The applicant was initially granted a temporary residence permit in Lithuania on 29 August 2023, for employment purposes. However, after arriving in the country, his employer did not provide him with a job. As a result, on 14 November 2023, the Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior annulled his permit and on 2 January 2024, he was barred from entering Lithuania for three years.

On 30 October 2024, the applicant was transferred to Lithuania from Austria under the Dublin III Regulation and he immediately requested international protection. The applicant was detained since he arrived in Lithuania with the purpose of clarifying the ground for asylum. The applicant was also recognised as vulnerable person and the Vilnius Region District Court ordered an alternative measure to detention, specifically accommodation in the State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior facility or in another similar premise, with restrictions on leaving its premises without permission until 30 January 2025. 

The applicant appealed this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court stating that he was recognised as a vulnerable person and that an alternative to detention with freedom of movement restrictions was unjustified, as he posed no threat to public security. However, on 5 December 2024, the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the imposition of a more lenient alternative to detention was not possible, citing concerns over the applicant's prior movements between Lithuania, Poland, and Austria and the risk of absconding.

On 20 January 2025, the Utena District Court ruled against the applicant's request to amend the alternative to detention and remove the freedom of movement restriction. The court considered the applicant as a vulnerable person but determined that this status did not justify easing the movement restrictions. It noted that the applicant was provided with medical care, psychological assistance, and necessary living conditions in the accommodation facility. Given the applicant's secondary movements, the Utena District Court considered that these measures were deemed proportionate to ensure the proper assessment of the asylum application.

The applicant appealed again before the Supreme Administrative Court, highlighting that he was recognised as a vulnerable person after his detention, and that the lower court misjudged changes in his circumstances due to his vulnerability. The applicant argued that detention or alternative measures should only be used in exceptional cases for the shortest period, and not indefinitely during asylum procedures. The applicant argued that he posed no risk to public order or national security, and that there were no grounds to restrict his freedom of movement. The applicant also indicated that his requests for a permit to leave the accommodation facility were rejected and that other aliens faced similar challenges, thus his freedom was in fact extremely limited.

In response, the State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior asserted that the alternative measure to detention was necessary and proportionate due to the applicant's risk of absconding. While acknowledging the applicant's vulnerability, the State Border Guard noted that psychological evaluations did not recommend unrestricted movement. 

The Supreme Administrative Court emphasised that detention should be used as ultima ratio, especially for vulnerable people, who should only be subjected to detention or restrictive alternatives in exceptional circumstances. The court examined the conditions of the applicant's accommodation and found that, due to his vulnerability, the imposed restrictions disproportionately affected his rights and well-being. The court also considered the Reception Conditions Directive, which required that detained applicants, particularly vulnerable ones, should receive continuous monitoring and necessary support, including access to healthcare and psychological assistance. The court concluded that the restrictions imposed on the applicant were excessive, determining that his situation warranted a more lenient alternative measure to detention due to his vulnerability status and noted that the lower court incorrectly assessed the proportionality if the alternative measure to detention. The Supreme Administrative Court therefore partly allowed the appeal and changed the alternative measure to detention from accommodation in the State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior facility or in another similar premise with restrictions on leaving its premises without permission, with accommodation in a place of temporary accommodation without applying restrictions on freedom of movement.