R.S. requested international protection in Lithuania, alleging persecution in his country of origin due to his political beliefs, ethnicity and risk of forced mobilisation, as he had extensive military experience. He claimed that expressing opposition to the regime or the ongoing war would expose him to persecution and that Lithuania should not expect him to conceal his political beliefs. On 1 April 2025, the Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania rejected the application for international protection, finding that his fears were not individually substantiated since the risks cited stemmed from the general situation in his country of origin rather than personal circumstances. It also classified him as a threat to national security, partly based on information from the State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania (VSD). It also ordered his expulsion from Lithuania and imposed a 5-year entry ban and a Schengen Information System (SIS) alert. The applicant challenged this decision before the Regional Administrative Court. On 18 June 2025, the court partly upheld his complaint annulling the SIS entry ban but maintained the rejection of international protection and confirmed his expulsion from Lithuania. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court. 

The court recalled that refugee status and subsidiary protection required a well-founded fear of persecution, which had to be supported by objective and subjective elements, meaning that a mere general risk arising from the political situation in the country of origin was insufficient. The court examined whether the applicant had demonstrated such an individualised threat. It noted that the applicant had never publicly expressed or published his political beliefs, had no record of persecution, and no evidence suggested that the authorities in his country of origin were aware of or monitoring him. Referring to CJEU judgment  S, A v State Secretary for Justice and Security (Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid) (C-151/22), of 21 September 2023, the court acknowledged that the asylum authority had the duty to assess whether an applicant’s expressed political beliefs could arouse suspicion by potential persecutors. The court found no indication that the applicant had ever manifested political beliefs in a manner that could expose him to risk relevant to asylum. 

The court found that no credible evidence showed systemic or targeted persecution against people of the applicant’s background. According to the court, the country-of-origin information (COI) reports from international organisations and NGOs did not indicate that individuals of similar ethnicity or former military officers were being persecuted simply for belonging to that ethnic group or for having resided abroad. It also rejected the claim that returning to his country of origin would result in forced mobilisation. The court acknowledged that there had been legislative amendments raising the age limits of reservists in the applicant’s country of origin. However, the court stated that no data suggested that reserve officers like the applicant were forcibly mobilised. The court noted that mobilisation was not underway in the applicant's country of origin, and that contractors, volunteers and a small number of conscripts were participating in military operations and the applicant had not been summoned for military service, and so it considered that it was unlikely that the applicant will be mobilized and sent to war. Therefore, the court held that the applicant’s fear was not objectively justified. 

The court also referred to ECtHR’s judgment, Üner v The Netherlands (No 46410/99), of 18 October 2006, reaffirming that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) did not guarantee the right to family life in a particular country. Furthermore, the court stated that while the applicant argued that his partner’s health required his presence, he failed to prove that no one else could care for her or that their relationship could not continue elsewhere. The court balanced this against the state’s legitimate aim of protecting national security, which outweighed the applicant’s private interests. Finally, the court assessed the proportionality of the 5-year entry ban, finding that it was disproportionate and contradicted a decision adopted by the Migration Department itself (Decision No. 24S68522 of 1 March 2024). Accordingly, the court reduced the ban on the applicant from entering the Republic of Lithuania to 2.5-years. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania partially upheld the applicant’s appeal. It confirmed that he did not qualify for international protection, but shortened the entry ban imposed from 5 years to 2.5 years.