Recent ReLex case highlights a recurring problem in the practice of the Lithuanian Migration Department: the rejection of study residence permit applications based on speculative assumptions rather than objective evidence.
The applicant had been studying in Lithuania since 2020 and had previously been granted a temporary residence permit for the purpose of studies. He had also been working as a delivery driver alongside his studies. By the disputed decision the Migration Department refused to renew residence permit. According to the authority, the applicant had effectively misrepresented his true intentions for entering and residing in Lithuania.
The Regional Administrative Court disagreed. The Court emphasised that refusal of a residence permit on the ground that a foreign national provided false information requires proof that the applicant knowingly submitted information that was clearly false and intended to mislead the authorities. No such evidence existed in this case. The applicant had accurately disclosed both his academic performance and his employment history.
Importantly, the Court also noted that the applicant had earned at least 40 ECTS credits during each academic year as prescribed by law. This directly contradicted the Migration Department’s assertion that he was demonstrating poor academic performance. The refusal was therefore annulled.
Unfortunately, this case is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader and increasingly visible practice whereby the Migration Department rejects applications from international students without identifying clear and legally sufficient grounds for refusal. Similar issues have been identified in cases eI2-4834-394/2025, eI2-9666-764/2026, and eI2-10938-535/2026.
In many such cases, the Migration Department appears to disregard the burden of proof requirements. Instead of demonstrating concrete facts that justify refusal, decisions often rely on assumptions regarding a student’s intentions or subjective assessments of academic progress. Such an approach is incompatible with both Lithuanian administrative law and European Union law.
The case also serves as an important reminder of the obligations imposed on Member States by Directive (EU) 2016/801 concerning the entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, research, training, and related activities.
The Directive makes clear that a study-based residence permit may only be refused where authorities possess evidence or serious and objective grounds demonstrating that the applicant’s residence would not have as its principal purpose the pursuit of a full-time course of study leading to a recognised higher education qualification.
Article 20 of the Directive provides that applications may only be rejected where the relevant legal conditions are not met. Even where deficiencies exist, Member States must consider the specific circumstances of the individual case and comply with the principle of proportionality.
Furthermore, Article 34 requires that any decision rejecting an application be reasoned in writing and remain subject to effective judicial review.
These safeguards are not merely procedural formalities. They form part of the broader framework of legal certainty and effective judicial protection guaranteed under EU law.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has repeatedly emphasised that Member States must exercise their powers in accordance with the principle of legal certainty. National rules implementing EU law must be sufficiently precise, clear, and foreseeable to allow individuals to understand their rights and obligations.
This requirement becomes particularly important where administrative decisions produce adverse consequences for the individuals concerned.
For international students, an unlawful refusal of a residence permit may effectively prevent them from continuing their education. Given the duration of administrative and judicial proceedings, even a successful court challenge may come too late to preserve the practical benefits of study-related rights.
Recognising this reality, the CJEU recently reaffirmed in Case C-14/23 that the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be rendered meaningless if a final judicial decision could not produce practical effects within a timeframe that allows the individual to enjoy the rights granted by EU law.
The Court further stressed that where an unlawful refusal is annulled, national legal systems must ensure that a new decision is adopted promptly and in accordance with the legal findings contained in the judgment.
In appropriate circumstances, national courts must possess powers sufficient to guarantee the full effectiveness of rights derived from Directive 2016/801, including the ability to substitute their own assessment for that of the administrative authorities where necessary.
ReLex
