1
REPORT FOR LITHUANIA
AUDRA SIPAVIČIENĖ
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION AND
MIGRATION POLICY IN LITHUANIA, 2014
OECD Expert meeting, Paris, October 12-14, 2015
Vilnius, 2015
2
Content
International Migration in Lithuania: Trends and Policy
1. Major developments in Migration and Integration Policy
1.1. Foundation of the Parliamentary Migration Commission
1.2. Immigration Policy
1.3. Family Reunification
1.4. Students and Researchers
1.5. Integration
1.6. Visas and Consular issues
1.7. Irregular Migration
1.8. Return of Irregular Migrants
1.9. Asylum
1.10. Unaccompanied minors
1.11. Human Trafficking
2. International Migration: Trends and Statistics
2.1. Emigration
2.1.1. Trends in Emigration
2.1.2. Migration Destination
2.1.3. Composition of Emigration flows
2.1.4. Emigration Determinants
2.1.5. Social and demographic consequences
2.1.6. Remittances
2.2. Immigration to Lithuania
2.2.1. Immigration Trends
2.2.2. Countries of Origin
2.2.3. Composition of Immigration flows
2.2.4. Reasons of immigration of foreign nationals
2.2.5. Foreign Residents in Lithuania
2.2.6. Citizenship and Naturalization
2.3. Irregular Migration
2.3.1. Scope and trends of irregular migration
2.3.2. Refused admission
2.3.3. Irregular stay and residence
2.3.4. Detention of irregular migrants
2.3.5. Smuggling and organized illegal border crossing
2.3.6. Removal of irregular migrants
2.4. Refugees and asylum seekers
2.4.1. General trends
2.4.2. Type of protection
2.4.3. Nationalities
2.4.4. Demographic characteristics of asylum seekers
2.4.5. Unaccompanied minors
2.4.6. Implementation of Dublin II regulation provisions
2.4.7. Integration
2.4.8. Court Proceedings
2.4.9. Returns
2.5. Economic (labour) migration
2.5.1. Labour Market situation
2.5.2. Entry of TNC workers with work contracts
2.5.3. Entry and stay for the purpose of highly qualified employment
2.5.4. Entry of aliens for the purpose of engaging in lawful activity
3
1. Major Developments in Migration and Integration Policy in Lithuania
Migration remains a topical issue in Lithuania. In addition to emigration and return migration in
2015 new challenges had emerged, namely, relocation and resettlement of persons in clear need of
international protection.
1.1 Foundation of the Parliamentary Migration Commission
On 14th April 2015, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania voted for amendments to the Seimas
Statute, establishing a Migration Commission. The purpose of the newly founded Commission is to
analyse and deal with various issues resulting from migration processes. As per the Seimas Statute
article 80, the aims of the Commission are such:







Analyse and provide recommendations for the management of migration processes.
Discuss and prepare draft bills in the area of its competence.
Debate and provide the Seimas with assessments regarding the effect of migration on social and
economic development.
Administer regulatory monitoring of the areas in their competence.
Analyse practice of other states regarding the reduction of migration flows.
Review information provided by relevant state insitutions and public organisations regarding the
enforcement of legislation in the area of their competence, provide the Seimas with relevant
resulting proposals and recommendations.
Maintain close ties with the World Lithuanians Community and other organisations of Lithuanians
abroad.
1.2 Immigration
Relocation and EU-resettlement
Following the emergency situation in the Mediterranean, the European Commission in May 2015,
proposed a temporary distribution scheme for persons in clear need of international protection. On
27th May 2015, the Commission suggested that the Republic of Lithuania should accept a total of
710 persons from Greece and Italy. It was announced on 20th July 2015, that Lithuani will also
resettlte 325 persons from third countries. On 21 September, a special governmental commissions
was established to coordinate the process of admmiting persons in clear need of international
protection. Lithuania supports the sharing of responsibility between MS. However, Lithuania
emphasized that this mechanism should only be viewed as temporary and exceptional and does not
become authomatic.
Entry for the purpose of engaging in legal activity
Amendments to the Law of the Legal Status of Aliens that entered into force 1st November 2014 set
higher requirements for aliens wishing to come to Lithuania in order to engage in legal activity.
Previous conditions for issuing temporary work permits (when establishing and managing an
enterprise was sufficient ground to apply for a temporary residence permit) created a precedent for
establishing bogus companies for the sole purpose of gaining permission to live in Lithuania. The
new requirements allow the issue of a temporary residence permit if:


The enterprise has been engaging in legal activity for at least 6 months prior to the alien’s
application for temporary residence.
The company employs at least 3 residents of the Republic of Lithuania.
4


The presence of the alien is indispensable for the opperation of the enterprise (i.e., the alien is a
manager or a member of a collegiate management or supervisory body; has the right to enter into
contract on behalf of the enterprise; is a shareholder of the enterprise, having ownership of shares the
par value of which is no less than a third of the enterprise authorised capital).
The equity capital value (or its assets) amounts to not less than EUR 28 000, of which not less than
EUR 14 000 are funds or other assets invested by the alien.
A new category for enterpreneurs was introduced in 2014. If the alien invested no less than 260.000
Euros to the equity of the enterprise and the enterprise employs at least 5 residents of the Republic
of Lithuania, he/she can be issued a temporary residence permit for a period of 3 years. The alien
can then immediately bring his/her family into the country as well – temporary residence
applications for members of the family will be processed within a reduced period of 2 months
(compared to 4 months in other cases).
