A., a 19-year-old Ukrainian-born applicant who was naturalised as Russian at the age of 6, had been living in Latvia since 2014, and without a valid identity document since 2021. On 20 May 2025, the applicant requested international protection, submitting that due to his origin he faced discrimination while living in Russia, including denial of access to education. He based his application for international protection on political grounds, stating that he had opposed the war in Ukraine on social media, participated in pro-Ukrainian events in Riga, and attended a march in 2022. He further submitted that he was at risk of conscription and did not wish to fight against his country of origin, but that refusal to perform compulsory military service could result in imprisonment if returned to Russia.

On 18 December 2025, the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (hereinafter OCMA) rejected his application for international protection, finding that the applicant was not at risk of persecution and noting that the application had been submitted belatedly, as A. had been living in Latvia since 2014 but only applied in 2025. OCMA further observed that, although the applicant was of military age, he was not registered for military service, had not received a draft notice, and therefore there were no grounds to conclude that he had evaded conscription or deserted. It also argued that the applicant had not demonstrated that he was a leader or organiser of pro-Ukraine events, and that his online activity had not reached a wide audience, and therefore there was no reason to believe that he would attract the attention of the Russian authorities.

The applicant appealed the decision before the Riga District Administrative Court (the court), which found that the applicant's asylum claim was primarily based on a fear of being conscripted into military service and sent to fight in Ukraine, as well as of facing imprisonment in the event of refusal.

The court recalled that, pursuant to Section 38(2)(5) of the Latvian Asylum Law, persecution may include prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict where such service would involve war crimes or crimes against humanity, it being undisputed that any refusal by the applicant would take place in the context of an armed conflict. It further noted as “undisputed” that “Russian armed forces have committed and continue to commit acts classified as war crimes or crimes against humanity, as confirmed by international reports”.

The court observed that the Russian armed forces have a hybrid structure consisting of professional soldiers serving under fixed-term contracts and conscripts performing one year of mandatory service. Referring to the EUAA's COI Report The Russian Federation: Country Focus (December 2025, pp. 88-90), it emphasised that since February 2022, 217 conscripts have reportedly been killed, including at least 72 in the Kursk and Belgorod regions, and that conscripts may also be deployed to Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, which the Russian authorities consider part of Russia.

In light of the above, the court concluded that conscription into the Russian armed forces is highly likely to entail participation in active hostilities and associated war crimes.

Secondly, the court examined whether the applicant would face prosecution or punishment for refusing military service and noted that, according to the abovementioned EUAA COI Report, failure to respond to a draft notice may result in administrative restrictions such as bans on business registration, property transactions, loans, and driving, as well as fines or imprisonment of up to 2 years, all of which is enforced in practice.

Regarding OCMA's argument that the applicant was not registered for military service and had not received a draft notice, the court dismissed this as not decisive, since conscription applies up to the age of 30 and there was no basis to assume that the applicant would not come to the attention of the authorities in the future. The applicant was also not found to fall within any category exempt from military service.

The court then referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union's judgment in EZ v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-238/19, 19 November 2020), which held that punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict involving war crimes or crimes against humanity may constitute persecution, and that although refusal may stem from political, religious, or moral convictions, even where personal reasons exist, in wartime conditions and in the absence of lawful alternatives, authorities are likely to interpret such refusal as political opposition, an interpretation the court considered highly likely in the current Russian political context.

In conclusion, the Riga District Administrative Court found that the applicant was likely to be conscripted upon return to Russia; that military service may involve participation in war crimes; that lawful avoidance of service was not realistically available to him; that refusal would likely result in criminal prosecution and imprisonment; and that such refusal would likely be interpreted as political opposition. It therefore held that the applicant's fear of persecution was well-founded and ordered OCMA to issue a decision granting him refugee status.