This case concerned the reception conditions in the Kybartai Aliens Registration Centre and whether reception in a centre where an individual’s movement is restricted can be considered as an alternative to detention. 

M.A.G. entered Lithuania irregularly, from Belarus, and was later detained while attempting to cross the border between Lithuania and Poland, in a minibus with 21 other third country national. M.A.G. informed the National Border Guard Service that he feared returning to his country of origin and was accordingly invited to submit an application for international protection. M.A.G.’s application was dismissed by the Migration Department under the Ministry of Interior on 27 December 2021 as a result of an administrative error. M.A.G. appealed the decision of 27 December 2021 and as a result, the legal status of the applicant was unclear.

The National Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania applied for a measure to be issued to allow M.A.G. to be accommodated at Kybartai Aliens Registration Centre, where M.A.G. would have the right to move around the centre but not to leave the premises, as an alternative to detention. Both the Alytus District Court (20 November 2021) and the Marijampole Palace of Marijampole District Court (on 15 February 2022) issued judgments confirming that M.A.G. could be granted reception at Kybartai Aliens Registration Centre as an alternative to detention for three months and six months respectively.  However, both courts noted that the applicant’s stay at the registration centre would be extended if the applicant’s legal status was not confirmed.

The applicant submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court requesting the annulment of the judgment pronounced by Marijampole Palace of Marijampole District Court of 15 February 2022. On appeal, M.A.G. stated that he was detained under inhumane conditions citing reports published by the Lithuanian Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office stating that even when given reception in centres controlled by the State Border Guard as an alternative to detention, third country nationals live in de facto detention conditions which are inhuman and degrading.

In relation to the applicant’s legal status, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court upheld the applicant's appeal and stated that the conduct of the Lithuanian authorities was unlawful and contrary to the Asylum Procedures Directive (recast). The Department of Migration was ordered to re-examine M.A.G.’s application for international protection. The Supreme Court therefore stated that M.A.G. should be considered an applicant for international protection.

The Supreme Court confirmed that the applicant’s irregular entry into Lithuania and lack of financial means were grounds for detaining the foreign national. However, the Supreme Court also noted that the applicant’s case file established that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant was a threat to the State and the applicant was assisting the relevant authorities charged with determining his legal status. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that there were grounds under Article 115(1) and (5) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Legal Status of Aliens, to provide M.A.G. with an alternative to detention.

The Supreme Court further noted that, in light of the findings published by the Lithuanian Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office, accommodation at the Kybartai Aliens Registration Centre could not be considered an alternative measure to detention as the restrictions on the applicant’s freedom of movement would amount to de facto detention. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the applicant should be transferred to a different reception facility where he would not be subjected to restrictions of movement.