Additionally, in oder to prevent abuse of this immigration channel, the definition for “bogus
company” has been set, establishing a criteria for finding out whether an enterprise has been
established solely for the purpose of temporary residence. In cases where the findings suggest
fictitious activity or no activity, temporary residence permits are revoked.
Entry for the purposes of highly qualified employment/blue card
In order for an alien to be issued a temporary residence permit (Blue card), certain set qualification
requirements have to be met: an alien must possess a higher education dimploma and he/she must
be payed a salary no less than twice the national average wage. Foreign entrepreneurs criticised the
requirement that high qualification can only be proved with a diploma. The government is
considering to prepare amendments allowing to prove higher qualification not only by diplomas but
also by relevant experience.
As of 1st November 2014, the labour market test is not administered for aliens who are to be paid a
salary no less than three times the national average wage, or if the alien’s Blue Card is being
renewed after having been working in Lithuania for at least 2 years.
Entry of aliens for the purposes of work
Certain measures facilitating the employment of aliens have been introduced. Since 1st November
2014, employers no longer need to inform the Lithuania labour exchange in advance if they plan to
employ 5 or more aliens in their enterprise. The time period between for processing the application
at the Lithuanian labour exchange was shortened from 21 to 14 calendar days. At the same time, the
validity period of work permits and temporary residence permits has been unified – both are valid
for up to two years, or for the duration of alien’s employment. Previously temporary residence
permits had to be renewed every year. For those aliens who intend to both work and live in
Lithuania, both permits have also been merged into a single permit. From 1st March 2015 onwards,
the application for temporary residence can also be submitted by a concerned employer, as well as
the alien.
1.3 Family Reunification
In 2015 family reunification was facilitated and aliens can bring their family members to Lithuania
immediately if:

The alien is arriving for the purpose of teaching in an institution of science and education registered
in the Republic of Lithuania.
5


The alien is arriving on the ground of engaging in legal activities, having invested no less than 260
thousand Euros in the capital of the business and establishing at least five jobs.
An internal relocation of an international company causes a foreigner to come to Lithuania for a
period of no more than 3 years to work as a manager or specialist in a representation, branch or a
subsidiary established in the Republic of Lithuania. This ground can only be applied if the foreigner
had previously worked in the company for at least a year, has particularly high qualifications
necessary for the operation of the company and will be paid a salary no less than twice the national
average wage.
As of 1st March 2015, the clause requiring a foreigner to having been living in Lithuania for at least
two years before allowing him/her to bring in his/her family can be disregarded, provided that the
foreigner is in receipt of subsidiary protection in the Republic of Lithuania.
1.4 Students and Researchers
As of 1st November 2014, foreign students no longer require a work permit for internships or work
in scientific research or experimental development. At the same time the procedure of receiving a
work permit for students was simplified. In order to retain foreign students amendments were
passed which allow foreign students who have finished their education in Lithuania to remain in the
country for up to 6 months after finishing their studies in order to seek employment.
2014 witnessed the increase in funding for foreign graduate students. 27 foreign students were
granted funding for masters degree programmes (students from Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia,
Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and China). In 2013, only 13 foreign
students were granted funding.
Funding was also distributed to foreign students of Lithuanian ancestry. A total of 313 students of
Lithuanian ancestry were funded over the two semesters of the 2014-2015 school year. Additional
funds were provided for the integration and adaptation of such students.
More favourable arrival conditions were set for lecturers. Since last year, temporary residence
permits for lecturers are being issued under the same conditions as permits for researchers: lecturers
are allowed to bring their families into Lithuania and their residence permits are now valid for a
period of two years.
1.5 Integration
The Ministry of Social Security and Labour has been tasked with coordinating the integration
policy of foreigners, while the application of particular policies fell to a special Commission of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania.
On 31st December 2014, The Ministry of Social Security and Labour approved an action plan for
the development of integration policy 2015-2017. The plan sets three main goals: to integrate
foreigners into Lithuanian society; to increase tolerance of foreigners in Lithuanian society; to
improve cooperation between various institutions dealing with immigration. Majority of funding to
reach the goals set will come from the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund.
1.6 Visas and consular services
The Ministry of Foreign affairs continued to expand its cooperation with external service providers
of consular services (VFS Global) in 2014. Agreements regarding the establishment of new visa
6
centres run by the company were signed - new centres will open in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Georgia, Kazakhstan, China and Turkey.
Similarly, the development of the Visa Information System (VIS), which assists in gathering the
personal information, facial image and biometric data of Schengen visa seekers continued to
expand. The system was installed in Lithuanian embassies in the USA, Canada, Turkey as well as
general consulates in New York, Chicago and Sao Paulo
The Republic of Lithuania pursued several bilateral agreements regarding visa in 2014. An
agreement for abolition of visas for diplomatic passport holders has been reached with the Republic
of India (entered into force 30th July 2014) and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (entered into
force 26th February 2015). Also, the Ministry of Foreign affairs of the Republic of Lithuania agreed
with the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Confederation on the matter of
representation in issuing Schengen visas in Chicago, USA, on behalf of Switzerland (1st September
2014). Lastly, as of 24th October 2014, due to Finland having opened a visa centre in Kaliningrad,
Lithuanian Consulate does not issue Schengen visas on behalf of Finland any more.
1.7 Irregular migration
On 1st November 2014, amendments to the Law of the Legal Status of Aliens and the Code of
Administrative Offences came into force. The amendments seek to minimise the possibility of
abusing the system of residence permits. The measures adopted include:




The necessity for a foreigner seeking a temporary residence permit to have an appropriate
acommodation in accordance with construction, hygiene, fire safety and personal living space (7m2)
norms.
