A recent final judgment delivered in a case represented by ReLex provides important clarification for employers, foreign employees, and practitioners dealing with immigration and employment law in Lithuania. The Kaunas Regional Court confirmed that the mere expiry of a permanent residence permit document cannot serve as lawful grounds for terminating the employment of a third-country national who holds EU long-term resident status. The judgment also reinforces a fundamental principle of EU law: national legislation implementing EU directives must be interpreted in light of the directive itself and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The claimant, a third country national who has lived in Lithuania for 18 years, was employed under an employment contract. During the employment relationship, the claimant held a permanent residence permit. Before the permit expired, the employee informed the employer that he had already submitted renewal documents to the Migration Department and was awaiting a decision. Nevertheless, shortly after the permit’s formal expiration date, the employer terminated the employment contract under Article 60 of the Lithuanian Labour Code.
Following intervention by the State Labour Inspectorate, the employer amended the legal basis for dismissal and paid severance compensation. However, the employee challenged the dismissal in court, arguing that he retained long-term resident status despite the expiry of the physical permit document, remained entitled to work in Lithuania without obtaining a separate work permit, and that the dismissal violated both Lithuanian law and EU law.
The central issue in the case was whether the formal expiration of a permanent residence permit document automatically deprives a foreign national of long-term resident status and the corresponding right to work in Lithuania. The employer argued that the employee’s right to work depended on possession of a valid residence permit document and that the lack of a currently valid permit required termination of employment. The court rejected this position.
In its reasoning ReLex placed significant emphasis on Council Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents. Article 9(6) of the Directive expressly states that the expiry of a long-term residence permit may never serve as grounds for withdrawal or loss of long-term resident status. In practical terms, this means that a person does not lose long-term resident rights merely because the physical residence permit document has expired while renewal procedures are pending. Besides, Article 11(1) of the Directive guarantees equal treatment with nationals regarding access to employment, working conditions, remuneration, and protection against dismissal. These protections continue to apply even where the residence permit document itself has formally expired.
The judgment emphasized that Lithuanian legal provisions implementing EU directives cannot be interpreted in isolation. Although Lithuanian law provides that an expired residence permit document becomes formally invalid, the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners also states that a foreigner does not lose the right of permanent residence solely because the permit has expired. The appellate court concluded that a long-term resident does not lose the right to work merely because the permit document has expired and that employers cannot lawfully terminate employment solely on that basis.
Importantly, the court stressed that national courts are obliged to interpret domestic legislation consistently with EU directives and established CJEU jurisprudence. The judgment referred to the CJEU decisions in Chakroun (C-578/08) and Kamberaj (C-571/10), both of which underline that equal treatment of long-term residents is the general rule, while limitations must be interpreted narrowly.
Article 33 of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania provides that, when adjudicating cases, courts shall apply the provisions of European Union law and shall be guided by the decisions of the judicial institutions of the European Union, as well as by their preliminary rulings on the interpretation and validity of European Union. The CJEU has stated that when adjudicating disputes between private individuals, a national court must rely on a directive as a source of interpretation of the national legal provisions applicable to the resolution of the dispute, even if it does not apply the directive directly (see CJEU judgment of 13 November 1990, in the Marleasing case, C-106/89). If a directive establishes a general principle of law, it may have direct horizontal effect (e.g., the prohibition of age discrimination) (Judgment of the ECJ of 22 November 2005, Mangold, C-144/04, and Judgment of 19 January 2010 Kücükdeveci, C-555/07).
The Constitutional Court of Lithuania has repeatedly noted that the legal norms of the European Union are an integral part of the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania, and that the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as a source of legal interpretation, is also important for the interpretation and application of Lithuanian law. Thus, the constitutional imperative of the Republic of Lithuania’s full-fledged participation in the European Union also implies the Republic of Lithuania’s constitutional obligation to properly implement the requirements of European Union law (rulings of 24 January 2014, 14 July 2014; 20 October 2017, and 20 December 2017).
