Case example: the client had sold an old, non-operational vehicle without formalising a sale-and-purchase agreement, so the vehicle remained registered in the client’s name. Some time later, the client received a demand to pay a significant amount for the forced towing and long-term storage of a vehicle detained by the police (it was established that another identified person had been driving), even though the client had not used the vehicle.

Position and arguments: we pointed out that in cases of forced towing and storage, the owner must be notified promptly so that they can retrieve the property in time and avoid unjustified accumulation of costs. We also emphasised that the obligation to pay cannot be based on a period about which the owner was objectively not informed, and that access to retrieve the vehicle must not be unreasonably restricted.

Outcome: the dispute was settled out of court — the claim for the major part of the amount was withdrawn, and the matter was completed in a practical manner (the vehicle was deregistered and handed over for disposal).

Practical takeaway: when selling a vehicle, it is essential to formalise the sale-and-purchase documents without delay and complete the transfer of registration (submit the relevant information to “Regitra”) — otherwise significant financial and legal risks may arise.

The post Other cases. Claim for payment for forced vehicle storage appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

This is a “non-standard,” yet real situation from my practice. After the divorce, the court set a clear arrangement: the children live with the father, while the former spouse (the children’s mother) was allowed to reside in the family home on a temporary basis only subject to specific conditions (including paying an agreed share of utility bills and not allowing debts to accumulate). As the conditions were not complied with and arrears grew, court proceedings were initiated seeking eviction, emphasizing the children’s interests in stable housing and financial security. The court ruled in the family’s (the children’s) favour: the former spouse was evicted, and litigation costs were awarded.

The post Family Case: Eviction of a Former Spouse from the Family Home appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

LLG and “threat to national security” (VSD assessments, army, police, criminal record)

Typical situation
A foreign national has been living in Lithuania for several years, has a family, children, a job or a business. However, because of:

• service in the Belarusian or Russian army, police or emergency services,
• an old criminal conviction or a cyber-crime background,
• family links to people who served in such structures,

the State Security Department (VSD) issues a negative assessment. Based on this, the Migration Department (MD):

• cancels or refuses to issue / renew a residence permit, and
• often additionally imposes a long-term entry ban and records the person in SIS.

What we do in such cases

• We carefully document the client’s actual life in Lithuania: family, employment, integration, children, language, social ties.
• We reconstruct the true content of the service or job – whether it was compulsory military service, a low-level technical role (electrician, driver, guard) or a higher position with real decision-making powers.
• We challenge the automatic reasoning: we demand concrete facts showing a real threat, not merely an abstract link with an institution or a relative.
• We rely on case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court (LVAT) which distinguishes between compulsory service and long-term contractual service in sensitive units, and stresses the duty to respect proportionality and individual assessment.

We also have experience in more unusual situations where a threat to security is based on:

• a close relative’s service in the army,
• previous IT/cyber offences,
• desertion from the army in the country of origin,
• political statements made in public space.

Results in practice

• In a number of cases the courts annulled MD decisions, finding that compulsory service or low-level work alone, without specific facts, is not enough to establish a threat.
• In other cases we managed to reduce the impact – for example, to cancel or shorten entry bans and SIS records, even though the courts took a stricter view on the residence permit itself.
• There are also cases where LVAT remains very strict – in particular, where a client served for many years under contract in special units. In such situations we look for partial solutions (shortening the ban, opening the way to re-apply in the future).

If your situation is similar
A “national security threat” label does not mean the case is lost in advance. It is crucial to act in time, analyse the specific circumstances and prepare a clear, evidence-based strategy.

The post Cases. MIGRATION-1. Concerning threats to national security. appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Cancellation of a residence permit under the Restrictive Measures Act: more than one trip in three months

Typical situation
A foreigner holds a residence permit in Lithuania, works here and raises a family. Because of war and sanctions, the law introduces strict limits on frequent trips to Russia or Belarus.

Within a few months the person makes several short trips:

• to visit seriously ill parents,
• to deal with inheritance and property matters (sale of an apartment, bank safe deposit box),
• to carry out mandatory procedures for a child or family.