The definition of a ficticious company was set, and the concept established as a ground for revoking
residence permits. A permit can be revoked this way if proven that an alien founded a company in
Lithuania without the intention of engaging in legal activity in the Republic.
The fine for provision of false information in invitations for foreigners to come to the Republic of
Lithuania and for assisting a foreigner to illegally obtain a document certifying the right to reside in
the Repubic was raised.
A fine for educational institutions and employers has been set, for cases where they have failed to
inform about a foreigner who has terminated studies of labor relations.
As a measure to reduce irregular migration, a bilateral agreement between the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania and the Government of the Republic of Georgia was ratified 23rd December
2014. The agreement bridges joint participation in dealings with illegal migration and human
trafficking.
1.8 Return of irregular migrants
On 9th December 2014, amendments to the Law of the legal status of aliens introduced
supplementary measures to regulate the return. The newly introduced measures defined criteria for
determining the risk of an alien’s absconding in order to avoid return and provided for a measure to
detained aliens if there is suspicious that they may abscond and avoid return.
More flexibility was also introduced in determining time period granted for voluntary departure: the
period can be shortened or repealed if suspicions arise regarding the likelihood of a foreigner to
abscond; at the same time the possibility of increasing the period of time set for the voluntary
departure was introduced if an alien has family relations with Lithuanian residents, has children
attending school, needs medical attention or cannot be returned for objective reasons.
7
The Ministry of the Interior, together with international and non-governmental organisations, were
tasked with monitoring the process of expulsion from the Republic of Lithuania.
A bilateral agreement regarding the readmission of illegal residents between the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania and the Government of the Republic of Georgia came into force 1 st
November 2014. Establishment of similar agreements with Armenia, Serbia, Macedonia is currently
undergoing negotiations.
In 2014 the International Organization for Migration Vilnius Office assisted the voluntary return of
66 third-country nationals to their country of origin.
1.9 Asylum
On 9 December, 2014, Lithuania passed new legislation aiming at reducing the potential for abuse
of the asylum system. The amendments stipulate that an asylum seeker may be detained in the
following circumstances:




If there is a risk of absconding to avoid return or expulsion;
To establish and/or verify his/her identity;
To identify the grounds underlined in the application for asylum (if the information could not be
obtained without detaining the asylum applicant);
When an asylum applications based on grounds manifestly unrelated to the risk of persecution in the
country of origin or based on fraud.
The amendments also extended time of the validity of a temporary residence permit for for two
years for foreigners granted subsidiary protection.
In 2014 the Ministry of the Interior commissioned a study on implementation of relocation and
resettlement schemes in Lithuania. The study was presented in May, 2015.
1.10 Unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable persons
In 2014, Lithuania adopted age assessment procedures, accommodation and other procedural
actions applicable to non-asylum seeking children in order to harmonise different practices in
relation to this group of foreigners. A roundtable discussion on age assessment procedures was also
organised.
Amendments to the law on the legal status of aliens that were adopted 9th December 2014 set the
definition of vulnerable persons and provided a non-finite classification of such persons. The
amendments additionally include mentally disturbed individuals and victims of human trafficking.
1.11 Human Trafficking
In July 2015, the Attorney General of the Republic of Lithuania in cooperation with IOs and NGOs
standardized the police protocol for identifying and referring victims of human trafficking.
8
2. International Migration: Trends and Statistics
2.1. Emigration
2.1.1. Trends in Emigration
According to the data from Lithuanian Department of Statistics (recalculated based on 2011
census), during the past 24 years (1990-2014) 824.9 thousand people emigrated from Lithuania
(chart 1.1., table 1.1.), of which 36.621 left the country last year. Emigration is in a steady fall since
20101, numbers are approaching the level of the nineties, yet remain higher even than the peak of
the decade in 1992. Importantly, the emigration numbers before 2011 include both declared and
undeclared migrants, while since 2011 statistics on non-registered emigration have not been
gathered (surveyed) any more. This could mean that, since 2011, the rates have not reflected the full
extent of emigration, and should be higher if undocumented migrants were included. The rate of the
fall had been continually decreasing since 2010 (from 35.2% between 2010 and 2011 to 23.7% the
next year and 5.6% between 2012-2013), until last year, when it settled at 5.7%. It is difficult to
predict whether this could mean we are on the brink of a pronounced decrease in emigration – even
if so, the Lithuanian demographics have already been affected so profoundly that without increased
immigration and return migration, the demographic situation could hardly be restored. However,
immigration remains low, and has only symbolic, though increasing compensatory effect. More
likely than not, emigration and its effects will persist to be a significant issue in the foreseeable
future.
Chart 1.1. International migration in Lithuania (1990-2014)
90.000
80.000
Migrants, thousands
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0
Immigration
Emigration
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
1
Notably, emigration statistics of 2010 should be seen as distorted to a significant extent. In 2009, an amendment of the
Compulsory Health Insurance Law came into effect, requiring all emigrants to officially register their leave in order to
avoid insurance payments. As a result, 2010 witnessed the registration of many more emigrants than any other year
during the observed period.
9
2.1.2 Migration destinations
Destinations
As the rate of emigration continues to diminish, so does, in terms of absolute numbers, the flow to
particular countries (table 1.2). The leaders, however, remain the same – UK (45.8%) and Ireland
(8.4%), although both Germany and (8.0%) Norway (7.2%) are almost on par with Ireland.
