Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2026:86
Date: 2026-02-12
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Lithuania

Translation C-634/24 – 1 
Case C-634/24 [Lenaimon] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
30 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
25 September 2024  
Applicant at first instance and appellant: 
M.P. 
Defendant at first instance and respondent: 
Migracijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų 
ministerijos 
  
[…] 
LIETUVOS VYRIAUSIASIS ADMINISTRACINIS TEISMAS  
(Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania) 
ORDER 
[…] 
25 September 2024 
Vilnius 
The Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania […] [the 
composition of the court], has examined, at a sitting of the court under the written 
appeal procedure, the administrative case concerning the appeal lodged by the 
appellant M.P. against the decision of 2 April 2024 of Regionų administracinis 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 9. 2024 – CASE C-634/24  
 
2  
teismas (Regional Administrative Court) in the administrative case relating to the 
appeal brought by the appellant against the respondent, Migracijos departamentas 
prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos (Migration Department 
under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania), seeking the 
annulment of its decision and an order requiring the performance of acts. 
The Chamber 
has established as follows: 
I.  
1 The case concerns a dispute between the appellant […] and the Migration 
Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania (‘the 
Department’, ‘the respondent’) concerning the Department’s decision of 
30 November 2023 […] (‘the contested decision’). By the contested decision, the 
Department annulled the decision of the Klaipėda Division of the Department of 
19 October 2023 by which it accepted the application by the appellant for a permit 
to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania (‘the decision on the 
application’). In adopting the contested decision, the defendant took the position 
that the appellant, who holds Russian citizenship, ought to have submitted, 
together with his application for a permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of 
Lithuania, the documents referred to in Article 3(3) of the Law of the Republic of 
Lithuania Establishing Restrictive Measures on account of the Military 
Aggression against Ukraine, that is to say a valid Schengen or national visa or a 
permit to reside in the Republic of Lithuania, issued by a visa office of the 
Republic of Lithuania whether located abroad or in the Republic of Lithuania. As 
the appellant did not submit such documents, his application could not be 
accepted. 
Legal framework: EU law 
2 Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose nationals must be 
in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose 
nationals are exempt from that requirement (‘Regulation 2018/1806’) provides 
that ‘nationals of third countries listed in Annex I shall be required to be in 
possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States’. 
3 Paragraph I of Annex I to Regulation 2018/1806 which lists third countries whose 
nationals are required to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external 
borders of the Member States includes ‘Russia’. 
4 Article 4(1) of Regulation 2018/1806 provides that ‘nationals of third countries 
listed in Annex II shall be exempt from the requirement set out in Article 3(1) for 
stays of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period’. 
LENAIMON 
 
3 
5 Paragraph 1 of Annex II to Regulation 2018/1806, which lists third countries 
whose nationals are exempt from the requirement to be in possession of a visa 
when crossing the external borders of the Member States for stays of no more than 
90 days in any 180-day period, includes, among others, Israel and Canada. 
6 Article 6(1) of Regulation 2018/1806 provides that ‘a Member State may provide 
for exceptions from the visa requirement provided for in Article 3 or from the 
exemption from the visa requirement provided for in Article 4 as regards: (a) 
holders of diplomatic passports, service/official passports or special passports; (b) 
civilian air and sea crew members in the performance of their duties; (c) civilian 
sea crew members, when they go ashore, who hold a seafarer's identity document 
issued in accordance with the International Labour Organisation Conventions 
No 108 of 13 May 1958 or No 185 of 19 June 2003 or the International Maritime 
Organization Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic of 
9 April 1965; (d) crew and members of emergency or rescue missions in the event 
of a disaster or an accident; (e) civilian crew of ships navigating in international 
inland waters; (f) holders of travel documents issued by intergovernmental 
international organisations of which at least one Member State is a member, or by 
other entities recognised by the Member State concerned as subjects of 
international law, to officials of those organisations or entities’. 
7 Article 6(3) provides that ‘a Member State may provide for exceptions from the 
exemption from the visa requirement provided for in Article 4 as regards persons 
carrying out a paid activity during their stay’. 
Legal framework: international law 
8 Chapter Ten of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between 
Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the 
other part, (CETA) governs temporary entry and stay of natural persons for 
business purposes. 
9 Article 10.2(1) CETA provides that ‘this Chapter reflects the preferential trading 
relationship between the Parties as well as the mutual objective to facilitate trade 
in services and investment by allowing temporary entry and stay to natural 
persons for business purposes and by ensuring transparency in the process’. 
10 Article 10.7(1) CETA provides that ‘each Party shall allow the temporary entry 
and stay of key personnel of the other Party subject to the reservations and 
exceptions listed in Annex 10-B’. Article 10.7(5) states that ‘the permissible 
length of stay of key personnel is as follows: (a) intra-corporate transferees 
(specialists and senior personnel): the lesser of three years or the length of the 
contract, with a possible extension of up to 18 months at the discretion of the 
Party granting the temporary entry and stay (14); (b) intra-corporate transferees 
(graduate trainees): the lesser of one year or the length of the contract; (c) 
investors: one year, with possible extensions at the discretion of the Party granting 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 9. 2024 – CASE C-634/24  
 
