The applicant, RS, first submitted an application for international protection in Lithuania in 2018, which was rejected by the Migration Department. The applicant was convicted of a crime in Lithuania and was given a three-year prison sentence, and after being released made three more unsuccessful attempts to apply for international protection. 

The applicant requested a travel permit from the competent authorities but was detained under Article 114, Paragraph 1 of the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners. On 26 April 2023, the State Border Guard Service (VSAT) applied to the court to detain the applicant until 16 July 2023, as the VSAT determined that he was a threat to public order and security, meaning an alternative measure to detention could not be applied. The applicant also was said to be applying for asylum, but he was unable to do so because he did not have certain documents with him.  

The applicant appealed the detention order to the Švenčioni Chambers of the District Court and requested an alternative measure to detention that would require him to report his whereabouts. The applicant made the case that he has ties to Lithuania, was married, and had a child who was nine months old who needed his care. He had an apartment and had always responded to calls from the police and had never hidden from them. 

The Švenčioni Chambers of the District Court upheld the request and assigned the applicant an alternative measure to detention for three months, which included an obligation to report his location to the Migration Department or the VSAT Aliens Registration Centre every Tuesday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

The Migration Board of the State Border Guard Service filed an appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that this was the applicant's fifth request for asylum in Lithuania, and the Supreme Administrative Court adopted more than one final and non-appealable ruling on the refusal of asylum and deportation of the applicant from Lithuania, and the applicant was abusing the asylum system. It further argued that the applicant avoided meeting with VSAT officials and hid his real place of residence, and therefore was at risk of absconding from possible deportation.

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal of the Migration Board of the State Border Guard Service. The court concluded that the Švenčioni Chambers of the District Court had thoroughly assessed the case and an alternative measure to detention where the applicant had to report his location was deemed appropriate. 

The court observed that the applicant’s reluctance to return to his country of origin did not justify limiting the applicant’s freedom of movement, and the date of deportation had not yet even been established. The court found no evidence to suggest that the applicant would not comply with the deportation order. The court noted that the applicant had an apartment, was raising a child, and had connections to those who resided in Lithuania. The court emphasised that there was no reason to think that the applicant would hide in order to avoid being deported because he appeared at the Migration Department to submit an asylum claim, clarify his residency, and has taken part in the court hearing. Furthermore, since the applicant was released from prison in 2017, he has cooperated with the law, thus there was no justification to claim that he constituted a threat to public safety and order.