Lietuvos vyriausiojo administracinio teismo praktikos kryptys 2024 metais nagrinėtose migracijos bylose
| Date |
|---|
2024 |
Straipsnyje analizuojamos Lietuvos vyriausiojo administracinio teismo praktikos kryptys 2024 metais nagrinėtose migracijos bylose. Nurodoma, kad 2024 metais, tebesant ekstremaliai situacijai Lietuvoje, administraciniams teismams kilo naujų iššūkių, nes buvo vertinamos sudėtingos faktinės aplinkybės, teisės saugomi gėriai (pvz., nacionalinis saugumas). Be migracijos bylų, užtikrindamas viešąją tvarką ir nacionalinį saugumą, Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas taip pat sprendė aktualius ginčus, susijusius su migrantams išduotais leidimais dirbti Lietuvoje, su Lietuvos Respublikos pilietybės netekimu, įgijus kitos valstybės pilietybę, ir su tuo susijusiomis pasekmėmis – Europos Sąjungos pilietybės netekimu.
The review presents an analysis of the practice guidelines of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania in migration cases examined in 2024. It is noted that in 2024, during the ongoing state of emergency in Lithuania, administrative courts faced new challenges as they assessed complex factual circumstances and legally protected interests (e.g., national security). For instance, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania clarified that it is impossible to comprehensively define the concept of national security, as it can be very broad, leaving a wide margin of discretion for the relevant institutions to determine what is necessary for this security. Furthermore, threats to national security can vary in nature, be unexpected, or difficult to define in advance. Taking this into account, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania ruled that there is no legal basis for the assertion that the legal regulation defining national security must necessarily be of a general character, i.e., established in normative legal acts (laws or implementing legislation). National security and threats are primarily matters of fact, which are variable and difficult to define. At the same time, the Court clarified that the objectives of the EU law—to ensure that the evaluation criteria used to determine whether the residence of a foreigner holding a residence permit in the Republic of Lithuania poses a threat to national security are defined in national law while maintaining objectivity and legality—will be achieved if public administration authorities comprehensively assess threats to state security in individual administrative acts and provide arguments for denying or revoking a residence permit in Lithuania. The legality and justification of these acts should then be reviewed by independent and impartial courts, guided, among other things, by the general principles of the EU as well as the national constitutional principle of the rule of law. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania concluded that the use of the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) must strictly comply with the requirements of European Union law. On the other hand, a ban on entry into Lithuania, considering violations committed by a foreigner that endanger Lithuania’s public order and national security, may differ (usually be stricter) from a ban on entry into the Schengen area. Beyond migration cases related to public order and national security, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania also ruled on significant disputes concerning work-related residence permits issued to migrants. In this regard, the court determined that an applicant must meet the requirements set forth in the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners not only at the time of submitting the application for a temporary residence permit in Lithuania but also throughout the entire validity of that permit. Additionally, the Court examined disputes concerning the loss of Lithuanian citizenship upon acquiring the citizenship of another state and the related consequences—namely, the loss of European Union citizenship.