect. 10.     On the same day, 17 February 2021, the applicant was placed in an immigration reception centre in Ježevo (hereinafter “the Ježevo Immigration Centre”) for a period of up to one month on the ground that his removal from Croatia could not be ensured by a less restrictive measure, given that he had no travel document, financial means or place to stay in Croatia, and that he had stated that he would not voluntarily leave the European Economic Area. EVENTS DURING THE APPLICANT’S STAY IN THE JEŽEVO IMMIGRATION CENTRE 11 .     On 19 February 2021 Police Officer T.P. interviewed the applicant in the Ježevo Immigration Centre with the assistance, via telephone, of an interpreter. According to a written record of that interview, the applicant had been informed of the procedure for seeking international protection in Croatia but had stated that he had no intention of seeking it and that he wished to go to Germany. He had asked the authorities to facilitate his return to Bosnia and Herzegovina or to Serbia and filled in a form in Turkish for the issuing of a travel document. 12 .     On 2 March 2021 the Turkish Embassy in Croatia issued the applicant a temporary passport valid until 1 April 2021. 13.       On 3 March 2021 a lawyer, J.L., who had been hired by the applicant’s family, contacted the Ježevo Immigration Centre and requested permission to visit the applicant. His visit was approved for 5 March 2021 at 2 p.m. 14 .       On 4 March 2021 the applicant was visited by two advisers to the Croatian Ombudswoman ( Pučka pravobraniteljica Republike Hrvatske ). In the presence of them and the Head of the Ježevo Immigration Centre, and with the assistance of an interpreter via telephone, the applicant expressed an intention to apply for international protection (see the Ombudswoman’s letters, paragraphs 33-40 below). 15 .       On 5 March 2021 the lawyer J.L. visited the applicant in the Ježevo Immigration Centre. The visit lasted from 2.05 to 2.40 p.m. During the meeting the applicant signed a power of attorney to him. As soon as J.L. left, at 3 p.m. Police Officer T.P. interviewed the applicant (see paragraph 17 below). 16 .     After his visit to the applicant, at 4.27 p.m. J.L. sent an email to the Ježevo Immigration Centre and to the Ministry of the Interior’s Asylum Department, with the Office of the Ombudswoman in copy. The lawyer reported that the possibility of being removed from Croatia and returned to Türkiye was causing the applicant great stress and fear for his life, since in Türkiye he had been persecuted on account of his political activities. He further stated that the applicant had informed him that he had been expressing an intention to apply for international protection ever since he had been placed in the Ježevo Immigration Centre but that he had not been allowed to submit an application. The lawyer explained that the applicant’s family, and the applicant himself during the visit, had authorised him to seek international protection on the applicant’s behalf. He invited the authorities to allow the applicant to submit an application to that effect in the presence of an interpreter for Turkish or Kurdish. He attached a scan of the signed power of attorney to the email. He received no reply. 17 .       As stated in paragraph 15 above, meanwhile, at 3 p.m. on the same day, Police Officer T.P. interviewed the applicant. According to the Government, the applicant did not ask for his lawyer to be present on that occasion. The applicant, in the presence of an interpreter, stated as follows: “After being informed about the asylum procedure in Croatia and after learning about the responsibility of Greece to process my asylum request; [and after learning that], if I seek asylum in Croatia, there is a possibility that I [would] be kept in the centre, I consider that it is better for me to accept the offer to voluntarily return to a third country, which I accept and confirm in writing.” The applicant then gave a handwritten statement in Turkish: “... I want to go to Athens, Greece, peacefully and without pressure, with my personal safety ensured, and that is my request. I want to go to Athens, Greece overland with a bus ticket and that is what I’m asking for ... It is important to me that Türkiye does not touch me. I just want to reach Athens.” 18 .       Still on the same day, at 5:34 p.m., the applicant tested positive for COVID-19. The Government stated that his placement in the Ježevo Immigration Centre had been extended for another month owing to the need for the applicant to self-isolate. 19 .       On 8 March 2021 J.L. sent an email to Police Officer T.P. stating that the applicant, while contacting his family, had again confirmed that he wished to seek international protection in Croatia. The lawyer asked that the applicant be allowed to submit an application to that effect in the presence of J.L. and an interpreter. He also asked to be given a copy of the expulsion decision issued in respect of his client, stating that he had only been served with the decision on his client’s placement in the Ježevo Immigration Centre. He re ‑ attached a copy of the signed power of attorney. 20.     On 9 March 2021 Police Officer T.P. replied to J.L. stating that, pursuant to the relevant domestic provisions, every foreigner placed in an immigration centre had the possibility to personally express an intention to seek international protection. He further stated that, for epidemiological reasons, it was not possible to contact persons who were isolating in an immigration centre, and that there was therefore no possibility of interviewing the applicant and verifying the statements in J.L.’s email. 