Article 6 - Right to liberty and security
Article 18 - Right to asylum
Key facts of the case:
On 19 November 2021, the applicant M.A. was transferred to the Lithuanian State Border Guard Service (SBGS, Service) by Polish border guards whilst trying to cross the Lithuanian-Polish border. The applicant reached the border by crossing the Lithuanian-Belarusian border, however, he did not have any valid travel documents, although he did present a passport.
Upon request of the SBGS, on 20 November 2021, the Alytus district Alytus Palace court decided to detain M.A. for three months. M.A. appealed the decision before the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, claiming that there were no grounds to impose such a strict measure and that as the alternative periodical visits to the Service should be required. SBGS argued that the applicant’s legal status in Lithuania had not been clarified yet, and there had been a risk of the applicant going into hiding.
According to the applicant, he applied for asylum by submitting an application to an SBGS officer, however, there was no record of such application. He also asked for asylum during the first court hearing regarding his detention, and during the second court hearing regarding his appeal. During the appellate court proceedings, on 24 January 2022 he submitted the request in writing to SBGS, which forwarded the request to the Migration Department. The Department refused to examine the request due to the circumstance under which the request was submitted as it had not abided by the legal procedure and there had been an undue delay. According to the legal regulation, amended in 2021, during an extraordinary situation due to the mass influx of aliens, state of emergency or state of war, applications for asylum could only be submitted at official border check points or at Lithuanian diplomatic representations abroad.
On 2 February 2022, the Supreme Administrative Court suspended the proceedings in the case and submitted a question for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU on whether the restrictions on access to asylum procedures as well as the possibility of detaining an asylum seeker solely on the ground that they entered illegally were in compliance with EU law.
On 30 June 2022, the CJEU found that legal norms restricting access to the asylum procedure for foreigners who are in the territory of the country and have entered illegally, even when there is an extraordinary situation, state of emergency or state of war, as well as the possibility of detaining an asylum seeker solely on the ground that he or she entered illegally, were prohibited under the EU Asylum Directives (2013/32/EU and 2013/33/EU).
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The court asked two main legal questions:
What is the legal status of the applicant?
Are there grounds to apply detention to the applicant?
Outcome of the case:
The court found that the applicant was an asylum seeker as he has asked for asylum twice during the court hearings as well as in writing, by submitting an application to the SBGS. Even though his application was not accepted by the Migration Department due to noncompliance with existing legal procedure, the court concluded, relying also on the judgment of the CJEU in M.A. C-72/22 PPU, that legal norms that restrict access to asylum procedures based on the circumstance that a person has entered the territory illegally, are prohibited by EU directives.
The court also found that there was no ground for detention, whereas the subsequent alternative measure applied to the applicant – accommodation in the SBGS-run foreigners’ registration centre with the right to move only within the territory of the centre, amounted to detention. The court reasoned that the sole fact that the applicant entered illegally cannot be a lawful ground for detaining an asylum seeker, and that there were no factual circumstances in the case that would show that the individual behaviour of the applicant was a threat to the values of public interests or internal or external security.
Taking into account the above, the court annulled the decision of the first instance court, partially satisfied the appeal of the applicant and rejected SBGS’s request for the applicant’s detention.
17. No less important is the obligation of the Member States enshrined in Article 6(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU to ensure that persons who have made an application for international protection have an effective opportunity to lodge it as soon as possible. Whilst applying for international protection, registering the application as well as submitting it, the purpose of Directive 2013/32/EU must be observed, to ensure effective opportunity, i.e. as simply as possible, to use the procedure of granting of international protection. Although applying for international protection and submitting an application for international protection are two subsequent different stages, they are inter-related, as their aim is to ensure, first, an opportunity to effectively use the procedure of international protection, and, secondly, to ensure the effectiveness of Article 18 of the Charter (see case of M.A. paras. 59-60, 62 and the case-law cited therein). Taking into account such circumstances, the Court of Justice in its M.A. judgment unequivocally concluded that whilst applying a provision of national law such as Article 14012 para. 1 of the Law [On Legal Status of Foreigners – researcher’s note] which provides that a citizen of a third country who is illegally present in the country, solely because of this circumstance looses an opportunity to ask for international protection or submit an application for international protection after they entered the territory of Lithuania, such a citizen is prevented from a real exercise of the right enshrined in Article 18 of the Charter, and such an implementation of the opportunity to use the procedure of application for international protection cannot be held as compliant with the requirements set out in Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2013/32/EU (see case of M.A. Paras. 63-64).
