This case concerned the lawfulness of extending detention periods in situations where a third country national, who irregularly entered Lithuania, has a pending application for international protection but does not pose a threat to national security or public order and their identity has been confirmed.

M.E.A. entered Lithuania irregularly and was later arrested by officials from the Republic of Poland on 25 October 2021 while attempting to cross the Lithuanian-Poland border. M.E.A was returned to Lithuania and detained on 26 October 2021. On 28 October, the Vilnius regional Court issued a judgement stating that M.E.A was to be detained until 26 January 2022. The Vilnius Regional Court extended the detention period two times, until the 26 February 2022 and then until 26 May 2022, pursuant to requests from the State Border Guard Service, on the basis that there was reason to believe that a foreign national may abscond in order to avoid being returned to their country of origin.

On appeal, M.E.A. requested that the proceedings remain pending until the Court of Justice of the European Union rules on the present case. M.E.A. submitted an additional request to amend the decision of the Vilnius Region District Court of 25 February 2022 in order to allow M.E.A. to reside in centre while moving freely around the centre but not leave the premises, as an alternative to detention, until the ruling is published.

The Supreme Court noted that the extension had been granted on the grounds that such a measure was required to determine the legal status of the applicant and ensure their return to their country of origin if required. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court noted that the authorities had delayed procedural steps and that the applicant had not been given the opportunity to apply for international protection until 28 March 2022. M.E.A. had submitted a previous application at the detention centre, on 22 November 2021, but the Migration Department decided that it was invalid and instructed M.E.A. to submit a new application directly to the Migration Department. As a result of this delay, the applicant was regarded as an irregular migrant as opposed to an applicant for international protection during court proceedings.

The court noted that as an applicant for international protection, M.E.A. can only be detained under specific circumstances outlined in Articles 113, 140 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Legal Status of Aliens. The court observed that M.E.A.’s identity had been established and that there was nothing in the file which suggested that the individual was a threat to public order or national security or that there was a failure to cooperate with national authorities. Considering that individuals should be detained for the shortest period of time possible, the Supreme Court concluded based on the facts above that it was not necessary to extend the period of detention and that M.E.A. should be granted an alternative to detention in the form of accommodation at the State Border Guard Service without restrictions of movement until 26 May 2022.