21 .     On 15 March 2021 J.L. sent another email to Police Officer T.P., stating that the applicant’s family had been contacting him daily and conveying the applicant’s wish to be allowed to seek international protection in Croatia. The lawyer explained that the applicant had on multiple occasions already expressed an intention to seek protection, including in the presence of the advisers to the Ombudswoman and in his own presence. However, that expressed intention had still not been duly registered. J.L. again emphasised that the applicant had authorised him to seek international protection on his behalf and insisted that the intention be duly registered. He reiterated his request that the applicant be allowed to submit an application for international protection in his presence and the presence of an interpreter. He further repeated his request to be given a copy of the expulsion decision issued against his client and asked to be allowed to visit his client as soon as possible. He received no reply. 22 .       On 17 March 2021 the applicant signed two documents: the first one, in Croatian, contained information about his right to seek free legal assistance in the return procedure (it was signed by an interpreter), and the second one, in Croatian and Turkish, contained information about seeking international protection. 23 .     On the same day Officer T.P. took a statement from the applicant in the presence of an interpreter. According to the written record, the applicant waived the right to a lawyer, the right to have his family or another person informed of his situation, the right to contact the Turkish Embassy, the right to free legal aid, and the right to translation, on the basis “that he understood spoken and written Croatian”. The applicant then stated that he was aware of the circumstances owing to which his placement in the Ježevo Immigration Centre had been extended and that he had no objections in that regard, and further stated that he did not wish to go back to Türkiye but to a third country if possible. He then gave a handwritten statement in Turkish: “... I ask the Croatian authorities not to send me to Türkiye under any circumstances... Given that I gave my fingerprints in Greece, I wish to go to Greece via Serbia. Given the possible aggravating circumstances should I institute asylum proceedings in Croatia, I consider that my departure to a third country within the next month is a more favourable solution for me.” 24 .     On 19 March 2021 the applicant’s lawyer, J.L., asked Officer T.P. to reply to his email of 15   March 2021 (see paragraph 21 above). 25.     On the same day Officer T.P. replied to J.L. that section   33(2) of the Croatian Act on International and Temporary Protection (cited in M.H. and Others v. Croatia , nos.   15670/18 and 43115/18, §   78, 18   November 2021) clearly stipulated who could seek international protection when and where in Croatia. He added that special epidemiological measures were still in place at the Ježevo Immigration Centre, and that J.L. would be informed when that would no longer be the case. 26 .       On 23 March 2021 J.L. sent an email to Police Officer T.P., requesting permission to visit his client and stating that the epidemiological measures imposed in the Zagreb area had ended. 27.     On 24 March 2021 J.L. sent another email to Officer T.P., stating that the epidemiologist in charge of the Zagreb area had confirmed to him that it would be possible to visit the applicant with adherence to the epidemiological measures, and announced that the epidemiologist would send a letter to the immigration centre on 25 March 2021 to confirm that information. He asked for permission to visit his client on 25   March 2021. 28 .     On 25 March 2021 at 10.37 a.m. Officer T.P. informed J.L. that the applicant had asked to leave Croatia, that he had been served with a return decision and that earlier that day he had been released from the Ježevo Immigration Centre. THE applicant’s departure from croatia 29 .       On 24 March 2021 the police served the applicant with a return decision ( rješenje o povratku ), pursuant to which the applicant was obliged to voluntarily leave the European Economic Area within seven days, failing which he would be forcefully removed. That decision was not served on the applicant’s lawyer. Pursuant to section   187(1) of the Croatian Aliens Act and section   26(1) of the Croatian Administrative Disputes Act, no appeal lay against that decision and an action for judicial review had no automatic suspensive effect. 30.       On 25 March 2021 the applicant was released from the Ježevo Immigration Centre. He was given a bus ticket and fifty euros to cover the transit costs and boarded a bus to Skopje (North Macedonia). The applicant disembarked in Serbia. 31.     According to the Government, the applicant left Croatia voluntarily and without a police escort. 32 .     The applicant submitted that the police officers had told him that were he to seek international protection in Croatia he would spend a year in prison, thereby retraumatising him after he had already been tortured and prosecuted in Türkiye, and that they had effectively forced him to leave Croatia by issuing a return decision and asking him to sign it in the absence of his lawyer and the Croatian Ombudswoman. The applicant also submitted that a police officer wearing civilian clothes had escorted him the entire time from when he had left the Ježevo Immigration Centre until the moment the bus from Zagreb had reached the border with Serbia. croatian Ombudswoman’s letters Letter of 8 July 2021 33 .     