Migration Department decision

• The MD mechanically counts that there was more than one trip to a “sanctions” country within three months.
• It cancels the residence permit and often imposes an entry ban and SIS record.
• The purpose and length of the trips are assessed only formally (“no objective reasons provided”).

What we do in such cases

• We collect a full set of evidence for each trip: medical documents, inheritance files, bank safe logs, customs declarations, tickets and travel documents.
• We emphasise that these trips were one-off, necessary and short-term, not regular back-and-forth travel without a serious reason.
• We rely on the principles of proportionality, legitimate expectations, good administration and the best interests of the child, which both MD and the courts must take into account.
• In court we show that the Restrictive Measures Act cannot be applied “blindly”, ignoring the real family situation and the fact that MD itself did not object to the planned trips for a long time.

Results in practice

• In some cases the courts found MD decisions disproportionate and annulled the cancellation of the residence permit and/or the entry ban.
• In several cases we achieved success at interim stages – for example, by obtaining interim measures allowing the client to remain in Lithuania while the case is examined, even if the final outcome is still pending.
• There are also cases where the first-instance court upheld the decision – then we continue in appeal.

If your situation is similar
Success depends heavily on detailed facts – the better documented the reasons and duration of trips, the higher the chances to prove that the sanction was excessive.

The post Cases. MIGRATION-2. Concerning more than 1 departure within 3 months appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Income, employment, “fictitious” companies and formal non-compliance

Typical situation
A residence permit was obtained through employment or business in Lithuania. Over time:

• the employer changes,
• salaries are delayed,
• the company works through subcontracting or operates in several countries,
• for some period the person has no official income but is in fact working or actively looking for work.

MD evaluates the situation formally: declared income is insufficient, the company is labelled “fictitious”, the activity is said to “not reflect reality”.

Migration Department decision

• MD refuses to issue or renew the residence permit,
• cancels an existing LLG/LNG,
• in some cases imposes an entry ban and creates a SIS record (“provided false data”).

What we do in such cases

• We demonstrate the real substance of the work or business: contracts, invoices, photos from worksites, client statements, work schedules, payment records.
• We explain the business model (subcontracting, remote work, seasonal activity) so that it is not automatically treated as fictitious just because it does not fit a “standard pattern”.
• We challenge disproportionate sanctions: even if MD had grounds to question certain aspects, a multi-year entry ban for formal errors is often excessive.
• We rely on LVAT case-law which stresses that migration authorities must assess the factual situation, not only the form of documents.

Results in practice

• In some cases courts annulled MD decisions and recognised that the company carried out real activity and formal inconsistencies were remedied.
• In many cases we succeeded in removing the entry ban and SIS record, keeping the door open for the client to regularise status in the future.
• There are also cases where courts supported MD – for example, when a person had no declared income for a long period and did nothing to obtain a new legal ground for residence.

If your situation is similar
The key is to quickly gather everything that shows real work or business and to avoid long “silent periods” with no income and no official documentation.

The post Cases. MIGRATION-3. Concerning employment relations / proof of sustenance. appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Disproportionate entry bans and SIS records

Typical situation
Sometimes the main problem is not the decision on the residence permit itself but the additional sanctions:

• a multi-year ban on entry into Lithuania and the Schengen area,
• a record in the Schengen Information System (SIS),
• automatic refusal of all subsequent visa or residence applications based solely on that record.

This is applied for:

• formal breaches (incorrect address, employer, income details),
• alleged “fictitious” activity,
• older administrative or criminal offences.

Migration Department decision

• Entry bans and SIS records are often applied automatically, as an “add-on” to the main decision.
• The impact on the person’s family, children and ties in Lithuania is not properly assessed.

What we do in such cases

• We separate the dispute about status (LLG/LNG/VNJ) from the dispute about the entry ban/SIS.
• In court we argue that the sanction must be proportionate, especially where there is no serious crime or deliberate repeated abuse.
• We present evidence of family, employment and social ties in Lithuania showing that a total ban on entering the Schengen area is too harsh.
• We rely on case-law where courts annul or shorten entry bans specifically on proportionality grounds.

