The case concerned the legality of a detention order against the applicant and it was reopened following the ruling of the CJEU on the preliminary questions sent by the Supreme Administrative Court in February 2022 (see  M.A. v State Border Protection Service at the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, A-1091-822/2022, 2 February 2022).

The CJEU ruled on 30 June 2022 ( M.A. v State Border Protection Service at the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, C-72/22 PPU) on interpretation of the recast APD and recast RCD by stating that:

• the recast APD precludes legislation that precludes access to the procedure for examining an application for international protection to illegally staying third-country nationals in the event of a declaration of the state of war or the state of emergency or in the event of a declaration of an emergency situation due to a mass influx of foreigners. 
• the recast RCD precludes legislation under which, in the case of such a declaration or proclamation, an asylum seeker may be detained on the sole ground that he/she is staying illegally. 

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania took into account the CJEU ruling and examined whether the applicant can be qualified as an asylum applicant if the application had not been completed according to the national law, since such a situation had an effect on the grounds for detention and scope of human rights of the applicant.

The Court took into account CJEU‘s clarification that in order to "request" international protection, no administrative formalities are required, thus formalities are carried out when "submitting" the application. In order to perform the latter action, the applicant for international protection must basically fill in the form provided for in Article 6, paragraph 4 of the recast APD. In addition, according to the jurisprudence of the CJEU, any third-country national or stateless person has the right to apply for international protection in the territory of a Member State, including in its border or transit zones, even if he or she is illegally present in that territory. This right must be recognised for the applicant, regardless of the probability that such a request will be granted.

The Supreme Administrative Court further stressed that the Member State retains the right to demand applications to be filled out in person and/or at a required place but it cannot utilise this right to hinder or rush the application process for the foreign nationals. This also applies to cases submitted during a state of emergency due to a mass influx of foreigners. In the present case, it was noted that the applicant submitted the application, nevertheless containing formal deficiencies non-compliant with national legal acts, but it can be considered that the applicant obtained the status of an asylum seeker according to the European Union law standards.

Whilst assessing the legitimacy of detention grounds, the Supreme Administrative Court stated, according to EU law, that the fact that an applicant for international protection is staying illegally in the territory of a Member State does not justify detention. Consequently, a third-country national cannot be detained solely on this basis of illegal stay.

The Court further added that an emergency declaration due to a mass influx of migrants does not automatically justify detention of asylum seeker on the grounds that national security or public order is threatened. The Court also pointed out that the threat to national security or public order can justify the detention of an applicant only if the applicant’s individual conduct represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or the internal or external security of the Member State concerned. While assessing this criteria in the present case, the Court stated that no such circumstance were identified as to establish the necessity to detain the applicant on the grounds that his behavior poses a threat to previously mentioned values.

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania ruled that the court of first instance wrongly evaluated the case matter in the context of EU and national law, that the detention decision is unlawful and annulled the first instance decision.