Interestingly, Germany maintains a stable position as a host country, and has actually increased its
percentage share of incomers from last year (7.7% to 8.0%), while the share has remained almost
stable in Ireland (8.5% to 8.4%) and decreased in Norway (7.7% to 7.2%). This is despite the fact
that, compared to Ireland and Norway, Germany has the lowest average wage after purchasing
power adjustments (chart 1.5.). The increase in popularity of Germany could be due to the fact its
labour market was only opened in 2011.
While the emigration flow to the most popular Western hosts is decreasing, a rise in popularity of
destinations among Lithuania’s eastern neighbours is observed. Compared to last year, a larger
share of people leave for the Russian Federation (2.9% to 3.5%), Belarus (2.5% to 2.8%) and
Ukraine (1.7% to 2.0%). Although the significance of the three countries in the emigration outflow
structure remains far from its peak in 2009 (a total of 19.2% compared to 8.0%), an increase from
last year can be noted (7.7% compared to 8.0%). Increase in emigration to eastern neighbours goes
in parallel with increasing immigration from these countries: immigration from RF, Belarus and
Ukraine has increased sharply over the past year (56.4%, 9.9% and 138.4%, respectively) and this is
usually attributed to the geopolitical tensions in the region.
2.1.3 Composition of emigration flows
Age composition
The age composition of emigrants has maintained a similar structure throughout the entire observed
period (2006-2014). The largest share has always been of working age people (18-60), amounted
for approx. 70-80 % of all emigrants; children bellow 15 – constitute 10-13%, retired people –
proportion bellow 3 % (table 1.3.). However, some tendency of change in age structure can be
traced during past couple of years. The proportion of children (0-14 years), which was decreasing
until 2011, now show the growth tendency (which may be the indication of family reunion in
destination and decreased probability of return to Lithuania). Opposite trend is among most mobile
population aged 20-34 years – their share in emigration flows over the past 3 years fell down by 5
percent points. Overall, while the immediate post-crisis period 2010-2011 witnessed an increase in
the share of working age emigrants, now the age composition is returning to the pre-crisis levels,
with increasing emigration of children and the elderly, revealing processes of family reunion.
Table 1.3. Emigrants, by age group (2001 – 2014)
Age
0 - 14
15 - 19
20 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 59
2006
12,7%
12,2%
43,8%
8,8%
19,3%
2007
13,9%
9,8%
43,3%
8,8%
20,9%
2008
13,7%
7,0%
47,4%
9,4%
19,4%
2009
12,1%
6,0%
48,4%
10,3%
20,7%
2010
10,2%
5,9%
54,9%
9,4%
18,7%
2011
10,5%
7,1%
55,4%
8,6%
17,1%
2012
12,6%
7,1%
52,9%
8,8%
16,8%
2013
13,0%
6,4%
51,4%
8,8%
17,8%
2014
13,5%
6,4%
49,6%
9,5%
18,7%
10
60+
3,1%
3,3%
3,1%
2,5%
0,9%
1,3%
1,9%
2,5%
2,2%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Brain drain
Though official statistics on the “brain drain” process are not standard practise and no recent studies
on the issue have been made, the matter can be apprehended by looking at the educational
composition of emigrants/ Lithuanian diaspora. According to a special survey carried out in 2014
by the Lithuanian Department of Statistics (“Global poll of foreign Lithuanians”), 31.7% of
Lithuanians living abroad have qualifications of higher or high education2; the highest educational
level of Lithuanian diaspora representatives is among those residing in Belarus - 51.6%, Ukraine
(48.5%), UK (44.8), Sweden (38.6). Notably, these numbers include only those emigrants who have
been successfully reached by Global Lithuania poll of foreign Lithuanians, and the reality might
still be different. In addition, as per table 1.5, last year witnessed a steep increase (2.41 times) in
the number of emigrating highly educated professionals and people in academia, i.e. who had been
working in the field of education, public administration and health sectors before emigration.
Though the absolute numbers (470 in 2014) may not look high, the tendency is alarming. The loss
of the contribution of these educated professionals leads to tethered potential, restraints on
innovation and loss of competitive edge.
Skill composition
The vast majority of emigrants (81.6%) were unemployed before leaving in 2014 (table 1.5.). The
percentage of those employed remained stable through 2014 (a negligible 0.3% increase from
2013), and maintained really low level – around 18 % for already 5 years. Aside from academics
and highly skilled professionals, other spheres have maintained similar levels of emigrating
workers, in terms of both real numbers and percentage share.
2.1.4. Emigration determinants.
Prima facie it would appear that emigration trends continue to follow economic tendencies, though
no certain claim can be made without in-depth research. A wide range of economic indicators,
including changes in GDP, average wage, general and youth unemployment rates portray an
inversely proportional relation to emigration. As indicated by public surveys, these push factors
directly affect the psychological state of individuals, creating additional stipulations for leaving.
Macroeconomics. Chart 1.3. illustrates the correlation between economic factors and migration
tendencies, and certain cause-effect relations could be proposed. Net migration, which had a
negative value for the entire range of observation, appears, with consistent delay, to be directly
proportional to the GDP trend. e.g., the fall in GDP between 2007-2009 is mirrored by the fall in
net migration between 2008-2010. By the same token, GDP rise of 2009-2011 correlates with the
rise of net migration 2010-2012.
