Lithuania / Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania / No. eA-2533-1188/2025

E.K v Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior (third interested parties State Security Department of Lithuania and State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior)
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania
Type
Decision
Decision date
08/10/2025
  • Lithuania / Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania / No. eA-2533-1188/2025

    Key facts of the case:

    E. K., a third-country national, was married to a Lithuanian citizen and lived in Lithuania with him and their infant son, who was a Lithuanian national. She worked from 2005 to 2022 in the human resources department of a foreign state-owned postal enterprise, in the country of origin, which the president of that country later declared a strategic company. In 2025, the Migration Department refused to renew her temporary residence permit and ordered her removal from Lithuania, citing a threat to national security based on a State Security Department (VSD) assessment that her past employment could make her vulnerable to influence by that foreign state’s intelligence services.

    Regarding the qualification of the company as ‘strategic’, the Court relied on the conclusion of the State Security Department, which states that, based on public sources, the applicant’s former employer, a state post company, has been listed as a strategic company by presidential decree since 2013. Given the known operational methods of that country's intelligence services, the Department assesses that the applicant likely had contact with them during their employment. 

    E. K. contested the decisions, arguing they were based on assumptions rather than an individualised assessment, ignored her integration in Lithuania, and violated her family life and her child’s rights as an EU citizen. 

    Key legal question raised by the court:

    Whether the Migration Department lawfully refused to renew E. K.’s temporary residence permit and ordered her removal from Lithuania on national security grounds, given her right to respect for family life and her child’s best interests under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    Whether the existence of a general security concern—based solely on E. K.’s previous employment in a foreign state-owned post company considered as a ‘strategic’ company—was sufficient to justify limiting her residence rights in Lithuania, and whether the authorities properly balanced national security interests with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter. The Court thus examined to what extent national authorities must provide an individual, evidence-based, and proportionate assessment when invoking “national security” to restrict the residence rights of a foreign national who has close family ties to an EU citizen and resides legally in Lithuania.

    Outcome of the court:

    The Supreme Administrative Court held that a refusal to renew a residence permit on national security grounds cannot be based on general or abstract assumptions. Authorities must carry out a concrete, individualised, and proportionate assessment of the person’s situation, considering their family life and the best interests of the child as required by Articles 7 and 24(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    The Court found that the Migration Department had not demonstrated any real or current threat posed by E. K. and had failed to assess her family circumstances and the impact on her Lithuanian child.

    The Court therefore quashed the earlier judgment and the Migration Department’s decisions that refused to renew her residence permit and ordered her removal from Lithuania with a three-month re-entry ban. The case was sent back for re-examination, and the Migration Department was ordered to reassess E. K.’s application.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    35. Furthermore, it should be noted that under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter also the Charter), everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life. Article 24(2) of the Charter provides that in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.

    ...

    40. Although in the present case the dispute does not concern the granting or refusal of international protection, it relates to the non-renewal of a residence permit and removal of the applicant on that basis. Therefore, the Court must apply, by analogy, the reasoning of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its judgment of 11 June 2024 in Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, Case C-646/21, where the CJEU, interpreting the Charter in the context of Directive 2011/95/EU (on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted), held that: From Article 24(2) of the Charter and Article 3(1) of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, expressly referred to in the explanations relating to Article 24 of the Charter, it follows that the best interests of the child must be taken into account not only when examining applications relating to children on their merits, but also during the decision-making procedure itself through concrete procedural safeguards. Indeed, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated, the expression “the best interests of the child”, as used in Article 3(1) of that Convention, refers to a substantive right, a fundamental interpretative legal principle, and a procedural rule (see General Comment No. 14 (2013) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (Article 3(1)), CRC/C/GC/14, paragraph 6).

    41. In its Order of 15 February 2023 in GS, Case C-484/22, the CJEU stated that, in view of the objective of Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC (on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals) —which is to ensure respect for several fundamental rights, including the fundamental rights of the child enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter—this provision cannot be interpreted narrowly (see also État belge (Return of one parent of a minor), Case C-112/20, judgment of 11 March 2021, EU:C:2021:197, paragraph 35).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    35. Be to, pažymėtina, kad pagal Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos (toliau – ir Chartija) 7 straipsnį kiekvienas asmuo turi teisę į tai, kad būtų gerbiamas jo privatus ir šeimos gyvenimas. Šios Chartijos 24 straipsnio 2 dalyje nustatyta, kad visuose valstybės ar privačių institucijų veiksmuose, susijusiuose su vaikais, pirmiausia turi būti vadovaujamasi vaiko interesais.

    ...

    40. Nors nagrinėjamu atveju nėra susiklostę tarptautinės apsaugos (ne)suteikimo teisiniai santykiai, sprendžiama dėl leidimo laikinai gyventi nepratęsimo ir pareiškėjos išsiuntimo šiuo pagrindu. Todėl turi būti atitinkamai vadovaujamasi Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo (toliau – ir ESTT) 2024 m. birželio 11 d. sprendime Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid byloje C-646/21, aiškinant minėtą Chartiją Direktyvos 2011/95/ES (dėl trečiųjų šalių piliečių ar asmenų be pilietybės priskyrimo prie tarptautinės apsaugos gavėjų, vienodo statuso pabėgėliams arba papildomą apsaugą galintiems gauti asmenims ir suteikiamos apsaugos pobūdžio reikalavimų; Priskyrimo direktyva)  kontekste, pažymėtu vertinimu, kad: iš Chartijos 24 straipsnio 2 dalies ir 1989 m. lapkričio 20 d. Jungtinių Tautų Generalinės Asamblėjos patvirtintos Tarptautinės vaiko teisių konvencijos 3 straipsnio 1 dalies, į kurią aiškiai daroma nuoroda Chartijos 24 straipsnio išaiškinimuose, matyti, kad į geriausius vaiko interesus turi būti atsižvelgiama ne tik vertinant su vaikais susijusius prašymus iš esmės; jie per konkrečias procedūrines garantijas taip pat turi daryti įtaką sprendimų priėmimo procedūrai iki šio vertinimo; iš tiesų, kaip pažymėjo Jungtinių Tautų Vaiko teisių komitetas, žodžių junginys „geriausi vaiko interesai“, kaip jis suprantamas pagal šio 3 straipsnio 1 dalį, reiškia nuorodą ir į materialinę teisę, ir į aiškinimo principą, ir į procedūrinę taisyklę (žr. Vaiko teisių komiteto bendrosios pastabos Nr. 14 (2013) dėl vaiko teisės į tai, kad pirmiausia būtų vadovaujamasi geriausiais vaiko interesais (3 straipsnio 1 dalis), CRC/C/GC/14, 6 punktą).

    41. ESTT 2023 m. vasario 15 d. nutartyje GS byloje C-484/22 pažymėta, kad: atsižvelgiant į Direktyvos 2008/115/EB (dėl bendrų nelegaliai esančių trečiųjų šalių piliečių grąžinimo standartų ir tvarkos valstybėse narėse; Grąžinimo direktyva) 5 straipsniu siekiamą tikslą užtikrinti kelių pagrindinių teisių, įskaitant pagrindines vaiko teises, įtvirtintas Chartijos 24 straipsnyje, paisymą vykdant šioje direktyvoje nustatytą grąžinimo procedūrą, šis straipsnis negali būti aiškinamas siaurai (žr. 2021 m. kovo 11 d. sprendimo État belge (vieno iš nepilnamečio tėvų grąžinimas), C-112/20, EU:C:2021:197, 35 punktą).