In a letter of 8 July 2021 sent to Ms S. Bezbradica Jelavić, the lawyer who initially represented the applicant before the Court, the Croatian Ombudswoman gave her account of the events concerning the applicant. 34.     She submitted that on 4 March 2021 her advisers had interviewed the applicant in the Centre with the assistance, via telephone, of an interpreter (see paragraph 14 above). During the interview, the applicant had stated that he “would rather kill himself than return to Türkiye” where, as a political activist, he would be killed. He had stated that he wished to apply for asylum in Croatia, a wish which he had repeated in the presence of the Head of the Centre, who had replied that he would organise the official registration of the applicant’s expressed intention in the presence of an interpreter. 35.     On the same day the Ombudswoman had enquired with the Ježevo Immigration Centre whether the applicant’s intention to seek protection had been registered. The Centre had replied that the applicant had been informed of the procedure but had not expressed an intention to seek protection. 36 .     On 15 March 2021 the Ombudswoman had invited the Ministry of the Interior to inform her within two days about the measures taken with a view to allowing the applicant to contact his lawyer and to serving the lawyer with the documents he had requested. 37 .     On 16 March 2021 the Ministry of the Interior had replied that the applicant had not expressed an intention to seek international protection but rather a wish to return to Greece and that, upon his recovery from COVID ‑ 19, the applicant would be able to express himself again on the possibility of seeking protection in Croatia, of which his lawyer would be notified. The Ministry also stated that, owing to epidemiological measures, the Ježevo Immigration Centre had been closed for all visits and that it was impossible to facilitate access to video-conferencing equipment for the applicant in conditions of strict isolation. 38.     On 31 March 2021 the Ombudswoman had written another letter to the Ministry of the Interior, reiterating that the applicant had expressly stated that he wished to seek asylum in Croatia and that the police officers had been required to immediately institute the relevant procedures. 39.     On 7 April 2021 the Ministry of the Interior had replied that the applicant had on two occasions confirmed in writing, in the presence of an interpreter, that he did not wish to seek asylum and that he wished to return to Greece. Registering an intention to seek protection against the will of a person would have violated national and international law. Had the applicant really wished to seek international protection, he could have done so upon being released from the Ježevo Immigration Centre, either personally or through his lawyer. Letter of 22 July 2022 40 .     In a letter of 22 July 2022 sent to Ms S. Bezbradica Jelavić, the Croatian Ombudswoman gave a more detailed account of her advisers’ visit to the applicant on 4 March 2021. She explained that, during the interview with her two advisers, the applicant had stated that “he would rather kill himself than return to Türkiye” because there he would be killed as a political activist, and he had stated that he wished to seek asylum in Croatia. The advisers had then invited the Head of the Ježevo Immigration Centre to join the meeting so that he could confirm that statement and to ensure the registration of the applicant’s intention to seek international protection. Upon the arrival of the Head of the Centre, the applicant had again expressed an intention to seek international protection and had stated that he would be murdered as a political activist if returned to Türkiye. Upon the advisers’ query to the Head of the Centre as to when the relevant procedure would follow, the Head of the Centre had replied that he would attend to the matter without delay. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE domestic law and PRACTICE 41 .     The relevant provisions of the Constitutional Court Act ( Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette nos.   99/1999 and 29/2002), read as follows: Section 62 “(1)     Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court if he or she considers that a decision of a State authority, local or regional government, or a legal person invested with public authority, on his or her rights or obligations, or as regards a suspicion or accusation concerning a criminal offence, has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms ... guaranteed by the Constitution (‘constitutional right[s]’) ... (2)     If another legal remedy is available for the violation of the constitutional right(s) [complained of], a constitutional complaint may be lodged only after that remedy has been used. (3)     In matters in which an administrative dispute ... is permitted, the legal remedy is exhausted after a decision has been made on those legal remedies.” Section 63 “(1)     The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted if the relevant court has failed to decide within a reasonable time on the rights or obligations of a party [to the proceedings], or as regards a suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence, or if the contested decision grossly violates constitutional rights and it is completely clear that the complainant will face serious and irreparable consequences if Constitutional Court proceedings are not instituted. ....” Section 67 “(1)     A constitutional complaint normally does not prevent the enforcement of the contested act. (2)     At the proposal of the complainant, the Constitutional Court may postpone enforcement [of the contested act] until it decides on the constitutional complaint, if enforcement would cause the complainant damage which could hardly be repaired, and the postponement is not contrary to the public interest and would not cause greater damage to anyone else.” 42 .     