A similar pattern can be deduced from the trends of unemployment rate and emigration. Emigration
rates appear to follow unemployment in a directly proportional manner with no delay. The increase
in unemployment rate within the timeframe of 2008-2010, and the consequent fall in the rate during
2010-2014 is, to a certain extent, mirrored by emigration. Youth unemployment, continuing to
overarch the national average (chart 1.8.), results in young people deciding to start their carriers
abroad, which is reflected in the prevalence of youth in age distribution of emigrants (chart 1.9.).
2
Global Lithuania poll of foreign Lithuanians, 2015
11
Chart 1.3. Migration and economic indicators in Lithuania (2000-2014)
20
30
15
Economic indicators
10
10
5
0
0
-5
-10
-10
-20
-15
-20
Migration indicators
20
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Unemployment rate %
16,4 17,4 13,8 12,4 11,4 8,3 5,6 4,3 5,8 13,6 17,8 15,3 13,2 11,8 10,7
GDP increase %
4,1 6,6 6,9 10,3 7,4 7,8 7,8 9,8 2,8 -15 1,4 6,9 3,7 3,25 2,9
Immigration per 1000 ppl 0,4 1,3 1,5 1,4 1,6
2
-30
2,4 2,7 2,9 2,1 1,7 5,2 6,6 7,4 8,8
Emigration per 1000 ppl
6,2 2,1 4,9 7,7 11,2 17,4 9,9 9,4 8,1 12,2 26,9 17,8 13,7 13,1 13,1
Net migration
-5,8 -0,8 -3,4 -6,3 -9,6 -15,4 -7,5 -6,7 -5,2 -10,1 -25,2 -12,6 -7,1 -5,7 -4,3
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Dynamics of emigration compared to changes in average monthly wage also suggest interrelation
between the two (chart 1.2.). Between 2006 and 2008, as the average monthly salary has been
steadily increasing (43.9 %), emigration was generally low and in decrease (20.5 %). A decrease of
7.6% in wages between 2008-2010 resulted in a 222.9 % rise in emigration during the same period.
Finally, the observed increase in wages since 2010 onwards (17.7% as of 2014) is mirrored by
decreasing emigration (56%). Though in quantitative terms the parallels are disproportional, the
patterns correspond in a direct manner.
Chart 1.2. Average Lithuanian monthly wage and emigration (2006-2014)
646
595
Wage, EUR
600
593
80.000
615
70.000
60.000
522
550
50.000
53.863
500
400
576
90.000
40.000
433
38.500
32.390 30.383
41.100 38.818
36.621
30.000
20.000
25.750
350
10.000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Average monthly wage (EUR)
Emigration
People, thousands
623
650
450
677,4
83.157
700
12
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
The above analysis suggests that emigration in Lithuania is mainly seen as viable economic
strategy, or sometimes the only means for achieving a decent standard of living. Both – low salary
level and high unemployment have been confirmed by the aforementioned study on emigration and
return migration (table 1.4.) as the top two reasons for leaving (52.2% and 24.3%, respectively).
Another popular economic cause for leaving is insolvency, i.e., the inability to pay back bank loans
(3.2%). A wide range of social and psychological reasons are cited as well, such as family
reunification (total of 4.6%), thirst for adventure (3.9%) and emigration for the purposes of study
and academia (7.2%). The inability of Lithuanian universities to successfully compete with more
prestigious institutions abroad similarly increases the youth segment of emigrants (table 1.4.).
Table 1.4. Survey of emigrants by reason for leaving (asked to indicate a single answer)
(2014)3
Reason for emigration
Wanted to earn more; Lithuanian salaries are unsatisfactory
Could not find work in Lithuania, needed a source of income
Left for educational purposes
Thirst for adventure
Family reunion (husband/wife)
Fled insolvency
Sought better working conditions
Disappointed with opportunities in Lithuania
Family reunion (parents)
To engage in business
Family reunion (children)
Fled personal problems
Could not enter a Lithuanian university
Won a "Green Card"
Was invited to join a basketball team
Refused to respond
% of
respondents
52,2
24,3
7,2
3,9
3,6
3,2
2,2
0,7
0,6
0,6
0,4
0,4
0,2
0,1
0,1
0,1
Source: Dovile Zvalionyte, doctoral dissertation: http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa0001:E.02~2014~D_20141006_103036-48918/DS.005.0.01.ETD
In addition to economic, social and psychological reasons play an important role – the survey
reflected in table 1.5. found that 2.2% of emigrants leave in search of better working conditions, 4.6
% due to different family related reasons. Psychological/ personal problems also play a role – as
indicated by the study 0.7% of emigrants were disappointed with opportunities in Lithuania and
0.4% flee from personal problems. A comparison of the rate of life satisfaction and emigration
reveals correlations between psychological state of affairs and emigration, suggesting cause-effect
relation between the two. A downward trend of life satisfaction (3% fall) during the economic crisis
period 2008-2009 is parallel to increased emigration at the time (49.5%). Most recently (chart 1.5.),
between the years 2010-2014, an increase in the share of people satisfied with their livelihood by
8% is to some extent reflected by decreasing emigration (56%) during the same period.
3
Respondents could only choose one answer. N=804.
