Article 24 - The rights of the child
Key facts of the case:
A Russian national woman was prohibited from entering Lithuania for 2 years and 6 months since she had worked for Russian bank Sberbank. In the opinion of the State Security Department, she posed a threat to the national security of Lithuania. The Department of State Security and Migration Department claimed that the applicant, while working in a facility of strategic importance for the national security of the Russian Federation, may belong to a network of recruited persons (agents) and may be used by the intelligence and security services of the Russian Federation to carry out their tasks as a loyal and trustworthy person to the authorities of the Russian Federation. She and her minor daughter (a Lithuanian citizen) thus had to remain in Russia, while her husband and her minor son (both Lithuanian citizens) lived in Lithuania.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
Does the possible threat to Lithuanian national security posed by the applicant outweigh the applicant's right to family life and the child's best interests in growing up with both parents?
Outcome of the case:
The Court annulled the prohibition on entering Lithuania. The judges noted that the threat to national security was only based on the woman’s previous employment and position in a bank linked to the Russian government (Sberbank). She has been married to a Lithuanian citizen since 16 December 2014. The ban on staying in Lithuania substantially changes the legal status of her two children, who are Lithuanian citizens. There are no indications that she committed acts threatening the state security of Lithuania during her employment in the bank or later.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the best interest of the children has priority over the likelihood of the applicant's risk to national security.
57. This conclusion, in order to safeguard the best interests of the children, is totality based on the circumstances of the case, in particular the age of the children, the fact that, in the absence of specific situations, the children are legally, financially and emotionally dependent on both parents. This assessment is not undermined by the fact that the other parent, a national of the Republic of Lithuania, is, in fact, able and prepared to care for the child on a day-to-day basis. As the Court of Justice of the European Union has pointed out, this circumstance is relevant. Still, it is not sufficient on its own to establish that there is no significant relationship of dependence between the parent, a third-country national, and the child (see mutatis mutandis, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 May 2017 in Case C-133/15 Chavez-Vilchez and Others EU:C:2017:354 and Judgment in case Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid of 22 June 2023 in Case C-459/20 EU:C:2023:499). Considering the threat to the children's equilibrium posed by the restrictions on family life in the present situation and in order to balance the interests at stake, the Chamber of Judges finds that the effect on the children's interests of the contested decision in the present case to prohibit the applicant's entry into Lithuania is disproportionate. The principle of proportionality, read in conjunction with the duty to have regard to the best interests of the child, as set out in Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, requires that any decisions which may affect the welfare of children and their relationship with both parents be based on a thorough analysis of the situation and the best interests children must have the priority.
57. Tokia išvada, siekiant užtikrinti vaikų interesus, daroma atsižvelgus į visas nagrinėjamo atvejo aplinkybes, visų pirma vaikų amžių, aplinkybes, kad, nesant susiklosčiusių specifinių situacijų, vaikai teisiškai, finansiškai bei emociškai priklauso nuo abiejų tėvų. Tokio vertinimo nepaneigia aplinkybė, kad kitas iš tėvų, Lietuvos Respublikos pilietis, iš tiesų gali ir yra pasirengęs vienas kasdien faktiškai prižiūrėti vaiką. Kaip yra nurodęs Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismas, ši aplinkybė yra svarbi, bet jos vienos nepakanka tam, kad būtų galima konstatuoti, jog tarp vieno iš tėvų, trečiosios šalies piliečio, ir vaiko nėra reikšmingo priklausomumo ryšio (mutatis mutandis žr. Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo didžiosios kolegijos 2017 m. gegužės 10 d. sprendimą Chavez-Vilchez ir kiti, C-133/15, EU:C:2017:354 ir 2023 m. birželio 22 d. sprendimą Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, C?459/20, EU:C:2023:499). Atsižvelgdama į grėsmę vaikų pusiausvyrai, kurią kelia šeimos gyvenimo apribojimai esamoje situacijoje, bei siekdama suderinti kylančius interesus, teisėjų kolegija konstatuoja, kad šioje byloje ginčijamo sprendimo uždrausti pareiškėjai atvykti į Lietuvą poveikis vaikų interesams yra neproporcingas. Proporcingumo principas, aiškinamas kartu su pareiga atsižvelgti į viršesnį vaiko interesą, kaip nurodyta Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos 24 straipsnio 2 dalyje, reikalauja, kad bet kokie sprendimai, kurie gali paveikti vaikų gerovę ir jų ryšius su abiem tėvais, būtų grindžiami išsamia situacijos analize ir pagrįsti vaikų interesų prioritetu.