Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
27/05/2020
LT: The Regional Court decided not to impose detention to an applicant who breached the reception centre rules (including COVID-19 health regulations).

ECLI
Input Provided By
EUAA IDS
Other Source/Information:
Referral to the CJEU
No
Original Documents
Type
Decision
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Dublin Regulation III (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for IP); National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR);
Reference
Lithuania, Vilnius Regional Administrative Court [Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas], M.V. (Russia) v State Border Guard Service, No. A 20 - 969-617 / 2020 , 27 May 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
https://caselaw.euaa.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=1412
Case history
Related cases:
Abstract

The applicant, a Russian national, breached the rules of the reception centre where he was accomodated. He did so for 32 times. Among others violations, he entered in the centre under the effects of alcohol, he consumed alcohol inside the centre and he refused to wear the protective mask not complying with the COVID-19 health regulation. The State Border Guard Service (SBGS) requested his detention until a final decision would be issued in first instance proceedings and claimed that the applicant could be a risk for national security or public order.

After having assessed the file submitted by the parties, the regional court established that the grounds for the detention of an alien as enshrined by both national and EU law were not fulfilled and therefore the applicant cannot be detained. It held that there was no evidence in the case that the applicant posed a threat to state security. In addition, the fact that he was once administratively punished for violation of public order when he became intoxicated in a public place does not constitute a sufficient ground for concluding that the asylum seeker posed a threat to national security or public order, nor that he would be absconding. 

Country of Decision
Lithuania
Court Name
LT: Vilnius Regional Administrative Court [Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas]
Case Number
No. A 20 - 969-617 / 2020
Date of Decision
27/05/2020
Country of Origin
Russia
Keywords
COVID-19/Emergency measures
Detention/ Alternatives to Detention
Reception/Accommodation