13
90.000
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
83.157
63
64
63
32.390 30.383
69
64
65
53.863
58 38.500
25.750 55
56
57
70
41.100 38.818
36.621
60
55
Satisfied people, %
Emigrants, units
Chart 1.4. Lithuanian emigration and life satisfaction (2006 – 2014)
50
2006
2007
2008 2009
Emigration
2010 2011 2012
Life satisfaction %
2013
2014
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics and TNS Opinion & Social
Pull factors. The above analysis of emigration determinants at macro and household economics, as
well as emigrant public polls suggest that economic indicators are the most important factors for
people choosing to leave. However, a comparison of the most popular migration destinations and
economic situation/ local average monthly wages there reveals certain limits of such statement and
some contradictions (chart 1.5.). Among countries with similar immigration and admission rules
(EU/EEA), UK, though significantly more popular than others, has lower average wages than e.g.
Germany (5.3% less in UK), Denmark (19%) and especially Norway (24.1%). Even more, though
both UK and Ireland have equivalent language requirements, emigrants still prefer UK despite
Ireland having 27.9% higher average wages. Of all the most popular migrant destinations, USA has
the highest average wage - 37.2% above that of the UK, though the country is less popular due to
restrictions for employment and residence. Overall, as evident from table 1.5., the average wage in
most emigrant destinations significantly exceed the Lithuanian average wage (higher by 213% in
UK compared to Lithuania). Popular destinations east of Lithuania, however, all have lower
average wages – lower by 9.8% in Russia, 17.9% in Belarus and 40.6% in Ukraine. Their popularity
could be due to the geographical and cultural proximity, no language barrier (for elderly), also due
to family reasons or, in particular cases, higher salaries offered to professionals of specific areas.
14
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
4440
3471
4761
4309
4132
3656
3416
3001
1000
911
16768 3075 2906 2631 1275 1054 1041
659
955
940
937
751
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Wage, USD
Emigrants, units
Chart 1.5. Most popular migration destinations and local average annual wage (2014)
Migration
Average monthly wage USD PPP adjusted
Average monthly wage in Lithuania USD PPP adjusted
Source: OECD https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AV_AN_WAGE and International Labour Organisation
Return migration
Chart 1.6. Immigration and Return migration (2001-2014)
19.528
Immigrants and return migrants, thousands
25.000
18.975
17.357
20.000
14.012
15.000
10.000
5.000
714
6.141 6.337
5.058
4.821
3.3974.705
1.313
4.153
809
3.980 4.301 3.415
0
2.210 2.084 2.237 2.468 2.960 1.666 1.060 1.673 2.486 3.036
4.766
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Foreigners
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Lithuanian citizens
15
Return migration has been increasing since 2011, yet it continues to increase at a decreasing rate.
While between 2011-2012 the number of return migrants increased by 23.9%, it has only increased
by 9.3 % between 2012-2013, and barely by 2.9 % last year (Chart 1.6). Importantly, return
migration remains at a rate almost four times less than emigration. According to a 2014 study
“Return Migrants Integration into the Lithuanian Labour Market” (table 1.7), main reasons for
return migration are of psychological nature – longing for relatives (4.40 points of importance on 15 scale), other family reasons (3.91 points), desire to live in a familiar culture (3.84 points).
Economic and social factors fare considerably worse – improved economic situation in Lithuania is
ranked 8th among the factors (2.29 points), improved living conditions in Lithuania are in the 11th
place (2.11 points), and Lithuanian policy for return migration is rated as the least contributing
factor (1.70 points). This indicates that Lithuania remains economically unattractive, while policy
decisions fail to have any pronounced effect. Even more, according to the same study, 21.9% of
return migrants are seriously considering re-emigrating, while 9.3% are certain of it.
Table 1.7. Study of the most important reasons of return migration (2014)
Average importance
No.
Reason for return
(1-5 scale)
1. Longing for relatives
4,40
2. Family reasons
3,91
3. Desire to live in familiar culture
3,84
4. Achieved emigration goals
3,33
5. Difficulties adapting abroad
2,80
6. Difficulties finding work
2,67
7. Decrease of economic conditions abroad
2,55
8. Better economic conditions in Lithuania
2,29
9. Discrimination
2,22
10. Health issues
2,22
11. Improved living conditions in Lithuania
2,11
12. Desire to educate children in Lithuania
1,81
13. Active Lithuanian policy measures
1,70
Source: Dovile Zvalionyte, doctoral dissertation: http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa0001:E.02~2014~D_20141006_103036-48918/DS.005.0.01.ETD
2.1.5. Demographic consequences
The first and most obvious consequence of mass emigration – decreasing population. Due to mass
emigration and only symbolic immigration/ return migration Lithuanian population only over two
decades decreased by one fifth and according to data from Department of Statistics at the beginning
of 2015 formed 2921.3 thousand people (in 1990 – 3693.7 thousand people). If before 1994 the
natural increase fully or partially compensated for the migration losses, then since 1995 population
has been decreasing due to the effect of both components; during the crisis years (2009 – 2014)
emigration constituted approximately 90 per cent of total decrease. This particular aspect of
population drop-off is mostly vivid and usually stressed (in media and by politicians) to be the key
emigration problem. However, structural changes of population due to emigration are even more
problematic.
Due to young age composition of emigration outflows (and much younger than that of resident
population, chart 1.7.), emigration has and will have in the future very strong effect on both - the
16
demographic processes (population aging, marriage, fertility rates, family formation), and on the
labour recourses, which might have to be imported from the third countries. In addition changing
age composition increases demographic burden for active population and indirectly acts as an
additional push factor, especially for youth. These negative consequences, coupled with much
higher unemployment rates among youth indicate that established trends of youth emigration may
still continue in the near future as well.
