Summary:

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (LVAT) examined a dispute concerning decisions of the Migration Department which concluded that the minor applicants did not acquire citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania, as the procedure for renunciation or loss of citizenship of another state (the Russian Federation) had not been implemented, as required by Article 27 of the Law on Citizenship. The applicants relied on a notarially certified statement of the parents; however, the case file contained evidence indicating that under the law of the foreign state such a procedure is not possible before reaching majority or without a change of the parents’ citizenship.

The LVAT emphasised that majority (18 years of age), as interpreted in the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, constitutes an objective and reasonable criterion for the legal regulation of citizenship relations. Accordingly, the fact of renunciation of another state’s citizenship cannot be recognised solely on the basis of a formal declaration, particularly in the absence of objective evidence confirming that such renunciation has been effectively carried out.

The Court found that the Migration Department lacked both the competence and discretion to recognise the renunciation of another state’s citizenship as having taken effect where no factual or legal grounds existed, and dismissed the applicants’ appeal.

Practical significance:
In citizenship cases, especially those involving minors, objective and verifiable evidence of the loss of another state’s citizenship is decisive, rather than formal or declaratory statements.

Source:
LVAT case-law review, July 2025, section “Citizenship”
https://lvat.lt/doclib/wsbeiwwdace79ds73gzyvt1x3g3fmn66

_____

If you are facing a similar situation — a decision of the Migration Department or the risk of such a decision —

PLEASE SEEK AN INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION.

The post Citizenship of minors — mandatory conditions for renunciation of another citizenship_ LVAT 2025-07-23 appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Summary:

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (LVAT) examined a case in which the Migration Department ordered a foreign national to leave Lithuania on the grounds that, following the expiry of the 60-day validity period of a Schengen type C visa, the person had become unlawfully present. However, it was established that while the visa was still valid, the applicant had submitted an application for a national visa, had economic ties with Lithuania (an employment / sports activity contract), and that the Migration Department failed to assess the status of the pending application in its decision.

The LVAT emphasised that the very fact of a timely submission of an application for a national visa is a key element in assessing the lawfulness of stay, and that Article 128 of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens (criteria for adopting a decision on an obligation to leave / removal from Lithuania) cannot be interpreted in a purely formal manner, so as to deprive Article 128(1) of its practical effect. Before deciding on return or an obligation to leave, the Migration Department was required to assess the individual circumstances of the case and the criteria set out in Article 128(1), rather than mechanically declaring the stay to be “unlawful”.

Practical significance:
This case is particularly important in disputes where the Migration Department formally applies the scheme
“visa expired → unlawful stay → obligation to leave”,
while ignoring that the person had already taken steps to regularise their stay during the validity of the visa (by applying for a national visa or a residence permit). The ruling strengthens the argument that Article 128 must be applied in a real and individualised manner, not declaratively.

Source:
LVAT case-law review, July 2025, case No. eA-2227-525/2025
https://lvat.lt/doclib/wsbeiwwdace79ds73gzyvt1x3g3fmn66

_____

If you are facing a similar situation — a decision of the Migration Department or the risk of such a decision —

PLEASE SEEK AN INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION.

The post Lawfulness of stay — where an APPLICATION for a visa (temporary residence permit) is submitted in due time_ LVAT 2025-07-09 appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Summary:

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (LVAT) examined a case in which the Migration Department revoked a temporary residence permit issued to a foreign national on the basis of family reunification, arguing that the applicant had allegedly resided abroad for more than six months.

The Court emphasised that the Migration Department failed to provide any factual evidence demonstrating that the applicant had lived outside Lithuania for more than six months, and that short-term visits to Lithuania do not, in themselves, prove permanent residence abroad. The LVAT held that the Migration Department must collect and assess factual evidence, rather than rely on assumptions.

Practical significance: in disputes with the Migration Department, it is essential to provide objective evidence of the period of residence abroad and of the genuine nature of family life.

Source: LVAT case-law review (2025-07, “Legal Status of Foreigners”)
https://lvat.lt/doclib/wsbeiwwdace79ds73gzyvt1x3g3fmn66

_____

If you are facing a similar situation — a decision of the Migration Department or the risk of such a decision —

PLEASE SEEK AN INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION.

The post Revocation of a temporary residence permit due to absence exceeding 6 months (residence abroad)_ LVAT 2025 appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Summary:

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (LVAT) held that a formally concluded but not actually performed employment contract (no commencement of work, no records in the Sodra system) does not constitute a genuine basis for residence in Lithuania.

Practical significance:
In disputes, it is necessary to provide evidence of actual employment, rather than relying solely on the employment contract itself.

More:
LVAT case-law bulletin (migration cases)
https://lvat.lt/doclib/wsbeiwwdace79ds73gzyvt1x3g3fmn66

_____

If you are facing a similar situation — a decision of the Migration Department or the risk of such a decision —

PLEASE SEEK AN INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION.