4  
the temporary entry and stay; (d) business visitors for investment purposes: 
90 days within any six month period’. 
11 Article 30.6 CETA governs ‘private rights’. Article 30.6(1) CETA states that 
‘nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as conferring rights or imposing 
obligations on persons other than those created between the Parties under public 
international law, nor as permitting this Agreement to be directly invoked in the 
domestic legal systems of the Parties’. Article 30.6(2) CETA provides that ‘a 
Party shall not provide for a right of action under its domestic law against the 
other Party on the ground that a measure of the other Party is inconsistent with 
this Agreement’. 
Legal framework: national law 
12 Article 1 of Law No XIV-1888 of the Republic of Lithuania Establishing 
Restrictive Measures on account of the Military Aggression against Ukraine of 
20 April 2023 (TAR, 21 April 2023, No 7804; ‘Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive 
Measures’) provides that ‘this Law is intended to ensure the interests of the 
national security and foreign policy of the Republic of Lithuania and to attain the 
objectives referred to in Article 1(1) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on 
International Sanctions, by establishing restrictive measures in the Republic of 
Lithuania on account of the military aggression by foreign states against Ukraine 
(‘the restrictive measures’)’. 
13 Article 3(3) of Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures states that ‘the 
acceptance of applications by citizens of the Russian Federation for the issuance 
of permits to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania via an external 
service provider abroad, shall be suspended, with the exception of citizens of the 
Russian Federation for whom an authority authorised by the Lithuanian 
Government acts as an intermediary in the cases determined by the Lithuanian 
Government, and in the Republic of Lithuania, with the exception of citizens of 
the Russian Federation who hold a valid Schengen visa or a national visa or a 
permit to reside in the Republic of Lithuania issued by a visa office of the 
Republic of Lithuania located abroad or issued in the Republic of Lithuania, or a 
residence permit of another EU Member State’. 
14 Article 4(1) of Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures provides that ‘the 
restrictive measures referred to in Article 3, with the exception of the restrictive 
measure referred to in Article 3(2), shall apply for a period of one year from the 
date of entry into force of this Law’. 
15 Article 5 of Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures provides that ‘this Law 
shall enter into force on 3 May 2023 and remain in force until 2 May 2024’. 
16 Article 2 of Law No XIV-2581 of 25 April 2024 Amending Articles 3, 4 and 5 of 
Law No XIV-1888 of the Republic of Lithuania Establishing Restrictive Measures 
on account of the Military Aggression against Ukraine (TAR, 02.05.2024, 
No 8222; ‘Law No XIV-2581 on Restrictive Measures’) amends Article 4 of Law 
LENAIMON 
 
