In its ruling of 29 December 2025 in administrative case No. eA-2817-442/2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania held that the Migration Department unlawfully refused to issue an asylum seeker with a foreigner’s registration certificate granting access to the labour market.
The Court clarified that a decision to transfer an asylum seeker to another EU Member State under the Dublin III Regulation is not a final decision on the asylum application and does not alter the person’s status as an asylum seeker. Consequently, such a decision does not stop the calculation of the time limit for access to the labour market under Article 15 of Directive 2013/33/EU.
Relying on the CJEU judgment of 14 January 2021 in joined cases C-322/19 and C-385/19, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that national practice denying access to employment solely because a Dublin transfer decision has been adopted is incompatible with EU law. The obligation to grant access to the labour market ends only once the asylum seeker has actualy left the territory of the Member State.
On 14 January 2021, the CJEU ruled, in the context of Irish preliminary referrals on the interpretation of Article 15 of the Reception Conditions Directive (Directive 2013/33), in light of the Asylum Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32), which is not applicable to Ireland.
The preliminary questions were submitted in two cases (C-385/19 and C-322/19) that concerned the legality of Irish decisions to refuse the permission for applicants for international protection to access the labour market on the basis that they were subject to transfer proceedings under the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation 604/2013). CJEU highlighted, inter alia, the EU legislator’s intention for the transfer not to constitute a final decision on an application for international protection and the interpretation of Article 15(1) in Cimade and GISTI. Furthermore, it underlined that while access to the labour market does not, strictly speaking, constitute a material reception condition under the Reception Conditions Directive, it must nonetheless be understood as a right and benefit for applicants whose application has not been finally determined.
The Migration Department’s decision was overturned as unlawful, and legal costs were awarded.
The applicant is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo whose family, including minor children, lives in the Republic of Lithuania. Due to restrictions on his right to work, the applicant was unable to ensure financial security for his family. This ReLex case is one of the strategic cases of Sienos Grupė, through which it seek to ensure the best interests of the child.
ReLex