Chart 1.8. Level of Unemployment in Lithuania (2005-2014)
People, thousands
250
200
150
100
40,0%
35,70%
32,60%
29,20%
26,70%
17,80%
15,30%
13,40%13,70%
13,20%
11,80%10,70% 15,0%
9,80%
8,20%
5,60%
50
30,0%
21,90%
25,0%
19,30%
20,0%
15,70%
8,30%
35,0%
4,30%
Level, %
300
10,0%
5,80%
5,0%
0
0,0%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Number of unemployed persons thous.
Level of unemployment %
Unemployed young people (15-24yrs.) thous.
Level of youth unemployment %
Source: Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Chart 1.9. Emigrants and resident population by age groups (2014)
35,0%
31,2%
30,0%
Level, %
25,0%
24,8%
20,0%
18,6%
15,0%
13,5%
14,6%
16,3%
13,1%
12,7%
13,2%
10,0%
15,1%
12,8%
9,3%
5,0%
3,5%
0,0%
0-14
15-24
25-34
35-44
Resident population
Source: Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Foster care
45-54
Emigrants
55-64
1,3%
65+
17
The nature of economic migration often necessitates leaving one’s children behind. Family break
ups cause permanent damage to the psychological state of children. The amount of children in
foster care continued to increase throughout 2014 (table 1.10.), amounting to a total rise of 3.1%, or
145.3% since 2007. The number has been on the rise for seven years now, with the exception of
2012, when it fell slightly only to be overtaken again next year. Needless to say, the statistics do not
reflect children who are left with unofficial guardians, or without any guardians at all.
While later children can become a cause for return migration, they could equally well wish instead
to join their families abroad, thus becoming integrated residents of the host country, reducing
prospects for return migration.
Table 1.10. Foster care for children on parents’ request
Children in foster
care because of
their
parents
emigration
Total
Male
Female
0 -3
4-6
7-9
10-14
15-17
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
916
481
435
99
171
164
295
187
1.952
971
981
131
275
354
674
518
2.019
1.009
1.010
148
287
373
694
517
2.026
1.022
1.004
144
290
386
676
530
2.134
1.087
1.047
132
326
392
721
563
2032
1017
1015
142
294
364
689
543
2179
1090
1089
139
331
360
742
607
2247
1129
1118
145
299
399
782
622
Source: State Child rights protection and adoption service
Trafficking in Human beings
Due to the fact that emigration potential remains high, human trafficking remains an issue. There is
no reliable/ full information on the extent of this phenomenon, information available from the
Ministry of Interior on the pre-trial investigations indicates that the mode and forms of this criminal
activity is changing. In 2014, 21 pre-trial investigations for international human trafficking were
initiated in Lithuania4 (table 1.6.). Compared to 2013, the investigation level remains stable (20 in
2013), but still is a significant increase since 2012 (11 initiated cases in 2012). The most common
destination was Germany (6 cases), followed by UK and France (3 cases each), Swede (2),
Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Armenia (1 case per country). Exploitation for criminal
activities, including minors, was the most common ground for trafficking in 2014 (14 cases
compare to 8 in 2013), followed by sex exploitation, which remained stable over the past 2 years (9
investigations). Police as well as NGOs working in the field of Counter-trafficking note the
changing nature of such crimes, as well as difficulties in achieving progress in the fight against
them5. Despite improving economic indicators, emigration intentions persist, the victims of human
trafficking are increasingly younger, and the character of the crimes remains latent. All this suggest
that real numbers may be much higher; this is also claimed by NGOs providing assistance to
victims of trafficking.
4
5
“Situation in the Fight Against Human Trafficking”, report by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 2015
Department of Police of the Republic of Lithuania: http://www.policija.lt/index.php?id=31916
18
Table 1.6. Initiated pre-trial investigations for human trafficking (2013-2014)
Year
2013
2014
Total
23
24
Internation
al
20
21
Exploitati
on for
criminal
activities
8
14
Sex
exploitatio
n
9
9
Labour
exploitatio
n
4
3
Web
content
related to
trafficking
2
0
Forced
marriage
0
1
Source: Data of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania.
2.1.6. Remittances and non-financial diaspora contribution
Remittances. For a long time, remittances were seen as the main positive aspect of emigration. The
currency inflow due to remittances contributed to softening the effects of the economic crisis in
2007 – 2008 (chart 1.10. indicates a particular increase in remittances during that same period), and
has accelerated the afterward recovery, as they continued to increase from 2010 onwards, with a
minor deviation in 2012, and increasing by 2.5% again last year. At the same time, however, total
outflows have also increased by 5.9%, decreasing the net effect of remittances on GDP (table
1.11.). Though in 2014 remittances amounted to 4.4% in proportion to GDP (0.1% drop from
2013), when outflows are taken into account, the net value is estimated at only 2.5% GDP.
Chart 1.10. Remittances, outflows, net flows mln. LT and proportion of remittances and net
flows and GDP
6.000,00
5,0%
4,5%
5.000,00
4,0%
mln. LT
3,0%
3.000,00
2,5%
2,0%
2.000,00
1,5%
1,0%
1.000,00
0,5%
0,00
0,0%
2004
Source: Bank of Lithuania
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total remmitances (mln. Lt)
Proportion of remittances and GDP (%)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total foreign payments (mln. Lt)
Proportion of net flows and GDP (%)
GDP, %
3,5%
4.000,00
19
Table 1.11. Remittances, outflows, net flows mln. LT and proportion of remittances and net
flows and GDP
Total
outflows
Remmitances
(mln.
