Preliminary remarks (Read full CPT report)
88. In 2021, Lithuania faced an unprecedented influx of foreign nationals irregularly entering its
territory through its land border with Belarus. Between May and mid-August, 4 110 persons were
apprehended by security forces in this context.
89. This influx of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants led to the Lithuanian government
declaring an “extraordinary situation” at the beginning of July 2021 and adopting a series of
amendments to the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners. These amendments, passed on 13 July
and 10 August 2021, introduced significant changes to the country’s asylum system.
As of August, foreign nationals were physically prevented from crossing the border. At the
time of the visit, the construction of a wall between Belarus and Lithuania was underway.
90. At the outset of these developments, foreigners who were apprehended at the border were
sent to Pabradė Foreigners Registration Centre (FRC) which, at the time, served both as a reception
centre for asylum seekers and as (the only) immigration detention centre of the country. The centre
quickly reached its full capacity. It was extended, first with tents, and later with modular housing
containers. In parallel, persons were accommodated at other, often temporary makeshift sites. By
September 2021, detained foreign nationals were present in over 30 such sites.
By the month of September 2021, in view of the cold season, the Lithuanian authorities
announced their plan to regroup all detained foreigners within five facilities. These comprised three
Foreigners Registration Centres (FRCs) operated by the State Border Guard Service, under the
Ministry of the Interior– with a total capacity of 2 690 places – as well as two reception centres placed
under the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Security and Labour (reception centres or RRCs in
Naujininkai and Rukla) – with a capacity of approximately 1 000 places.
At the time of the CPT visit, the vast majority of the 3 510 foreign nationals held in the country
were present in these “long term” centres, with only a little over 100 persons remaining in temporary
units along the border and awaiting transfer.
The delegation carried out visits to the three foreigner registration centres (FRC), namely
Pabradė FRC, Medininkai FRC and Kybartai FRC. Altogether, these centres accommodated 2 296
persons at the time of the visit. These centres were closed, fenced and under the continuous
surveillance of security forces. They were operated according to specific regulations, which had been
updated in 2021.77 All persons interviewed by the CPT delegation in these centres had crossed into
Lithuania before August 2021. All of them reported that they had claimed asylum upon arrival or
soon after and were indeed considered asylum seekers.
91. The foreign nationals present in the three centres at the time of the visit fell under different
provisions of the law.79 The Lithuanian authorities did not consider the majority of them to be deprived
of their liberty.
Most foreign nationals were held under amended section 5 of the Law which provided that in
the case of a “state of emergency” or an “emergency event declared due to a mass influx of
foreigners”, the freedom of movement of asylum seekers, who have lodged applications for asylum
at the border crossing points or shortly after the border crossing, can be restricted, pending a
decision on their admission, and this for a duration of up to six months.80 Under this administrative
measure, foreign nationals shall be “accommodated (…) without being granted the right to move
freely within the territory of the Republic of Lithuania”. In practice, the restriction of movement was
such that persons were not authorised to exit, even temporarily, the registration centres.
Other foreign nationals, who had first been held under the above legal basis during the
examination of their asylum claim, had been presented in Court after the rejection of their claim and
a refusal of entry. The Judge had ordered that they remain in the registration centre under section
115.2.5 of the Law which provides for the “accommodation of a foreigner at the State Border Guard
Service with the right of movement only within the territory belonging to the accommodation facility”.
This measure is listed as one of five “alternatives to detention” provided for by the Law. 81 However,
in practice, persons held under this section were also prevented from exiting the registration centres
at any time, thus questioning the genuine non-custodial nature of the measure.
Only a minority of persons were detained under sections 113 to 119 of the Law on the Legal
Status of Foreigners, which define the conditions under which a foreigner may be deprived of liberty.
The law stipulates that when enforcement officials believe that there are grounds (listed under
section 113) to detain a foreigner for more than 48 hours, an application must be made to the Court
in order to prolong the detention. A foreign national may not be detained for longer than six months
under the Law, except when they do not cooperate in the process of their expulsion or when the
documents required for the expulsion of the foreigner are not received. In such cases, the period of
detention may be extended for an additional period not exceeding 12 months.82 Persons detained
under these provisions were the only ones whom the Lithuanian authorities considered as being
detained. It must be noted that the Law had been amended so that, under certain circumstances, an
asylum seeker can be detained solely on the grounds of irregular entry into the country.83
In practice, it appeared that regardless of their legal status, and albeit with a few exceptions,84
the persons accommodated in the three centres visited were all confined to the said centres. This
situation applied equally to vulnerable persons, children and families. In the CPT’s view, the
restrictions imposed on “accommodated” foreign nationals were such that they could amount to a
form of deprivation of their liberty. The Court of Justice of the European Union, when considering the
situation of “M.A. (who) was subject to a measure “other” than detention, within the meaning of the
Lithuanian law, namely accommodation in a VSAT85 centre with restriction of movement within the
perimeter of his place of accommodation”, considered that “(i)n that regard, it is apparent from the
information provided by the referring court that, although M.A. could indeed move within the centre
of the VSAT in question, he could not leave its perimeter without authorisation and accompaniment. Consequently, the person concerned appears to be isolated from the rest of the population and
deprived of his freedom of movement. In those circumstances, that person must be considered to
be detained within the meaning of Article 2(h) of Directive 2013/33.86
Consequently, and for the purposes of this report, persons interviewed in the three
Foreigners Registration Centres are referred to as “detained foreign nationals”, independently of
their legal situation under Lithuanian law.
92. The CPT has repeatedly stressed that the deprivation of liberty under the foreigners’
legislation should only be a measure of last resort after a careful and individual examination of each
case. Detention of asylum seekers should be even more exceptional. In this context, the Committee
has serious misgivings regarding the systematic application of custodial measures to all foreign
nationals who irregularly crossed the border into Lithuania, with little to no resort made to genuine
alternatives to detention which do exist in law.
The CPT also insists that in particular, everything should be done to avoid placing parents
with children in immigration detention centres and to ensure that when, in an exceptional case,
children are held there with their parents, their stay is limited to the shortest possible period. In that
respect, the recommendation formulated in paragraph 108 is to be understood as to be taken,
pending the timely transfer of children and families in appropriate, open facilities.
In that respect, during the visit, the delegation was informed that families with children would
be transferred out of the FRCs to the two Reception centres placed under the responsibility of the
Ministry of Social Security and Labour. The CPT would like to receive confirmation of these
transfers, along with a description of the conditions in which families with children are
accommodated in the reception centres, particularly as regards their freedom of movement.
When, as a matter of last resort, foreign nationals are detained on immigration grounds, they
should be awarded the necessary legal safeguards. In this respect, reference is made to the
recommendations formulated in paragraphs 138.