5 
No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures, stating in paragraph 1 that ‘the restrictive 
measures referred to in Article 3 of  [Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures], 
except for the restrictive measure referred to in Article 3(8) of [No XIV-1888 on 
Restrictive Measures], shall apply from 3 May 2024 until 2 May 2025’. 
17 Article 3 of Law No XIV-2581 on Restrictive Measures amended Article 5 of 
Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures by providing that Law No XIV-1888 
is to remain in force until 2 May 2025. 
18 Article 4(1) of Law No XIV-2581 provides that, with the exception of 
Articles 1(5) and 4(3) thereof, Law No XIV-2581 on Restrictive Measures is to 
enter into force on 3 May 2024. 
19 Article 40(1)(16) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Legal Status of 
Foreigners (‘LLSF’) provides that ‘a temporary residence permit may be issued or 
renewed to a foreigner if he [or she] is a national of Australia, Japan, the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, 
Canada, New Zealand or South Korea who intends to take up employment or to 
pursue other lawful activities in the Republic of Lithuania’. 
Relevant facts 
20 The appellant is a national of three countries – Canada, Russia and Israel. 
21 The appellant entered the Republic of Lithuania with a Canadian passport. 
Accordingly, the Lithuanian competent authorities applied visa-free entry rules to 
the appellant. 
22 On 13 October 2023, the appellant submitted, in person, an application for a 
permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania to the Klaipėda Division 
of the Department (‘the application’). The appellant based his application on 
Article 40(1)(16) LLSF. The appellant stated that he was a Canadian national, and 
a participant in UAB Wellesley Development, a company operating in the 
Republic of Lithuania, and that the purpose of his arrival was to work in that 
company. Among other documents, the appellant attached to his application pdf 
copies of his Canadian, Russian and Israeli passports. 
23 On 19 October 2023, the Klaipėda Division of the Department took the decision 
[on the application], that is to say, it decided to accept the appellant’s application 
for processing. 
24 On 20 October 2023, the appellant received a notification from the defendant 
requesting clarification of the nationality under which the appellant was applying 
for a permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania. In compliance with 
the defendant’s request, the appellant reiterated that he applied for the issuance of 
a permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania as a Canadian national. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 9. 2024 – CASE C-634/24  
 
6  
25 On 30 November 2023, the appellant received the contested decision […] via the 
MIGRIS information system, by which the defendant annulled the decision of the 
Klaipėda Division of the Department [regarding the application]. The defendant 
justified the decision [regarding the application] as being unlawful on the grounds 
that the appellant was not only a Canadian national, but also a Russian citizen, and 
therefore ought to have submitted, with the application, the documents referred to 
in Article 3(3) of Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures, that is to say, a 
valid Schengen or national visa or a permit to reside in the Republic of Lithuania 
issued by a visa office of the Republic of Lithuania, located abroad or issued in 
Lithuania. As the appellant had not submitted such documents, the defendant took 
the position that the appellant was not entitled to submit the application. 
26 The appellant lodged an appeal with the Vilnius Chamber of the Regional 
Administrative Court by which, inter alia, he requested that the contested decision 
be annulled and that the Department be ordered to re-examine whether to accept 
the appellant’s application. By a judgment of 2 April 2024, that court dismissed 
the appellant’s appeal. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Administrative 
Court of Lithuania. 
The Chamber 
finds as follows: 
II.  
27 Having established that the appellant is not only a Canadian citizen, but also a 
Russian citizen, but has not supported his application for a permit to reside 
temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania with the documents referred to in 
Article 3(3) of the Law on Restrictive Measures […] [repeated information], by 
the contested decision in the case at issue, the defendant annulled the decision of 
the Klaipėda Division of the Department [regarding the application]. 
28 The appellant objects to the contested decision on the grounds that two 
administrative legal relationships have been established between the appellant and 
the defendant: (i) the administrative legal relationship concerning the appellant’s 
stay in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania was based on his entry into the 
Republic of Lithuania; and (ii) the administrative legal relationship concerning the 
appellant’s temporary residence in the Republic of Lithuania was based on the 
application by the appellant for a permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of 
Lithuania. The appellant does not understand why the Department, having 
recognised the appellant as a Canadian national in its legal relationships on the 
territory of the Republic of Lithuania and having granted him a visa-free legal 
regime, without requiring a Schengen or national visa, and having accepted his 
application for a permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania as a 
Canadian citizen, subsequently regarded him not only as a Canadian citizen, but 
also as a Russian citizen, and, consequently, applied to him the provisions of Law 
No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures on the basis of which it adopted the 
LENAIMON 
 
