According to the Supreme Administrative Court's press release of 10 July 2026:

“The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (SACL) examined an administrative case concerning a decision of the Migration Department to transfer an asylum applicant under Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (the Dublin III Regulation).

The Migration Department had decided to transfer the applicant to another European Union Member State after that State had accepted responsibility for examining his application for international protection and had agreed to take him back in accordance with the procedure established by the Dublin III Regulation.

The applicant argued that the transfer had not been carried out within the six-month period provided for in Article 29 of the Dublin III Regulation. Consequently, responsibility for examining his application for international protection had passed to Lithuania. The Migration Department maintained that another Member State remained responsible for examining the application.

Referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), SACL noted that the procedures for transferring or taking back an applicant under the Dublin III Regulation must be completed within the six-month period established in Article 29(1) and (2) of the Regulation. The Court emphasised that if the transfer is not carried out within that period, responsibility for examining the application automatically passes to the requesting Member State.

SACL further observed that, in such circumstances, no additional decision by the originally responsible Member State refusing to take charge of or take back the applicant is required. The mere expiry of the time limit without the transfer being carried out is sufficient to trigger the transfer of responsibility.

Having examined the circumstances of the case, the Court found that the transfer decision had not been granted suspensive effect during the judicial proceedings and that the six-month period had expired before the dispute was finally resolved. As a result, responsibility for examining the applicant's request for international protection had passed to Lithuania.

The Court therefore held that the Migration Department's decision no longer reflected the legal situation that had arisen and concluded that the applicant's request for international protection must be examined in Lithuania.”