Constitutional Court
7 June 2023
Facts
The applicants applied to the Constitutional Court with an individual constitutional complaint. The applicant, detained after illegally crossing the border of the Republic of Lithuania, submitted a request for asylum in Lithuania. The applicant was not admitted to the territory of Lithuania and was accommodated after establishing the right to move only in the territory belonging to the place of accommodation. According to the decision of the Migration Department, it was decided to admit the applicant to Lithuania, because no final decision on his legal status was made within 6 months of his registration, at the same time it was decided to place him in a place of temporary accommodation for 6 months from the date of this decision, without giving him the right to move freely in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania.
Complaint
The applicant stated that the temporary accommodation of asylum seekers under established legal regulation, without giving them the right to move freely in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, which could last up to 6 months, if a state of emergency has been declared in the country due to a massive influx of foreigners, is equivalent to the detention of a person. According to the disputed legal regulation, the freedom of the person is restricted without any decision of a national court or other institution, it created the conditions to limit the freedom of individuals without assessing the individual circumstances of each situation, no procedural guarantee is provided and the possibility to appeal such detention to the court, therefore, in the opinion of the applicant, such legal regulation did not comply with the Constitution.
Court’s ruling
The court stated that the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution presuppose protection not only against arbitrary detention or arrest, but also against any other unlawful restriction or deprivation of a person's liberty, including, among others, such that significantly restricts a person's freedom of movement, for example, in a certain limited and in a closed area. However, personal freedom is not absolute and can be restricted if necessary.
When restricting a person's freedom, it can only be done in accordance with the constitutional conditions for restricting rights and freedoms arising from the Constitution, among other things, by clearly and comprehensibly establishing the grounds, conditions, procedure in the law. In addition, when the law determines the conditions and grounds for restricting a person's freedom, the institutions that decide on the restriction must assess the individual situation of each person and accordingly individualize the specific restricting measures.
The court must assess both the legality of the detention and its reasonableness. Every person who believes that his rights and freedoms have been violated has the right to apply to the court. Thus, according to Article 20 of the Constitution, if there is a need to limit the freedom of a person on the basis and procedure established by law, the possibility of verifying the legality and reasonableness of such restriction must be provided in court.
Personal freedom and physical integrity are inseparable from human dignity. In every case when a person's freedom is forcibly restricted by the decisions or actions of another person or state authorities, even when such restriction of a person's freedom pursues a legitimate goal, human dignity is violated. Therefore, when applying measures restricting a person's freedom, in all cases, it must be aimed at making them compatible with respect for human dignity.
A general threat to public order or internal security arising from a massive influx of third-country nationals cannot be a basis for detaining asylum seekers without explaining the impact of such a measure on maintaining public order and ensuring internal security. A threat to national security or public order may justify the applicant's detention or its extension only on the condition that his personal conduct poses a real, present and sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental public interest or the internal or external security.
As stated by the Constitutional Court, by applying the same measure to all asylum seekers - temporary accommodation in specified places, without giving them the right to move within the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, there were no prerequisites for individually assessing the situation of each person. In addition, asylum seekers were accommodated without giving them the right to move on the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, without any decision of the relevant competent authority, based solely on the fact that they are in the Republic of Lithuania and their requests for asylum have not yet been examined in substance.
Taking this into account, the Constitutional Court found that the legislator, although he pursued legitimate goals and therefore could establish such a legal regulation restricting the freedom of the individual, in this case did not comply with the requirement arising from the Constitution not to restrict the rights of the individual more than is necessary to achieve the goal. Thus, the relevant provisions of the law contradict the Constitution.