Published on 13 October 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 41683/23
Vladimir VODO
against Lithuania
lodged on 1 December 2023
communicated on 24 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that the Lithuanian authorities decided to annul his permanent residence permit and to ban him from entering the Schengen area for a period of two and a half years, despite his long-term residence in the country and his family connection therein.
The applicant was born in 1961, he is a citizen of the Russian Federation.
In 1989 the applicant declared his place of residence in Vilnius, at the same apartment as his mother. As of 1993, he was issued with a permanent residence permit in Lithuania, it was continuously renewed. From 1998 to 2000, from 2009 to 2018 (with short interruptions) and from 2021 to 2022 the applicant was employed in Lithuania and received insured income.
As submitted by the applicant, in March 2023, following a Facebook post made by a certain K.Ž., who accused the applicant of being disloyal to the Republic of Lithuania, the applicant received a questionnaire from the Migration Department, requesting the applicant to respond on his views on the war in Ukraine and the situation in Crimea. On 5 April 2023 the applicant submitted to the Migration Department a completed questionnaire, wherein he indicated “no” to the question “Do you approve the military actions by the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine?” (question no. 10), and that he could not answer the question “In your opinion, to whom Crimea legitimately (legally) belongs? Mark your answer: 1) Ukraine; 2) Russian Federation” (question no. 11). The applicant wrote in the questionnaire that question no. 11 contradicted the Lithuanian Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners; that [answering] that question could bring about criminal or administrative liability in the applicant’s State of citizenship, and that that question had been overall formulated in a grammatically and legally inappropriate manner.
On 27 June 2023 the Migration Department received a report from the State Security Department, holding that the applicant’s residence in Lithuania posed a threat to national security: the applicant maintained views disloyal to Lithuania, [in the past] he had maintained links with the Russian and Belorussian intelligence services, he had often taken part in the anti-EU and anti-NATO protests and on his Facebook page the applicant was reposting materials from Russian portals, thus spreading Russian propaganda.
On 5 July 2023 the Migration Department, on the basis of the State Security Department’s report, quashed the applicant’s permission to permanently reside in Lithuania, holding that his presence in the country posed a threat to national security. On the same grounds, on 10 July 2023 the Migration Department prohibited the applicant from entering Lithuania and the Schengen area for a period of two and a half years. The Migration Department considered that the fact that the applicant had avoided to answer question no. 11 demonstrated his position, which was incompatible with the Lithuanian society’s position and support for Ukraine, and that the applicant’s position demonstrated his support for the Russian Federation. To allow persons, who felt for the Russian regime, to reside in Lithuania was incompatible with Lithuania’s national security interests, and the applicant’s family links in Lithuania or the length of time he had been living in Lithuania could not be given priority.
In his appeal to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court the applicant pointed out that he had resided in Lithuania as of 1989 and that he had had permanent residence permits in Lithuania, the last one being issued, for a five-year period, on 24 January 2022. The applicant also pointed out that he had a mother, born in 1937 and who was a Lithuanian citizen (as of 1994), with whom he lived and whom he had been taking care of, since due to her age and poor health she could not take care of herself. The applicant included medical documents as to the concrete ailments she had been suffering from and also mentioned that she had difficulties with vision and hearing. The applicant considered that those elements, and also the applicant’s own advanced age, had not been properly assessed by the Migration Department, which contradicted the case-law of the CJEU.
As to the Migration Department’s questionnaire, the applicant stated that he had clearly indicated his position that he did not approve the military action by the Russian Federation in Ukraine, which had clearly demonstrated the applicant’s political views and disloyalty to the [Russian] regime. He stated that he could not answer question no. 11, for he would be under threat of criminal and administrative liability in the Russian Federation. The applicant stated that the Migration Department’s decisions contained absolutely no information about any of the applicant’s acts which could cause a clear and present, as opposed to a formal and declarative, danger to Lithuania’s national security, also given the fact that there was no data of him having breached Lithuanian administrative or criminal law.
On 28 September 2023 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded.
The court referred to the State Security Department’s report, to the current geopolitical context and to the applicant’s answers to the questionnaire, and held that a person’s right to have convictions and to freely express them could not be interpreted as allowing to proclaim views which were against Lithuania’s interests. The court considered that, because of his views (the applicant having shared certain information on his Facebook profile), the applicant could be a potential target of recruitment of the Russian authorities. The fact that the applicant’s mother lived in Lithuania did not change the situation, because, the court considered, that the applicant had not provided the Migration Department and the administrative court data that his mother could not take care of herself, that is, that a lawful guardian or caretaker could not be appointed to her, or that her state of health was particularly grave. Besides, the applicant had not stated any circumstances why he could not take care of his mother while residing in the Russian Federation.
By a final ruling of 29 November 2023 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The applicant complains, under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, that the Migration Department’s decisions to withdraw his residence permit and to ban him from entering the Schengen area for a period of two and a half years were in breach of his right to respect for his private and family life. The applicant submits, among others, that he had lived in Lithuania for more than thirty years, he refers to his mother’s dependency on him, and states that it had been established in a formalistic manner that he posed a threat to Lithuania’s national security. The applicant considers that the domestic courts failed to strike a fair balance between the legitimate aim of the protection of national security and the protection of the applicant’s rights under Article 8.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-59, ECHR 2006-XII, and Demirci v. Hungary, no. 48302/21, §§ 70-74, 6 May 2025, and the case-law cited therein; compare Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, §§ 94-97, ECHR 2003-X)?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (compare Kirkorov v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 12174/22, § 66, 19 March 2024)?
In particular, did the courts engage in an adequate assessment of the applicant’s relationship with his mother and the applicant being a long-term resident in Lithuania, and did they weigh the need to protect national security against those elements (see, mutatis mutandis, Mirzoyan v. the Czech Republic, nos. 15117/21 and 15689/21, § 76, 16 May 2024)?
2. The parties are requested to inform the Court about the applicant’s current situation, including his status in Lithuania, and any proceedings related to him, should such be currently pending.