The relevant provisions of the Croatian International and Temporary Protection Act ( Zakon o međunarodnoj i privremenoj zaštiti , Official Gazette nos. 70/2015 and 127/2017, as in force at the material time) are cited in M.H. and Others v. Croatia (cited above, §   78). 43 .     The Government relied on the following decisions of the Constitutional Court in support of their argument that an application to the Constitutional Court for an interim measure staying the enforcement of an expulsion decision was an effective domestic remedy for the applicant’s complaint under Article   3 of the Convention (see paragraph   68 below):   Constitutional Court decision no. U-IIIB-5954/2021 of 28 April 2022, in which that court had granted a complainant’s request of 29   October 2021 and stayed the enforcement of a removal decision issued against the complainant, pending the duration of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court; and Constitutional Court decision no. U-III-5963/2020 of 1   April 2021, in which that court had granted a complainant’s request of 14 December 2020 and stayed the enforcement of a decision rejecting the complainant’s international protection application and ordering him to leave the European Economic Area, pending the duration of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. The Government also referred to Constitutional Court decision no.   U ‑ IIIB ‑ 5751/2020 of 21 January 2021, in which that court had dismissed a complainant’s constitutional complaint lodged under section   63 of the Constitutional Court Act against an expulsion decision in respect of which an administrative action lodged by the complainant had still been pending at the time (see paragraph 41 above). In particular, the Constitutional Court had found that it had not been established that a gross violation of the complainant’s rights had occurred or that he would face serious and irreparable consequences if the constitutional court proceedings were not instituted. 44 .     In support of their argument that an (ordinary) constitutional complaint was an effective domestic remedy for the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 70 below), the Government relied on Constitutional Court decisions nos.   U-III-557/2019 of 11 September 2019; U-III-6958/2014 of 27 February 2018; U-III-4865/2018, U ‑ III ‑ 837/2019 and U-III-926/2019 of 4 March 2021, and U-III-1397/2022 of 20 April 2022, in which the Constitutional Court had examined on the merits constitutional complaints lodged against administrative-court judgments upholding decisions by the Ministry of the Interior to reject the complainants’ applications for asylum or international protection and/or ordering their expulsion from Croatia. CPT REPORT on its ad hoc visit to Croatia from 10 to 14   August 2020 45.     During its ad hoc visit to Croatia from 10 to 14 August 2020, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) looked into, inter alia , the procedures applied to migrants in the context of their removal from Croatia as well as the effectiveness of oversight and accountability mechanisms in cases of alleged police misconduct during such operations. A visit to the Ježevo Immigration Centre was also carried out. The relevant parts of the report read as follows (footnotes omitted): “ 8.     Ježevo Reception Centre for Foreigners ... 55.     The Committee attaches great importance in the context of immigration detention to the operation of fundamental safeguards as from the very outset of detention. In this context, all detained persons at Ježevo Reception Centre were receiving and countersigning an information sheet upon their admission. Further, copies of the Rulebook on House Rules in English and French languages were displayed on the board in the communal room and detained persons appeared to be acquainted with its content. A three-minute free telephone call was offered to all newly arrived detainees in order to inform their respective families or consular authorities. 56.     Personal files of migrants and asylum seekers were duly kept, and detention orders appeared to be adequately reasoned. Further, the periodic judicial review of the detention orders by the administrative court on the extension or suspension of the same appeared to be timely. That said, all detention orders (including their renewals) were only drafted in the Croatian language and the persons with whom the delegation met were not aware of their content, including the length and dates of the extension period as well as the possibility to make a complaint to the Administrative Court. Greater efforts need to be made to ensure that each immigration detainee fully understands the court decision, which should not be the task of the custodial officers but rather the Centre’s lawyer using telephone interpretation services as required. The CPT recommends that more formal and reliable systems should be put in place to ensure that all detained persons fully understand the reasons for their detention and the possibilities to challenge such a decision as well as any decisions on extending the period of detention. 