The post A “paper-only” employment contract does not protect against revocation of a temporary residence permit_ LVAT 2025 appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Summary:

On 27 December 2016, a panel of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (LVAT) raised the issue of whether the criteria for granting residence permits (such as family reunification and recognition of partnership) comply with the Constitution where certain forms of family (for example, same-sex partnerships) are excluded from the legal framework.

Practical significance: the discussion continues regarding the application of EU-law and constitutional guarantees in family reunification cases.

More: LVAT: constitutional issues concerning the right to family reunification (lvat.lt).

The post On the “family” status (temporary residence permit for a foreign national married to a same-sex Lithuanian citizen) and its compliance with the Constitution_ LVAT 2016-12-27 appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Summary:

In its decision of 10 April 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (LVAT) emphasised that the time limit for lodging an appeal must be calculated from the date of actual service of the DECISION itself, rather than from the date of service of a notification informing of the adopted decision. Actual service is deemed to occur on the date the decision is received via the MIGRIS system.

The mere service of a notification does not constitute and is not equivalent to proper service of the decision on a foreign national.

Practical significance: this clarification is particularly important in disputes concerning the calculation of procedural time limits, especially in cases involving decisions prohibiting entry.

More: LVAT on the procedure for appealing decisions prohibiting entry (lvat.lt).

_____

If you are facing a similar situation — a decision of the Migration Department or the risk of such a decision —

PLEASE SEEK AN INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION.

The post Calculation of the time limit for appealing a Migration Department decision_ LVAT 2025-04-10 appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

In its decision of 13 June 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (LVAT) held that a relatively standardised revocation of a temporary residence permit issued on the basis of studies may be lawful where a foreign national has not actually commenced studies. However, the Court also found that the Migration Department unlawfully refused to release the permit to the foreign national’s lawyer, even though such a possibility is expressly provided for by applicable legal regulations.

Key points:

• Failure to commence studies constitutes a material ground for revoking a temporary residence permit.

• The Migration Department must allow legal representation and release the permit to a lawyer, where this is provided for in the relevant procedural rules.

More: LVAT: termination of studies – revocation of a temporary residence permit is justified (lvat.lt).

_____

If you are facing a similar situation — a decision of the Migration Department or the risk of such a decision —

PLEASE SEEK AN INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION.

The post Termination of studies – revocation of a temporary residence permit and the right of representation_ LVAT 2025-06-13 appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

Summary:

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (LVAT) examined a dispute in which the State Border Guard Service (VSAT) refused entry into the territory of the Republic of Lithuania to a citizen of the Russian Federation holding a valid Latvian-issued Schengen type C visa. The refusal was based on the alleged threat to public order/security and the lack of sufficient documents substantiating the purpose of stay.

In its ruling of 23 April 2025, the LVAT held that an alert entered in the Schengen Information System (SIS) cannot, in itself, be considered a sufficient ground for the Migration Department to revoke a temporary residence permit. The Court emphasised that the Migration Department must carry out an individual assessment, apply the principle of proportionality, and collect additional information related to the SIS alert before adopting a decision to revoke the permit.

Practical significance: this principle is particularly important in cases where the Migration Department bases its decision solely on an SIS alert, without relying on essential factual evidence.

More: LVAT – SIS alert does not justify automatic sanctions (teismai.lt).
Review of court and LVAT case-law (2025-07, “Legal Status of Foreigners”)
https://lvat.lt/doclib/wsbeiwwdace79ds73gzyvt1x3g3fmn66

_____

If you are facing a similar situation — a decision of the Migration Department or the risk of such a decision —

PLEASE SEEK AN INDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION.

The post An SIS alert is not an automatic ground for revoking a temporary residence permit_ LVAT 2025-04-23 appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.

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.

Case example (anonymised): I represented a contractor in a dispute with a subcontractor regarding works on a реконstruction project (design, supply of equipment/materials, and installation of building engineering systems). The subcontractor argued that the works had been accepted under handover/acceptance certificates and that the remaining works were not completed due to the contractor’s fault and partial non-payment, seeking the outstanding amount and contractual penalties.

The contractor’s defence focused on:

• deficiencies in the technical design and documentation (not duly coordinated/approved, incomplete, or insufficiently detailed),

• defects revealed during performance and the related cost assessment for rectification,

• contractual provisions allowing subsequent claims and set-off of counterclaims.

Written evidence and expert assessments were submitted. The case was heard in two instances. The outcome was favourable for the client: after the set-off of the counterclaims upheld by the courts, only a minor amount was awarded against the contractor, and the subcontractor’s large monetary claim was effectively neutralised. 

The post Construction Case: Subcontractor’s Payment Claim Against the Contractor appeared first on Advokatas Igor Smirnov.