You are here:

Key facts of the case:

Migration Department refused to issue a temporary residence permit for the applicant and claimed that company, of which he is a shareholder, is fictitious. The Migration Department noted that the Company did not have actual premises for its activities, during investigation of Company’s activities no employee was working at the Company's registered office, although only one employee of the Company worked remotely under the concluded labour contract. There is also evidence that the applicant is engaged in activities in a foreign country as a participant of another company and, at the time of the Company's activity investigation, the applicant's spouse confirmed that the applicant has been away. Therefore, it can be stated that the Company was established solely for the purpose of third-country nationals, participants of the Company, formally would comply with the requirements of Article 45 of the Law on the legal status of Aliens (Issue of a Temporary Residence Permit to an Alien Who Engages, and Intends to Continue Engaging, in Lawful Activity). The applicant submitted complaint to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, however, his complaint was dismissed. The Court agreed with the conclusions of the Migration Department that applicant only wanted formally to comply with the requirements of the Law, but the company did not function in reality. Therefore, the applicant submitted appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court claiming that the contested decision was adopted by in the absence of all the procedures laid down by law, without giving the applicant an opportunity to provide explanations.

Key legal question raised by the Court:

If the Migration Department implemented the principle of good administration?

Outcome of the case:

The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint and left the ruling of Vilnius Regional Administrative Court unchanged