News

Temporary residence permits: the possession of multiple nationalities does not preclude the application of restrictive measures where the person also holds Russian citizenship; the restriction is linked to the objective fact of nationality, not to the individual’s choice of which nationality to rely upon.

In its judgment of 4 March 2026, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (SACL) held that the Migration Department lawfully restricted the applicant’s right to a temporary residence permit in Lithuania, having regard to the fact that the applicant also holds Russian citizenship.

The dispute concerned whether the Migration Department, applying Article 3(3) of the Law on Restrictive Measures in Response to Military Aggression against Ukraine, was justified in annulling its earlier decision to accept the applicant’s request for a temporary residence permit on the ground that the applicant is a national of the Russian Federation.

The applicant, who holds Canadian, Israeli and Russian citizenship, argued that his application should have been assessed on the basis of his Canadian citizenship and that the national restrictive measures could not be applied in a manner that would negate rights allegedly arising under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union.

In resolving the dispute, SACL relied on the preliminary ruling delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 12 February 2026 in case Lenaimon, C-634/24. The CJEU clarified that Article 30.6 of CETA precludes individuals from directly invoking its provisions before national courts. Accordingly, that agreement does not provide a basis for disapplying Article 3(3) of the Law on Restrictive Measures.

The Court further noted that the national provision at issue establishes a mandatory restriction on the acceptance of applications for temporary residence permits from Russian nationals, subject only to exceptions expressly provided for in the law, which were not found to apply in the present case.

SACL also emphasised that EU legislation governing visa-free travel applies solely to short-term stays and does not concern the grant of a temporary right of residence. Consequently, such legislation does not preclude the application of national rules restricting access to temporary residence permits.

The Court underscored that the decisive factor in the case was the applicant’s objective legal status as a Russian national. The fact that the applicant entered Lithuania using a Canadian travel document does not negate the legal significance of his Russian citizenship for the purposes of applying the restrictive measures. The case did not concern an alleged right to “choose a nationality”, but rather whether the applicant’s factual status falls within the scope of the relevant legal provision.

In those circumstances, SACL dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.

Administrative case No. eA-48-575/2026