The applicant submitted an application for international protection in Lithuania on 25 August 2021 which was subsequently rejected by the Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania (Migration Department). The applicant was also issued a removal order and prohibited from entering the Republic of Lithuania for five years after removal. The decision issued by the Migration Department also stated that the applicant’s data would be stored in the Second generation Schengen Information System for three years from the date of the removal.

This judgment examined the legality of the Migration Department’s decision which had previously been partly upheld by the Regional Administrative Court of Kaunas (Regional Court) on 28 February 2022. The Regional Court concluded that the Migration Department had respected the applicant’s rights throughout the asylum procedure and that the Migration Department had carried out a sufficiently detailed assessment of the overall security situation in the applicant’s country of origin. However, the Regional Court determined that the Department’s decision to ban the applicant from entering the Republic of Lithuania for five years from the date of his removal was not proportionate as there was no indication that the applicant posed a threat to public order or safety. The Regional Court reduced the prohibition period to two years and accordingly reduced the period of time that the applicant’s data would be stored in the Second generation Schengen Information System to two years from the date of removal.

The Migration Department stated that it carried out a thorough investigation into the applicant’s claim pursuant to the procedures outlined in national legislation and concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for international protection established in Articles 86(1) and 87(1) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Legal Status of Aliens. The Migration Department highlighted several explanations for the decision, including the fact that the applicant claimed to be persecuted by his deceased wife’s family and not a state actor, the applicant’s inability to clearly illustrate how his wife’s family had threatened him and the applicant’s failure to request protection from local law enforcement in his country of origin.

The Migration Department further stated that the applicant’s statement did not correspond with country of origin information issued by the European Asylum Support Office. The Migration Department stated that such information suggested that men are rarely victim of blood revenge for honour crimes. Furthermore, the Migration Department concluded that the applicant did not belong to any of the groups which, according to the European Asylum Support Office, were likely to face an increased risk of persecution in the applicant’s country of origin.

The Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court (Supreme Court) analysed the quality of the Migration Department’s examination of the applicant’s claim. Firstly, the Supreme Court highlighted that the applicant was ill during his personal interview. Secondly, the Supreme Court noted that, contrary to assertions made by the Migration Department that the applicant had been duly informed of his rights including the right to legal assistance, it was evident from the transcript stored in the applicant’s file, that the applicant had explicitly asked about the lawyer’s attendance and that only the staff member from the Migration Department consented to conducting the interview without a lawyer being present.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that the applicant’s personal interview was interrupted by staff members from the Migration Department who requested the case worker to finish the interview as soon as possible stating that there was another applicant waiting. The case worker conducting the interview refused to let the applicant go to the toilet when they requested due to time constraints. After this, the applicant was given a five-minute deadline to finish the personal interview. In addition to this, applicant reported issues with the interpreter stating that they were unable to communicate with the interpreter on several occasions.

The Supreme Court also analysed country of origin information available to the Migration Department and concluded that the facts put forward by the applicant, namely that his wife was murdered after the couple married without consent of the wife’s family and that her family threatened to kill the applicant, were plausible. The Supreme Court noted that while women were more likely to be victims of honour crimes, men can still be subjected to blood revenge and honour killings especially when two families consider it to be the appropriate punishment for the victim. In the present case, the Supreme Court considered that such action was plausible as the applicant had stated that he had been excluded by the family. The Supreme Court further highlighted that individuals involved in blood revenge are one of the profiles considered by EASO to be at high risk.

Based on the above, the Supreme Court concluded that the Migration Department did not conduct the applicant’s personal interview correctly, and therefore deprived him of the opportunity to adequately explain the reasons for applying for international protection. The Supreme Court further concluded that the Migration Department did not adequately examine the applicant’s risk of persecution in the country of origin and as a result the decision to reject the applicant’s request for international protection was neither valid nor lawful.

The Supreme Court annulled the decision issued by the Migration Department and ordered the Migration Department to re-examine the applicant’s request for international protection.