57.     Asylum seekers in detention are entitled to free legal aid and, at the time of the visit, a legal representation project implemented by the Croatian Law Centre was in place to provide legal advice and representation to detainees. On the other hand, access to legal aid for migrants is regulated by the 2018 Rulebook on Free Legal Aid in Return Proceedings (see paragraph 34) which distinguishes between free legal representation (i.e. for foreign nationals who have at least one year of uninterrupted residence status in Croatia) and free legal advice. Detained migrants who request legal advice receive a certified list of accredited lawyers whom they may consult by telephone if they want to file court proceedings challenging their detention decision. In practice, many of the detained persons met at Ježevo Reception Centre complained about difficulties in obtaining proper legal advice, given that it took place over the phone without any interpretation. Further, whenever a detained person did have a lawyer to represent him or her, the lawyer was hampered in accessing the Centre due to the administrative obstacles for receiving visitors. In light of the five-day statutory deadline to challenge a detention order, lawyers should have the right to visit a client without any delay. The CPT recommends that the relevant legislation be amended so as to ensure that all persons held under aliens’ legislation ... have an effective right of access to a lawyer (including adequate interpretation) as from the very outset of their deprivation of liberty and at all stages of the proceedings.” Material describing asylum process in North Macedonia 46 .     In support of their argument that North Macedonia was a safe third country for the applicant (see paragraph 58 below), the Government relied on the United States Department of State’s Report on Human Rights Practices in North Macedonia in 2021, the relevant parts of which read: “ Access to Asylum : ... [The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the UNHCR)] assessed asylum processes continued to improve, and previous concerns regarding a practice of arbitrarily denying access to asylum seekers had been addressed. [The] UNHCR reported, however, that the mechanism for adjudicating refugee status failed to provide basic procedural guarantees and proper determinations as prescribed in the law. As of June 30, a total of 30 persons had applied for asylum. No one was granted international protection during the year, and no one has been granted refugee status since 2016. All asylum requests registered in the country were processed through the Reception Center for Foreigners. ... There were several disputes concerning the application of some safeguards, including at the judicial level. For instance, although legally permissible, in practice the court refused all hearing requests made by asylum seekers. Likewise, the administrative courts continued to avoid ruling on the merits of asylum applications, despite having the requisite authority. Instead, they routinely returned cases to the Ministry of Interior for further review, which resulted in the ministry endorsing its initial decisions. The practice of returning migrants apprehended in North Macedonia to the country from which they entered North Macedonia continued. Authorities resumed proper screening and registration of all migrants as of end of January after the process had been put on hold in March 2020 due to COVID measures. [The] UNHCR and partner organizations had limited access to migrants accommodated in the two temporary transit centers close to the border. Protection information was not always made available to individuals in the centers. ... Safe Country of Origin/Transit : The country adopted a list of safe countries of origin, comprising all EU member states, neighboring countries, and several other countries, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, [Türkiye], Russia, Egypt, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates, and Nepal. The concept has yet to be applied. Abuse of Migrants and Refugees : ... According to the ombudsman, the government placing migrants at the Vinojug Transit Center without issuing individual written detention decisions was a problem in that it limited the freedom of movement of those persons without adequately documenting each case. The ombudsman maintained that most migrants placed in the transit center were simply kept there to ensure their testimonies in the trials against their smugglers, based on requests and oral orders from case prosecutors. ... Freedom of Movement: According to [the] UNHCR, authorities continued to detain individuals intercepted while traveling through the country without documentation. The grounds for detention decisions were arbitrary. As a rule individuals are supposed to be detained only until their identity can be established. They were routinely detained after identification, however, to prevent them from departing the country prior to providing legal testimony against their smugglers. ... Temporary Protection : The government could provide subsidiary protection to individuals who may not qualify as refugees. As of September 30, one person was granted subsidiary protection during the year.” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 47.     