Case example from practice: representing a client in a dispute with the Migration Department regarding a decision to ban entry to Lithuania and simultaneously enter an alert in the SIS (Schengen Information System) refusing entry and stay, the courts annulled the decision. The case emphasized that even where an infringement is formally established, the authority must provide an individualized justification and apply measures proportionately to the person’s specific circumstances; purely declaratory reasons or “template” wording are not sufficient. The client was also awarded litigation costs.

Results in practice

• In several cases we managed to lift previously imposed entry bans and SIS records, giving clients a chance to return to Lithuania legally in the future.
• In some cases the courts did not cancel the ban entirely but shortened its duration, taking into account family circumstances and the nature of the breach.
• There are also cases where the sanctions remained unchanged – particularly where deliberate and repeated false data had been submitted.

If your situation is similar
Even if the decision on your current status is negative, a separate review of the SIS record and entry ban is often worthwhile – this may be the only way to come back to Lithuania legally later on.

The post Cases. MIGRATION-4. Entry bans / SIS records. appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Visa cases: refusal of Schengen or national visas (including with VSD/SIS elements)

Typical situation
A person wants to come to Lithuania:

• to join a spouse or children,
• for work, studies or business meetings,
• for a short visit (tourism, humanitarian reasons).

They apply for a visa at an embassy or the MD but receive a refusal:

• “insufficient ties with the country of residence”,
• “travel purpose not proven”,
• “risk of illegal stay”,
• sometimes “threat to national security” based on VSD or SIS data.

What we do in such cases

• We assemble a comprehensive document package: family certificates (marriage, children), proof of employment and property, invitations from an employer or relatives.
• We show that the purpose of the trip is concrete and verifiable, and that the applicant has real commitments to return (job, studies, property, family).
• We challenge decisions based solely on template phrases and assumptions without genuine individual assessment.
• Where the refusal is linked to VSD or SIS, we align our arguments with the logic of security-related cases (see Typical cases 1 and 4).

Results in practice

• In some cases courts upheld visa refusals, especially when a valid SIS record or serious violations existed.
• In other matters we achieved court judgments or settlements obliging the authority to re-examine the visa application in light of additional documents and clarifications.

If your situation is similar
Visa cases require very careful preparation – it is not enough to fill in the form. You need a clear written story, backed by documents, which can, if necessary, be defended before a court.

The post Cases. MIGRATION-5. Visa (and Schengen SIS). appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Asylum and subsidiary protection

Typical situation
A person applies for asylum or subsidiary protection in Lithuania because in their home country:

• they are persecuted for political views, civic activity, journalism or activism,
• they face mobilisation into the army or repression for refusing to serve,
• they experience violence due to ethnicity, religion or other characteristics,
• their family members are also targeted.

Migration Department decision

• The MD often states that the applicant can “safely relocate” to another region of the country.
• Or it argues that the story is “too general” and not linked to individual persecution.
• As a result, both refugee status and subsidiary protection are refused.

What we do in such cases

• We carefully document the entire personal history: participation in protests, photos and videos, social media activity, threats, arrests, police or draft summons, measures taken against family members.
• We help collect objective information on the situation in the specific region (reports by international and human-rights organisations).
• In court we challenge the abstract “internal relocation” argument where in reality the person can be identified and targeted anywhere in the country.
• We seek at least to have the case sent back to the MD for fresh examination, taking into account all additional facts.

Results in practice

• There are cases where the first-instance court upheld a negative decision, but a higher court later found that the assessment had been too superficial and formalistic.
• In such situations MD must re-evaluate the risk, which gives a real opportunity to submit further evidence and change the course of the case.

If your situation is similar
In asylum cases detailed and consistent facts are decisive. The earlier this information is gathered and structured, the better the chances to protect yourself and your family.

The post Cases. MIGRATION-6. Asylum and subsidiary protection. appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.