7 
contested decision. In the appellant’s opinion, there is no legal basis according to 
which a person holding three nationalities does not have the right to choose, in the 
Republic of Lithuania, the state in respect of which he or she considers himself or 
herself to be a citizen and to use the citizenship of that country to submit 
applications to the Lithuanian authorities. 
29 The appellant also submits that treating him exclusively as a citizen of the Russian 
Federation completely disregards his other nationalities, which, under 
international law, provide the appellant with a basis to expect that the rights 
guaranteed to him under international agreements will be protected. In that regard, 
the appellant has consistently argued that the defendant infringed CETA by 
applying the provisions of Article 3(3) of Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive 
Measures to him. In particular, the appellant refers to the provisions of 
Articles 10.1, 10.6 to 10.9 CETA, pursuant to which, as the appellant states, the 
parties to the Agreement are obliged to allow nationals of the States which are 
party to the Agreement (entrepreneurs, investors, company executives, 
professionals, etc.), with no restrictions or additional authorisations, to enter, stay, 
and work in companies established in that country or to engage in their business 
activities in the country concerned under a simplified procedure. The appellant 
argues that CETA provisions establish a right for Canadian citizens to obtain a 
permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania, and that the 
corresponding regulation is implemented at the national level by Article 40(1)(16) 
LLSF. The appellant also notes that CETA takes precedence over the national 
(ordinary) legislation of the Republic of Lithuania, where there is a conflict 
between CETA, as an international treaty, and national legislation, in this case 
Article 3(3) of Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures. 
30 The defendant disagrees with the appellant’s position, pointing out that Law No 
XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures does not provide for any exceptions to the 
provisions of that law, which relate to persons holding citizenship of another state 
in addition to that of the Russian Federation. Consequently, the provisions of that 
Law ought to have applied in full to the appellant, who, among other things, is a 
citizen of the Russian Federation. 
31 The defendant pointed out that the Department does not decide which was the 
citizenship of the person applying for a permit to reside temporarily in the 
Republic of Lithuania, but assesses the documents accompanying the application. 
If, in the course of such an assessment, it is established that a person has more 
than one citizenship, but one of them is the citizenship of the Russian Federation, 
the Department must implement the provisions of Law No XIV-1888 on 
Restrictive Measures. 
32 Since both the documents submitted by the appellant confirmed and the appellant 
himself admitted that he was a citizen of the Russian Federation, , the appellant 
ought, according to the defendant, to have been subject to Law No XIV-1888 on 
Restrictive Measures and ought to have been obliged to comply with the 
provisions of Article 3(3) of that Law, which temporarily suspended the admission 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 9. 2024 – CASE C-634/24  
 
8  
of applications for temporary residence permits from citizens of the Russian 
Federation in the Republic of Lithuania. However, the appellant did not submit, a 
valid national or Schengen visa or a residence permit in the Republic of Lithuania 
or another EU Member State with his application. Accordingly, the appellant was 
not entitled to submit the application. 
33 The Chamber hearing the administrative case draws attention first to the fact that 
Article 30.6(1) CETA states that ‘nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as 
conferring rights or imposing obligations on persons other than those created 
between the Parties under public international law, nor as permitting this 
Agreement to be directly invoked in the domestic legal systems of the Parties’ 
[…].  
34 In its Opinion 1/17 on the request for an opinion under Article 218(11) TFEU 
made on 7 September 2017 by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Court of Justice of 
the European Union (‘the Court of Justice’), stated that the jurisdiction of the 
tribunals established pursuant to CETA provisions ‘is mandatory not only for the 
respondent, who will have to accept it under Article 8.25 of the CETA, but also 
for the claimant investor, in the event that the latter seeks to rely directly on the 
provisions of the CETA. Since Article 30.6 of the CETA deprives investors of the 
possibility of relying directly on the CETA before the domestic courts and 
tribunals of the Parties, any action directly based on the provisions of that 
agreement will have to be brought before the CETA Tribunal’ (Opinion in Case 
C-1/17 of the Court of Justice of 30 April 2019, EU:C:2019:341, point 198). 
35 However, in view of the fact that the situations dealt with in the above Opinion 
1/17 of the Court of Justice and the situation before the Chamber in the 
administrative case at issue are not the same, the Chamber hearing the appellant’s 
appeal, which, as already mentioned, also concerns a breach of CETA provisions, 
has doubts as to whether Article 30.6 CETA ought to be interpreted as precluding 
the appellant from relying on the provisions of that agreement in the present 
administrative proceedings. 
36 In that respect, the Chamber notes that international agreements concluded by the 
European Union form an integral part of EU law and may therefore be the subject 
of a reference for a preliminary ruling ((judgment of the Court of Justice of 
30 April 1974, Haegeman, 181/73, EU:C:1974:41, paragraphs 5 and 6; judgment 
of the Court of Justice of 25 February 2010, Brita, C-386/08, EU:C:2010:91, 
paragraph 39; and judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 November 2017, Aebri, 
C-224/16, EU:C:2017:880, paragraph 50). 
37 Another aspect which is significant for the legal relationships at issue, in the view 
of the Chamber, is that the legal framework relevant to the circumstances of the 
case at hand is laid down in Regulation 2018/1806, which lists the third countries 
whose nationals are required to be in possession of a visas when crossing external 
borders and those countries whose nationals are exempt from that requirement. 
LENAIMON 
 