…
27. In Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33/EU various grounds justifying detention are listed comprehensively and every and each of these grounds reflects a specific need and is of an independent nature. Taking into account the importance of the right to liberty enshrined in Article 6 of the Charter and the severity of restriction of this right by such a measure as detention, the restrictions of the use of this right cannot exceed what is strictly necessary. The sole circumstance that the applicant for international protection is in the territory of the country illegally, cannot under Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33/EU justify the detention of that applicant. Since the measure of detention cannot be applied to a third country citizen solely because he or she is in the country illegally (see case of M.A. paras 83-84), and such national regulation is clearly prohibited by the EU law (see the second part of the concluding part in the case of M.A.), the extended panel of judges, relying on the above case law of the Court of Justice, and being obliged to apply the provisions of the law of the European Union and ensure their full application, concluded that the sole fact that a foreigner enters the territory of the Republic of Lithuania illegally does not justify his detention.
17. Nemažiau svarbi ir Direktyvos 2013/32/ES 6 straipsnio 2 dalyje įtvirtinta valstybių narių pareiga užtikrinti, kad tarptautinės apsaugos paprašę asmenys turėtų veiksmingą galimybę prašymą pateikti kuo greičiau. Prašant tarptautinės apsaugos, įregistruojant prašymą ir jį pateikiant turi būti paisoma Direktyvos 2013/32/ES tikslo užtikrinti galimybę veiksmingai, t. y. kuo paprasčiau, pasinaudoti tarptautinės apsaugos suteikimo procedūra. Nors paprašyti tarptautinės apsaugos ir pateikti tarptautinės apsaugos prašymą reiškia vienas po kito einančius skirtingus etapus, šie veiksmai yra glaudžiai tarpusavyje susiję, nes jais siekiama užtikrinti, pirma, galimybę veiksmingai pasinaudoti tarptautinės apsaugos prašymo nagrinėjimo procedūra ir, antra, Chartijos 18 straipsnio veiksmingumą (žr. Sprendimo M. A. 59-60, 62 p. ir ten nurodytą praktiką). Atsižvelgdamas į tokias aplinkybes, Teisingumo Teismas Sprendime M. A. vienareikšmiškai konstatavo, kad taikant nacionalinės teisės nuostatą, kaip antai Įstatymo 14012 straipsnio 1 dalį, kurioje numatyta, kad trečiosios šalies pilietis, neteisėtai esantis šalyje, vien dėl šios aplinkybės netenka galimybės paprašyti tarptautinės apsaugos ar pateikti tarptautinės apsaugos prašymą po to, kai atvyko į Lietuvos teritoriją, užkertamas kelias tokiam piliečiui realiai naudotis Chartijos 18 straipsnyje įtvirtinta teise ir tokia galimybė naudotis tarptautinės apsaugos prašymo nagrinėjimo procedūra įgyvendinimo tvarka negali būti laikoma atitinkančia Direktyvos 2013/32/ES 6 straipsnyje ir 7 straipsnio 1 dalyje nustatytus reikalavimus (žr. Sprendimo M. A. 63-64 p.).
...
27. Direktyvos 2013/33/ES 8 straipsnio 3 dalyje išsamiai išvardyti įvairūs sulaikymą pateisinantys pagrindai ir kiekvienas iš šių pagrindų atitinka konkretų poreikį ir yra savarankiško pobūdžio. Atsižvelgiant į Chartijos 6 straipsnyje įtvirtintos teisės į laisvę svarbą ir į šios teisės ribojimo tokia sulaikymo priemone sunkumą, naudojimosi ja apribojimai neturi viršyti to, kas griežtai būtina. Vien tai, kad tarptautinės apsaugos prašytojas valstybės narės teritorijoje yra neteisėtai, nėra vienas iš pagrindų, kuriais remiantis pagal Direktyvos 2013/33/ES 8 straipsnio 3 dalį galima pateisinti tokio prašytojo sulaikymą. Kadangi trečiosios šalies piliečiui negali būti taikoma sulaikymo priemonė vien dėl šios buvimo valstybės narės teritorijoje neteisėtai (žr. Sprendimo M. A. 83-84 p.), o toks nacionalinis reguliavimas yra aiškiai draudžiamas ES teisės nuostatų (žr. Sprendimo M. A. rezoliucinės dalies antrą dalį), išplėstinė teisėjų kolegija, vadovaudamasi anksčiau nurodyta Teisingumo Teismo praktika, įpareigojančia taikyti Europos Sąjungos teisės nuostatas ir užtikrinti visišką jų veikimą, konstatuoja, kad vien pats Užsieniečio neteisėto patekimo į Lietuvos Respublikos teritoriją faktas nesudaro prielaidos jį sulaikyti.
