CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 20 January 2021 Published on 8 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38121/20 L.B. against Lithuania lodged on 14 August 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant arrived in Lithuania from the Russian Federation in 2001 and applied for asylum, submitting that he was at risk of persecution in his country of origin because of his participation in the war in Chechnya. In 2003 he was granted a temporary residence permit on humanitarian grounds. In 2004 he was granted subsidiary protection on the grounds of indiscriminate violence in Chechnya. The subsidiary protection was extended every year until 2008 and on each occasion he was issued with a temporary residence permit. In 2008 he was granted a permanent residence permit because he had been legally living in Lithuania for five years. From 2003, on several occasions the applicant was issued with a foreigner’s travel document. In 2018, upon the expiry of his previous travel document, he applied for a new one. However, the Migration Department refused to issue the travel document, and the administrative courts upheld that decision, stating that the applicant was able to obtain such a document from the Russian authorities. The applicant challenged the refusal and argued, inter alia , that if he addressed the Russian authorities, he would be required to disclose his identity and location to them, which would put him in danger because of his status as a former Chechen fighter. However, the Lithuanian authorities held that the applicant was currently not an asylum seeker or a refugee, and that subsidiary protection had previously been granted to him not because of any individual persecution but because of indiscriminate violence which had existed in Chechnya at that time. Thus, there were no grounds to believe that he faced any risks when addressing the Russian authorities. Furthermore, he was not required to go to Russia to request a travel document and could make such a request online. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the refusal to issue him with a travel document, after he has been living in Lithuania for almost two decades, unfairly restricts his enjoyment of his private life. He submits that his children live in another country and that his job requires him to travel frequently. He also complains under Article   2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that the restriction of his freedom of movement is unjustified. Lastly, he complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that addressing the Russian authorities would expose him to a risk of persecution and that the Lithuanian authorities failed to properly assess his arguments regarding that risk. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the refusal to issue the applicant with a travel document constitute an interference with his right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Hoti v. Croatia , no.   63311/14, §§   119-23, 26 April 2018)?   2.     If so, was that interference in line with the requirements of Article   8 §   2? In particular, did the domestic authorities give adequate consideration to the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case, including the fact that he had been granted asylum in Lithuania (see, mutatis mutandis , Abuhmaid v. Ukraine , no. 31183/13, § 122, 12   January 2017, and Hoti , cited above, §   134)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, contrary to Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention?   The parties are requested to provide to the Court the copies of the decisions to grant the applicant asylum, as well as all the previous decisions adopted by the Lithuanian authorities to issue him with a travel document.