9 
38 Pursuant to Article 3(1) and Annex I of the Regulation, a visa is required for 
Russian citizens seeking to enter the Republic of Lithuania. If a Russian citizen 
who has entered the territory of the Republic of Lithuania seeks to apply for a 
permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Article 3(3) 
of Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures, he or she is obliged to submit, 
inter alia, a valid national or Schengen visa or a residence permit for the Republic 
of Lithuania or another EU Member State. 
39 However, given that the appellant entered the Republic of Lithuania as a Canadian 
citizen, the provisions of Article 4(1) and Annex II of Regulation 2018/1806 are 
also relevant, according to which Canadian nationals are exempted from the visa 
requirement laid down in Article 3(1) for stays of no more than 90 days in any 
180-day period. 
40 In the administrative case at hand, there is no dispute that the competent 
authorities applied the immigration requirements in force (i.e. the regulation 
involving the visa-free regime) to the appellant’s entry into the Republic of 
Lithuania as a Canadian citizen. Nevertheless, given that the appellant also has 
Russian citizenship, he is obliged, in accordance with Law No XIV-1888 on 
Restrictive Measures, to present a valid national or Schengen visa or a residence 
permit for the Republic of Lithuania or another EU Member State when applying 
for a permit to reside temporarily in Lithuania. In other words, an appellant 
seeking to apply for a permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania is 
subject to the legislation and the resulting requirement to present a document 
which, according to the provisions of Regulation 2018/1806, an appellant using 
the visa-free regime is not required to possess. 
41 In that context, the Chamber also notes that, pursuant to Article 3(1) and (2) of 
Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures, ‘the acceptance of visa applications 
from citizens of the Russian Federation and of the Republic of Belarus by visa 
offices of the Republic of Lithuania located abroad shall be suspended, except in 
cases where the submission of a visa application is mediated by the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania. The acceptance of applications for 
the issuance of national visas by citizens of the Russian Federation and of the 
Republic of Belarus via an external service provider abroad is suspended’. In 
other words, pursuant to the above-mentioned legal regulation, the appellant, as a 
Russian citizen, could not be issued a national visa in respect of the Republic of 
Lithuania. 
42 In examining the lawfulness and reasonableness of the requirement imposed on 
the appellant to present a valid visa (or residence permit), the Chamber considers 
it important to take into account the fact that, pursuant to Article 6(1) of 
Regulation 2018/1806, Member States have a discretion to establish exemptions 
as regards the persons referred to in points (a) to (f) of Article 6(1) of the 
Regulation. However, in the administrative case at issue, it is common ground that 
the appellant does not fall within the categories of persons defined in the above 
provisions. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 9. 2024 – CASE C-634/24  
 
