A Russian national requested international protection before the Latvian State Border Guard as he opposes Russia's war against Ukraine. The applicant claimed that Russian authorities wanted to draft him into the army and send him to war, so he decided to flee and apply for international protection in Latvia.

The Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs rejected the application for international protection as the applicant's political activity was considered to be of little importance as he was not a member of any political organisation or movement, nor had he openly proclaimed his anti-war beliefs. It further argued that in the case of obligatory military service, country-of-origin information did not clearly indicate that the applicant would be deployed to participate in hostilities and there were no indications that the applicant may be held criminally accountable for evading military duty, despite the fact that the frequency of criminal prosecutions under Article 238 of the Criminal Code has lately increased. Moreover, if the applicant has a significant anti-war conviction, he may request that his military service be replaced with alternative civilian service. The mail receipts presented by the applicant as proof of receipt of summons were not considered as proof since summons are delivered in person under Russian law. Furthermore, the Office noted that there was no widespread violence or internal armed conflict that posed a major threat to life and health in Russia. 

The applicant appealed the decision before the District Administrative Court who examined first whether renunciation or evasion of military duty is criminalised in Russia. Second, whether there was a valid way to evade military obligations in Russia. Third, if Russian authorities were likely to view reluctance to complete military service as political resistance, regardless of any other conceivable personal reasons.

The court examined the EUAA COI report from December 2022, The Russian Federation - Military Service, and determined that renunciation of military service was a criminal act punishable by imprisonment. In examining the applicant's chances of obtaining a decision replacing military service with alternative civil service, the court found no such possibility realistically feasible. Moreover, the authorities would consider the reluctance to complete military service as a display of political opinion. As a result, the court upheld the appeal and ordered the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs to grant refugee status within one month from the day of judgement.