Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Lithuania
Country of Decision : Lithuania
Court Name : LT: Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania [Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas]
Date of decision : 10/03/2020
Type : Decision
ECLI :
Case Number/Citation/ Document Symbol : Administrative file no. A20.-550-763 / 2020 Litigation no. 4-45-3-00074-2020-1

A.K. v State Border Guard Service

LT: The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the decision to extend the detention period due to the applicant's risk of absconding.

A.K. was detained by the State Border Guard Service (SBGS) on 10 October 2019 while attempting to cross the border of Lithuania. While he was in detention, he applied for asylum. The Migration Department decided not to assess his application in order to determine the EU state responsible for examining the asylum claim.

The applicant appealed before the regional court contesting his detention, that was approved by the Vilnius Regional District Court until 10 December 2019 and then extended until 10 March 2020. He claimed psychological problems linked to the imprisonment, as well as discrimination by the Department regarding his country of origin and age. The appeal upheld the Migration Department decision. As a consequence, SBGS extended his detention and the applicant appealed this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the lower court's decision to extend the detention. It considered that there was a high risk of absconding, as the applicant fled the first country of asylum after the rejection of his asylum claim to enter in another country where he filed another application. Before the result of his asylum claim he left also the latter country in order to avoid trasnfer under the Dublin III Regulation and entered another country where he submitted another application. The court confirmed the finding of the Migration Department that the applicant fled also the third country in order to avoid return before entering illegaly in Lithuania. Thus, it found that there was a high risk of absconding. The court also noted and confirmed the lower court's assessment that alternatives to detention would not be appropriate in this specific case.

Detention/ Alternatives to Detention; Dublin procedure;

Dublin Regulation III (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for IP); National law only (in case there is no reference to EU law/ECHR);

EASO IDS

Lithuania, Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania [Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas], A.K. v State Border Guard Service, Administrative file no. A20.-550-763 / 2020 Litigation no. 4-45-3-00074-2020-1, 10 March 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EASO Case Law Database.

https://caselaw.easo.europa.eu/pages/viewcaselaw.aspx?CaseLawID=1399