The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stated on Tuesday that Croatia violated the procedural safeguards from the European Convention on Human Rights in a case regarding the expulsion of a foreigner who applied for Croatian citizenship.

After a security vetting conducted by the Security and Intelligence Agency (SOA), which found that the applicant, who had already permanent residence in Croatia, could pose a security risk to the national security, he was expelled from the country.

“The applicant, F.S., was born in 1991 in Rome and his current residence is unknown,” the court said on Tuesday.

“The case concerns the national authorities’ decisions to expel the applicant from Croatia on national security grounds,” the Strasbourg-based court reports.

“According to the applicant, he had lived in Croatia with family since 1998 after his parents had died when he was a child. He applied for Croatian citizenship in 2011 but was informed that he was a security risk by the national intelligence agency. This led to his citizenship application being denied, and subsequently also triggered the termination of his permanent residence status and ultimately the decision to expel him. He left Croatia voluntarily in 2016.

“Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that he was not informed of the reasons why he was said to pose a threat to national security, meaning he could not argue against his expulsion.

“Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention, the applicant also complains about his detention after he was arrested in 2015 when attempting to illegally cross the border from Croatia into Slovenia, and makes a number of other complaints under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the Convention,” the court reported.

It ruled that the man should be paid €5,000 as non-pecuniary damage and also €5,000 as costs and expenses.