The applicant complained that the Croatian authorities’ repeated refusals to allow him access to the international protection procedure had been in breach of their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention, and further complained that his treatment by the Croatian authorities had amounted to degrading treatment. 48.     Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 49 .     The Court observes that the applicant’s arguments focus on two different aspects of the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention: firstly, the risk that he would suffer torture if sent back to Türkiye and the fact that, despite that risk, the Croatian authorities sent him to North Macedonia without verifying whether North Macedonia could be considered a safe third country; and, secondly, his treatment by the Croatian authorities. With respect to the latter aspect of this complaint, the applicant argued that the whole situation – the fact that his requests for international protection had been bluntly disregarded and the fact that the authorities had prevented contact between him and his lawyer – had caused him feelings of anxiety and insecurity regarding his legal situation and constituted degrading treatment (compare M.K. and Others v. Poland , nos. 40503/17 and 2 others, §§   150-51, 23 July 2020, and D.A. and Others v. Poland , no.   51246/17, §§   43-44, 8 July 2021). Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant being denied access to the international protection procedure Admissibility (a)    The parties’ submissions (i)       The Government (α)      Applicability of Article 3 of the Convention 50 .     The Government argued that Article 3 of the Convention was not applicable in the case because: (i) the applicant had never explained to the Croatian authorities why he was afraid of returning to his country of origin; (ii) he had not indicated to the Croatian authorities any risk of refoulement in North Macedonia, and (iii) he had voluntarily left Croatia for North Macedonia. 51.     The Government contended that States did not have an absolute obligation to provide asylum to “everyone within their jurisdiction”. Instead, that obligation arose only where substantial grounds had been shown for believing that the person concerned faced a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in a receiving country. 52.     In the present case, after arriving at the Ježevo Immigration Centre, the applicant had been informed about the rights and obligations of international protection seekers under section 52 of the Croatian Act on International and Temporary Protection (cited in M.H. and Others v.   Croatia , nos.   15670/18 and 43115/18, §   78, 18   November 2021). More specifically, the applicant had been informed that his fingerprints would be taken for the European Dactyloscopy database, EURODAC, where they would be stored for ten years, and that he would be returned to Croatia if he were to leave that country before the end of the international protection procedure. The applicant had clearly interpreted the latter as an “aggravating circumstance in the asylum procedure”. Therefore, he had never officially, either independently or through a lawyer, lodged an application for international protection. 53 .     The applicant had obviously never intended to apply for international protection in Croatia, but in some other European Union member State. He had expressed his “intention” to apply for international protection to the employees of the Croatian Ombudswoman’s Office not to actually institute the proceedings, but merely to prevent his possible forcible removal from Croatia. That was also evident from his statements given in the presence of an interpreter, in which he had never asked to have his application for international protection recorded. 54.     The Government further submitted that the applicant had never explained why he was afraid of returning to his country of origin, nor given any specifics of his fears in that regard. The fact that the applicant was a member of the Kurdish ethnic minority was not in itself sufficient to trigger the State’s procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to assess the risks he would face if removed to another country. 55.     Furthermore, the applicant had twice asked to leave Croatia for Greece or North Macedonia and had at no time expressed any fears about being returned to one of those countries. 56 .     Accordingly, given the fact that the applicant had not clarified his fears to the Croatian authorities in any way, the obligation to carry out an assessment in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention had not been triggered in the applicant’s case. 57 .     In any event, the Croatian authorities had established that the applicant had been issued with a re-entry ban in Greece, meaning that the applicant could have been at risk of refoulement if allowed to go to that country. The Croatian authorities had thus assessed that, out of the two countries listed by the applicant as his preferred destinations, North Macedonia was a safe country for him. Therefore, the Croatian authorities, respecting the applicant’s wishes as to his destination country, had adequately and sufficiently examined the existence of a risk of the applicant being subjected to refoulement. 58 .     The Government submitted that North Macedonia was a safe third country for the applicant. The US State Department had confirmed that in 2021 the situation in North Macedonia regarding the availability of the asylum procedure had significan