The applicant, a national of Tajikistan, irregularly crossed the border from Russia and entered Estonia on 11 September 2023. On the same day, he was apprehended by the Police and Border Guard Board (PBGB), and he immediately requested international protection. The PBGB detained him based on the Act on Granting International Protection to Aliens (AGIPA). On 12 September 2023, the Tartu Administrative Court granted permission to detain the applicant for up to two months, based on section 36(1)(2),(4) of the AGIPA and section 68(3) of the Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act (OLPEA). The detention period was then extended until 8 March 2024 by the Tallinn Administrative Court on 7 November 2023. On 14 December 2023, the Tallinn Circuit court dismissed the applicant's appeal against this decision, and, on 16 January 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's subsequent appeal. Following, on 6 March 2024, the Tallinn Administrative Court partially granted the PBGB's application and extended the permission to detain the applicant until 6 May 2024, for the purpose of protecting national security or public order in case of unavoidable need, as set forth by section 36(1)(2)(6) of the AGIPA. The Tallinn Administrative Court noted that the applicant had recently participated in Russia's war against Ukraine as a conscript, carried an illegal electric shock weapon in Estonia, and cleared his phone data upon arrival. Therefore, it deemed possible that the applicant had ties with the Russian armed forces or security authorities, possibly representing a real and sufficiently serious threat to the security and public order of Estonia.

In his appeal before the Tallinn Circuit Court, the applicant requested the annulment of the order of the Tallinn Administrative Court dated 6 March 2024, the rejection of the PBGB's application, and release from detention. The Tallinn Circuit Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the administrative court's order.

The Tallinn Circuit Court affirmed that under section 36(1)(2)(6) of the AGIPA, an applicant for international protection may be detained in case of unavoidable need in order to protect national security or public order. Additionally, it specified that the suspicion of danger must be confirmed by individual circumstances characterising the conduct or background of the applicant. Following CJEU judgment in J.N. v State Secretary for Security and Justice (C-601/15 PPU, 15 February 2016), the Tallinn Circuit Court reiterated that detention of an applicant or the continuation of detention is justified solely if their individual conduct constitutes a genuine, present, and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society or the internal or external security of the Member State concerned. Additionally, the Tallinn Circuit Court cited CJEU judgment in M.A. v State Border Protection Service at the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania (C-72/22 PPU, 30 June 2022) according to which an applicant cannot constitute a threat to the national security or public order, within the meaning of Article 8(3)(e) of the Reception Conditions Directive, solely on the ground of their illegal stay in that Member State. In this regard, the Tallinn Circuit Court added that the applicant could be considered to be such a threat because of special circumstances which, in addition to his illegal entry and stay, demonstrated that he was posing a risk to Estonia.

The Tallinn Circuit Court also referenced the CJEU judgment in Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis (C-145/09, 23 November 2010), affirming that the concept of public security covers both the internal and external security of a Member State. The court specified that in the present case, the threat posed by the applicant was related to the outbreak of war and the end of a state's existence. In this regard, the court elaborated on Russia's aggression towards Ukraine and its activities aimed at undermining the security of the neighboring country. The Tallinn Circuit Court noted that the threat of such activities was also relevant to Estonia, which therefore had the right and the duty to take the necessary legal measures. Furthermore, the court determined that in the present case, while the likelihood of harm to national security could not be considered sufficient, there were reasons to believe it could not be excluded.

The Tallinn Circuit Court assessed that the detention of the applicant was lawful, as there was sufficient doubt that he may have entered Estonia to contribute to Russia's activities that jeopardize Estonia's security. Considering his individual profile and personal conduct, the court determined that his presence in Estonia could pose an immediate and sufficiently serious threat in the current security situation. Therefore, to prevent potential harm, it was justified to detain the person to examine the circumstances more closely.