Everything this Lithuanian government is doing is shallow nonsense: the extremely unfavorable decision on migrants for Lithuania was due to the government's fault

 "The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) related to the migrant crisis did not surprise many, that's what the former chairman of the Constitutional Court (CC), lawyer Dainius Žalimas wrote on Facebook. He taught on the social network that the decision is not useful for Lithuania, but it seems that the Lithuanian government is at fault.

 

    He wrote on the social network that the legality of the measures applied by Lithuania in managing the migration crisis raises doubts.

 

    "Only stubborn people don't want to hear it. Just as it did not want to act logically, immediately imposing a state of emergency with corresponding emergency measures, including the detention of migrants. So it might still have been possible to act legally.

 

    Such measures limiting the rights of migrants, as applied during the so-called emergency situation, have no constitutional basis, because according to the Constitution, the state of emergency regime provided for in it cannot be replaced by an unconstitutional state of emergency situation. Not to mention the fact that such a measure as revocation of the right to appeal is generally not possible according to the Constitution, even during a state of emergency," wrote the former chairman of the Constitutional Court D. Žalimas on Facebook.

 

    However, according to him, he was surprised by several points of the CJEU decision, which "testify Lithuania's inability to justify at least the necessity of the measures applied by the exceptional nature of the mass influx of migrants organized from abroad".

 

    "This is stated in point 73: "By the way, the Lithuanian government has not explained what the effect of such a measure (the right to request the withdrawal of international protection from a person who entered the country illegally) is on maintaining public order and ensuring internal security in the emergency situation under consideration due to the mass influx of migrants".

 

    And point 92 states: "Finally, with regard to the arguments of the Lithuanian government presented during the court hearing, to the extent that they can be understood in such a way that due to the exceptional situation caused by the influx of migrants, according to Article 72 of the TFEU, it is possible to deviate from all the provisions of Directive 2013/33, it should be noted that this government provides only general comments on this issue, which, taking into account the jurisprudence mentioned in points 70 and 71 of this decision, cannot justify the application of this article", D. Žalimas quoted the document on the social network.

 

    According to the former chairman of the Supreme Court, this may mean that "general statements about hybrid aggression and war, as well as general assumptions about the measures being taken to ensure public order and national security, were not enough for the court."

 

    "In other words, concreteness is needed in the international court and the court is not impressed by the threatening political rhetoric used in Lithuania to disparage the criticism of human rights defenders. Slogans alone won't get you far there," D. Žalimas shared insightfully on Facebook.

 

    He said that anyone who had previously read the relevant EU directives "would have been clear that it is impossible to justify the deprivation of the right of a person who has entered the country to submit an application for international protection (hence the requirement to submit such an application only abroad or at a border crossing point is not legal)'.

 

    "As was also evident, the detention of a person can only be based on the threat posed by that particular person (so it is not legal to detain a person simply because he entered the country illegally).

 

    It was also obvious that in order to deviate from such requirements, it is necessary to justify the deviations in the interests of national security in a much more specific and detailed manner, which, perhaps, was indeed possible to do. Only, apparently, such efforts were not of high quality, because the court did not notice the exceptionality of the influx of migrants and its impact on the protection of the common border of the EU", noted D. Žalimas.

 

    He wrote on Facebook that reasoning about outdated EU legislation was not enough.

 

    D. Žalimas said that it seems that the CJEU's decision is not beneficial to Lithuania and it gives the impression that it is Lithuania's own fault.

 

    "It is a consequence of the tendencies of legal nihilism that emerged during the migrant crisis. If the pursuit of short-term benefits by any, and therefore illegal, means will continue to be encouraged (without thinking at all about the future consequences in the future), blind political obedience and complacency in the public service will also be encouraged, such decisions of international courts will increase. By the way, the academic world was also not very critical of what was happening. It was convenient for many to either keep quiet or stop talking about this topic," wrote former KT chairman D. Žalimas on Facebook.

 

    In total, more than 10.3 thousand of migrants have not been admitted from Belarus to Lithuania since August 3 of last year, when VSAT acquired the illegal right to turn around illegal migrants.

 

    Last year, almost 4.2 thousand people arrived illegally from Belarus to Lithuania."

 

Lithuania is becoming a copy of Stalin's Gulag.