10  
43 On the basis of Article 6(3) of Regulation 2018/1806, the Chamber also concludes 
that the above provision confers on the Member States a discretion to establish 
exceptions from the exemption from the visa requirement provided for in Article 4 
as regards persons carrying out a paid activity during their stay. However, in that 
respect, the Chamber notes that, for the purposes of applying the provisions laid 
down in Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures, which is relevant in the 
administrative case at hand, the purpose of the appellant’s entry into the Republic 
of Lithuania is irrelevant. In other words, in order to submit an application for a 
permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania, the requirement laid 
down in Article 3(3) of Law No XIV-1888 on Restrictive Measures to hold a valid 
Schengen or national visa or a permit to reside in the Republic of Lithuania or 
another EU Member State applies regardless of whether the foreigner applying for 
such a permit will be carrying out a paid activity during his or her stay in the 
Republic of Lithuania. In the light of the foregoing, the Chamber assumes that 
Article 6(3) of Regulation 2018/1806 does not apply in circumstances such as 
those of the present case. 
44 The Chamber has not identified any other provisions of Regulation 2018/1806 
which give a Member State a discretion to provide for exceptions to the 
exemption from the visa requirement laid down in Article 4 or any relevant case-
law of the Court of Justice in that respect. 
45 In the view of the Chamber, the nature of the Regulation as a legal act of the 
European Union is also relevant to the present case. According to the consistent 
practice of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the Lithuanian courts 
and public administration entities are obliged to apply regulations directly, 
without having regard to national legislation transposing their provisions (ruling 
of 3 April 2009 in administrative case No I143-18/2009, ruling of 8 March 2017 in 
administrative case No eA-566-662/2017, decision […] of 22 June 2022 in 
administrative case No eI-5-502/2022). However, Member States may adopt 
implementing measures for a regulation provided that they do not thereby obstruct 
its direct applicability or conceal its nature as an act of EU law; that they specify 
that they are acting in exercise of a discretion conferred on them under that 
regulation; and that they adhere to the parameters laid down thereunder (judgment 
of the Court of Justice of 7 July 2016, Občina Gorje, C-111/15, EU:C:2016:280). 
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania takes the view that the national 
implementing legislation applies to the extent that it supplements or clarifies 
regulations within the limits of the discretion defined in those regulations 
(decision of 11 September 2014 in administrative case No A438-1102/2014, ruling 
of 26 February 2015 in administrative case No eA-762-502-2015, decision […] of 
22 June 2022 in administrative case No eI-5-502/2022). 
46 Therefore, in view of the nature of Regulation 2018/1806 as a directly applicable 
EU legal act and the provisions it lays down, it is not clear to the Chamber 
whether Article 4(1) of that legal act, read in conjunction with Annex II, is to be 
interpreted as not precluding national legislation valid for a limited period, under 
which a Russian citizen seeking to apply for a permit to reside temporarily in the 
LENAIMON 
 
11 
Republic of Lithuania is subject to a requirement to present a valid visa or 
residence permit, notwithstanding the fact that such a person has entered the 
Republic of Lithuania under a visa-free regime as a citizen of a state listed in 
Annex II to Regulation 2018/1806. Additionally, in the light of the legal 
framework established by CETA provisions, upon which the appellant relies 
consistently in the present dispute to emphasise his rights under the relevant 
provisions of the Agreement, and in view of the substance of Article 30.6 of that 
Agreement, the Chamber has doubts as to the compatibility of the relationship 
between CETA, as part of European Union law, and Regulation 2018/1806, in 
circumstances such as those of the present case. 
III.  
47 […] [obligation of the Supreme Administrative Court to make the request 
pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU] 
48 In those circumstances, in order to dispel the doubts which have arisen as to the 
interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law relevant to the legal 
relationships at issue in the present dispute, it is appropriate to request the Court 
of Justice to interpret the EU provisions in question. The answer to the questions 
referred to in the operative part of this order is of fundamental importance for the 
present case, since it leads, inter alia, to uniform case-law of the national courts in 
order to ensure the supremacy of European Union law and enables an 
unambiguous and clear decision to be taken on the substance of the appellant’s 
arguments alleging infringement of CETA provisions, as well as the lawfulness 
and reasonableness of the requirements under national law applicable to Russian 
citizens who also hold the citizenship of a state listed in Annex II to Regulation 
2018/1806 in order to apply for a permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of 
Lithuania. 
In the light of the foregoing considerations and […] [reference to the provisions of 
procedural law], the Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania 
orders as follows: 
[…] [standard procedural wording] 
The following questions of significance for the present case are referred to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
‘1. Should Article 30.6 of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade 
Agreement be interpreted as precluding a person holding Canadian, Israeli and 
Russian citizenship from relying on the provisions of that agreement in an appeal 
to a national court regarding a permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of 
Lithuania in circumstances such as those of the present case? 
2. Is Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 9. 2024 – CASE C-634/24  
 
12  
nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and 
those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, read in conjunction with 
Annex II, to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation valid for a limited 
period, under which a Russian citizen seeking to apply for a permit to reside 
temporary in the Republic of Lithuania is subject to a requirement to present a 
valid visa or residence permit, notwithstanding the fact that such a person has 
entered the Republic of Lithuania under a visa-free regime as a national of a State 
listed in Annex II to Regulation 2018/1806, while at the same time raising the 
question of the compatibility of those provisions of Regulation 2018/1806 with 
CETA in circumstances such as those of the present case?’ 
[…] 
[standard procedural wording and composition of the court]