The present case concerns the legality of limiting applicants for international protection’s free movement after six months of being registered in the Lithuanian Migration Information system.

Under Article 5 of Law 140, the Migration Department must make a decision as to whether third country nationals, staying in temporary accommodation centres run by the State Border Guard Service, should be granted the right to move freely through the territory of Lithuania if no final decision has been made in respect to their legal status within six months of their registration in the Lithuanian Migration Information System.

K.M.E. entered the Republic of Lithuania irregularly on 5 July 2021 and requested international protection which was rejected by the Migration Department on 5 January 2022. K.M.E. lodged an appeal against the decision before the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court which was still pending. K.M.E. had been residing at temporary centres run by the State Border Guard Service, with the right to move around the centre but not the right to move freely throughout the territory of Lithuania, for more than eight months.

On 8 February 2022, the Migration Department adopted Decision No 22S65434 extending K.M.E.'s stay in temporary accommodation centres run by the State Border Guard Service for a period of six months. The Migration Department stated that the decision was made based on the fact that K.M.E. had entered the country irregularly and did not cooperate with national authorities during the examination of the application for international protection or on the issue of return. The Migration Department also informed the court that K.M.E.’s appeal for an alternative measure to detention cannot be granted because K.M.E. was not in detention.

Firstly, the Supreme Court noted that the Migration Department could not legally argue that the applicant had not cooperated on the issue of return, as the applicant was still an applicant for international protection. Secondly, the Supreme Court noted that irregular access to the Republic of Lithuania alone cannot lead to a finding that the applicant failed to cooperate with national authorities. The Supreme Court then highlighted that K.M.E. had submitted copies of identification documents and that the file did not contain any indications that the applicant posed a threat to state security or public safety. The Supreme Court added that there were no other circumstances highlighted in K.M.E.’s file which suggested that the applicant was likely to abscond. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the restrictions of free movement imposed on the applicant were unjustified and disproportionate and annulled the decision of the Migration Department stating that K.M.E. must be accommodated in Medininkai’s Foreigners’ Registration Centre without restrictions on freedom of movement.