CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17912/24 Olga GIMŽAUSKĖ against Lithuania lodged on 15 June 2024 communicated on 19 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that her Lithuanian residence permit had not been renewed and that she had been prohibited from entering the Republic of Lithuania for a period of two and a half years on the grounds of being a threat to State security, notwithstanding being married to a Lithuanian citizen. On 13   September 2019 the applicant, who is a citizen of Belarus, married N.G., a Lithuanian citizen, in Druskininkai, a town in Lithuania. After the marriage, the couple lived in two places – in Grodno, a town in western Belarus, near the Lithuanian border, where the applicant works in an enterprise “Teleradijokompanija Grodno” as director of sales and marketing, and Druskininkai. In 2022-2023 the applicant attended a Lithuanian language course in order to be able to obtain a job in Druskininkai and seeking to move to live in Lithuania. The applicant also states that in August 2022 she and N.G. bought a plot of land in Druskininkai with the intention of building a family home. As of 2020, the applicant had been issued two temporary Lithuanian residence permits, on family grounds. On 21 May 2023 the applicant asked the Migration Department to renew the residence permit, referring to family reunification grounds. On 25   July 2023 the State Security Department wrote to the Migration Department that the applicant, when filling in the questionnaire by the Lithuanian authorities, indicated that as of 1999 she worked at the television and radio enterprise “Grodno”. The State Security Department considered that this meant that the applicant was loyal to the Belarusian authorities, and that she could be used by the Belarusian intelligence services to gather intelligence in Lithuania or to perform other assignments. Given the changed geopolitical situation, the applicant’s residence in Lithuania posed threat to the national security. On 11   August 2023 the Migration Department established that as of October 2019 the applicant had crossed the Lithuanian-Belarusian border, via the border crossing point, 139 times, and that as of 2017 her spouse N.G. crossed that border 281 times. The Migration Department noted that the applicant worked at the television and radio enterprise “Grodno” for twenty-four years, which meant that she was its “humble and loyal” ( nuolanki ir lojali ) employee. The Migration Department considered that the applicant’s husband, N.G., could start living in Belarus in order to preserve his and the applicant’s right to family. The Migration Department emphasised that the applicant and N.G. did not have underage children living in Lithuania, who would need financial maintenance, although N.G. had two children, born in 2000 and in 2004, during his first marriage. Overall, in the Migration Department’s view, the applicant’s family connection and interest in residing in Lithuania could not prevail over the national security interests. The Migration Department lastly noted that, when filling out the request for renewal of the temporary residence permit, she omitted to mention that she had been regularly travelling to Belarus. By another decision, taken on 16   August 2023, the Migration Department banned the applicant from entering Lithuania for a period of two and a half years, noting, among other, that the family could live in the applicant’s State of origin. On 15   November 2023 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Migration Department’s decisions. The court considered that it was irrelevant what job an individual had at the State institutions or enterprises in Belarus, because such individuals had to be loyal to that State, which was hostile to Lithuania. Contrary to the applicant’s suggestion that her job function had no impact of national security, she was not a simple employee, rather, she was director of sales and marketing at the enterprise “Teleradijokompanija Grodno”, where she has been working for twenty-four years. The enterprise was related to media through which the Belarus regime influenced people and disseminated propaganda. The fact that temporary residence permits had been previously twice issued to the applicant was also not decisive, because the geopolitical situation had changed. The court had no grounds to disagree with the Migration Department’s decision that the applicant’s personal interest in living in Lithuania could not take priority over the national security interests. The refusal to issue the applicant with a temporary residence permit was proportionate. The ban on the applicant to enter Lithuania for a period of two and a half years was likewise proportionate and adequate. The applicant appealed, arguing that she had genuinely sought to integrate in Lithuania and that her threat to national security was based only on suppositions. She noted having de facto disclosed all her travels to Belarus. If the Migration Department’s decision to refuse the temporary residence permit remained in force, but the ban on her to enter Lithuania was lifted, she and her husband would at least have a chance to preserve their family. Conversely, the prohibition on her to enter Lithuania, even with a visa, was a straight road to a divorce. She noted that her spouse was uncomfortable with travelling to Belarus, a country unfriendly to Lithuania. By depriving them of the only viable place to meet – in Lithuania – the hope to create and retain a family had been taken away. By a final ruling of 14   February 2024, the Supreme Administrative Court left the lower court’s decision unchanged. The court observed that the applicant’s husband was not prohibited from travelling to Belarus, and that she had not been banned from entering and living in other Schengen area countries. The applicant complains, under Article   8 of the Convention, that the Lithuanian authorities’ decisions not to issue her with a temporary residence permit and to prohibit her from entering Lithuania essentially deny her the possibility to preserve her marriage. She states that her threat to national security was based on suppositions only, and that such abstract arguments could be applied to any individual. Shen mentions having started working at her current job twenty-four years ago, when Belarus was a friendly State to Lithuania, and that she genuinely sought to integrate in Lithuania for family reasons. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §   54, ECHR   2006-XII, and Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no.   48321/99, §   94, ECHR 2003-X)?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 (compare Kirkorov v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 12174/22, § 66, 19 March 2024)?   In particular, did the authorities engage in an adequate assessment of the applicant’s family relationship, and did they weigh the need to protect national security against that element (see, mutatis mutandis , Mirzoyan v.   the   Czech Republic , nos.   15117/21 and 15689/21, §   76, 16   May 2024)?   2.     The parties are requested to inform the Court about the applicant’s current situation, including her status in Lithuania, and any proceedings related to her, should such be currently pending.