Report on the Performance of Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2017 In 2017, the consequences of the mass movement of refugees and migrants were still felt in the EU, as well as in the so-called Balkan route countries. Although by adopting the European Migration Programme in May 2015, the European Commission tried to alleviate the crisis through urgent measures, in September the same year there were still mass arrivals for which no member state was prepared. Transit countries dealt with this issue by opening their borders and organizing further transits, which violated national and EU legislation, primarily due to lack of registration. This was the reason the EC initiated a procedure against the RC due to incomplete transposition and implementation of the Common European Asylum System. Besides, allowing transit through the state territory resulted in the procedure regarding the status of migrants upon entering the RC in the period of crisis, and the EU Court of Justice ruled that, according to the Dublin Regulation, allowing entry and transferring migrants to neighbouring countries was de facto irregular entry. Such ruling, due to the expiry of deadlines and appeals submitted, did not result in a large number of applicants for international protection who were returned to the RC under the Dublin Procedure, and thus it did not significantly impact the increase in the number of applicants in 2017. Namely, out of 677 applications granted based on the Dublin Procedure, only 249 were returned to Croatia. This decision will certainly be used as a framework for future procedures in case of major migrant movements, which might not be solved by receiving migrants and organizing their transfer to the desired destination countries. Upon scaling down to national legislative frameworks, and thus the Common European Asylum System, the EC framed its migration policy within the European Migration Programme and four previously defined pillars that tried to relieve the pressure imposed on the EU member states. It included reducing motivation for illegal migration, border control, sound common asylum policy and a new policy on legal migrations, while insisting on relocation and transfer based on solidarity, in order to unburden the states of first entry, EU member states. Distribution by relocation proved as a slow and inadequate response, and bringing actions before the EU Court of Justice against the EU Council's Decision on Relocation shows the resistance of the member states towards receiving the applicants, which may have a major impact on integration, and even cause secondary migrations, of forcibly received persons. Although faced with further insisting on the application of the Dublin Regulation and the principle of solidarity in the distribution of migrants, i.e. refugees, the competent authorities of the RC still do not find it necessary to adopt a new migration policy. The key argument is the harmonization of the national legislation in the area of migration with the EU acquis, by which all the other aspects of contemporary mixed migratory movements are ignored, especially integration, which is discussed in more detail in the chapter on discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity or colour and national origin. Applicants for international protection One of the consequences of migratory movements is the increase in the number of applicants for international protection in the RC compared to 2015, which also needs to be seen in the context of amendments to the legal framework. Namely, the Act on International and Temporary Protection introduces early recognition of the status of applicant for international protection in relation to the Asylum Act, which begins with the migrant’s expression of intention at the police station, and not after 35