S. S., requested international protection in Lithuania, alleging political persecution in his country of origin. The applicant alleged that, due to his political beliefs expressed through poems, songs, and online publications critical of Russia’s war in Ukraine and mocking and criticizing A. Lukashenko and V. Putin, and that he posted this information on various websites, and conducts conversations on the social network “Telegram” about the war. He added that he had been subjected to searches, detention, and criminal proceedings in 2023. He supported his claim with documents such as a copy of a search protocol showing the confiscation of his electronic equipment, a detention record, and a letter confirming the initiation of criminal proceedings against him and the restriction of his departure from his country of origin. On 20 February 2025, the Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania (Migration Department) rejected the application for international protection, finding that the applicant’s fear of persecution was not objectively justified and that no sufficient evidence proved the existence of a criminal case or political motivation behind the alleged acts. The applicant challenged this decision before the Regional Administrative Court. On 10 June 2025, the Regional Administrative Court ruled in his favour, annulled the Migration Department’s decision, and ordered a re-examination of his application for international protection. The Migration Department lodged an appeal against this judgment before the Supreme Administrative Court. 

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that in order to find a well-founded fear of persecution, both subjective and objective elements were necessary and had to be supported by concrete evidence rather than general statements. Referring to its own jurisprudence and to ECtHR judgments in F.G. v Sweden (No 43611/11), of 23 March 2016 and T.K. and others v Lithuania (55978/20), of 22 March 2022, the court stressed that the existence of a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment had to be assessed rigorously in light of both the general situation in the country of origin and the applicant’s personal circumstances. 

The court found that S. S. had provided credible evidence of political persecution. According to the court, the materials submitted by the applicant included proof of a search, confiscation of his equipment, his detention and interrogation, the restriction of his right to leave the country, and an official letter confirming ongoing criminal proceedings and an active search for him. The court also acknowledged that the NGO BYSOL, had recognised the applicant as a victim of political repression. The court held that the Migration Department had evaluated these materials in a purely formalistic way, failing to individualise the applicant’s situation and to assess the totality of the evidence. According to the court, the Migration Department's conclusion, that the criminal case and persecution were not proven, contradicted the documents in the file. The court stated that the Migration Department, by disregarding the country of origin information and the applicant’s testimony, had not respected its duty to base administrative acts on objective data under Article 10(5) of the Law on Public Administration. 

The court held that it was not necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ‘reasonable likelihood’ of persecution. It was sufficient that the risk was more than hypothetical, theoretical, low or uncertain. The court held that the applicant's political activism and the confirmed criminal prosecution in his country of origin corroborated the existence of that real risk. Consequently, the court held that the lower court had correctly concluded that the Migration Department's decision lacked an adequate factual and legal basis. 

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the Migration Department’s appeal and upheld the applicant’s refugee status. It found that the applicant’s political activism critical of A. Lukashenko and V. Putin, combined with confirmed criminal proceedings against him, established a real risk of persecution. The court held that the Migration Department had failed to assess the evidence objectively and individually. It ordered a re-examination of the application in line with legal standards and the applicant’s personal circumstances.