Year
(mln. LT)
Lt)
2005
2079,0
716,7
2006
2719,7
1170,6
2007
3591,1
1419,3
2008
3698,4
1536,4
2009
3041,2
1680,8
2010
4371,8
1437,0
2011
4841,7
2549,0
2012
4056,5
3046,0
2013
5345,6
2212,9
2014
5481,5
2344,0
Net
flows
(mln.
LT)
1362,3
1549,1
2171,8
2162,1
1360,4
2934,8
2292,7
1010,5
3132,7
3137,5
Proportion
of
remittances
and GDP
(%)
2,9%
3,3%
3,6%
3,3%
3,3%
4,6%
2,4%
3,6%
4,5%
4,4%
Proportion
of net flows
and GDP
(%)
1,9%
1,9%
2,2%
1,9%
1,5%
3,1%
1,1%
0,9%
2,6%
2,5%
Engaging diaspora. The approval of the “Global Lithuania” programme in 2011 introduced a new
approach to the emigrant population, evoking a possibility for emigrants to influence the
development of Lithuania. The programme focuses on strengthening the ties with Lithuanian
diasporas abroad, developing two main facets: involving emigrant professionals in Lithuanian
projects and enhancing Lithuanian community centres abroad. The former has since resulted in a
venture called the “Global Lithuania Network”, which uses Facebook as a medium for
communication and sharing of information among Lithuanians across the globe. The network
recently organised a discussion titled “a recipe for success in Lithuania” to inform migrants of
carrier opportunities in Lithuania. The programme is expected to turn the “brain drain” process to
“brain exchange”, with established diaspora professionals contributing to the economic
development of the country.
20
Tables
Table 1.1. International migration in Lithuania (1990-2014)
Year
Immigration
Emigration
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1990-2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2001-2014
Total 19902014
14.744
11.828
6.640
2.850
1.664
2.020
3.025
2.536
2.706
2.679
1.510
52.202
4.694
5.110
4.728
5.553
6.789
7.745
8.609
9.297
6.487
5.213
15.685
19.843
22.011
24.294
146.058
23.592
22.503
31.972
26.840
25.859
25.688
26.394
24.957
24.828
23.418
21.816
277.867
27.841
16.719
26.283
37.691
57.885
32.390
30.383
25.750
38.500
83.157
53.863
41.100
38.818
36.621
547.001
Net
migration
-8.848
-10.675
-25.332
-23.990
-24.195
-23.668
-23.369
-22.421
-22.122
-20.739
-20.306
-225.665
-23.147
-11.609
-21.555
-32.138
-51.096
-24.645
-21.774
-16.453
-32.013
-77.944
-38.178
-21.257
-16.807
-12.327
-400.943
198.260
824.868
-626.608
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
-
21
Table 1.2. Emigrants who have declared their departure by country of next residence
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Country
of
next
residence
Total
Europe
EU27, of
which:
Ireland
Spain
United
Kingdom
2005
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
15.571
12.957
10.510
17.015
14.201
10.760
21.970
18.988
13.514
83.157
78.981
69.550
53.863
50.833
44.068
41.100
38.594
38.818
36.155
36.621
34.189
32.573
3.523
1.226
29.756
3.302
1.058
27.844
3.075
937
19.857
17.895
16.768
3.230
2.972
2.906
6.021
6.399
6.345
773
956
1.041
3.178
3.005
2.631
932
1.111
1.275
538
93
1.685
1.451
527
111
648
120
1.549
1.292
867
122
751
105
1.321
1.054
842
164
11
5
0
2.073
794
4.223
1.983
917
4.472
2.763
1.355
5.719
13.048
3.535
40.901
5.587
1.948
26.395
1.473
1.349
1.350
3.806
3.745
3.441
5.474
9.431
6.765
Germany
Other
2.447
European
countries
702
Belarus
237
Norway
1.113
Russian
Federation
274
Ukraine
Africa
30
America
2.156
USA
2.010
Asia
379
Oceania
48
Not
1
indicated
1.000
337
2.063
536
1.420
4.901
845
3.814
1.074
1.145
1.479
1.100
731
1.004
711
436
38
2.035
1.782
701
40
-
59
1.917
1.700
948
55
3
142
3.091
2.783
799
129
11
105
2.085
1.788
682
151
4
22
Table 1.5. Emigrants who have declared their departure by previous employment (20082014). Aged 15 and older (absolute numbers)
Year
Total
Employed
Agriculture
Mining and quarrying
Manufacturing
Electricity, gas and water supply
Construction
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor
vehicles, motorcycles and personal and
household goods
Hotels and restaurants
Transport, storage and communication
Financial intermediation
Real estate
Public administration
Education
Health and social work
Other activities
Had not been working for one year and
longer
2008
14618
6430
89
5
1364
30
741
1421
2009
19357
3614
36
5
455
15
394
470
2010
74674
11177
157
22
1710
68
1146
2778
2011
48212
8789
134
11
1472
76
883
2209
2013
33758
5814
101
5
1079
40
505
1265
2014
31662
5831
101
5
1081
50
506
1268
509
694
69
612
170
305
192
229
8188
203
1418
14
45
60
93
44
362
15743
785
1225
163
130
228
431
298
37
63497
761
921
108
100
207
320
235
20
39423
522
873
64
44
462
195
150
499
27944
525
878
64
45
464
470
193
181
25831
Emigrants who have declared their departure by previous employment (2008-2014). Aged 15
and older (%)
Year
Total
Employed
Agriculture
Mining and quarrying
Manufacturing
Electricity, gas and water supply
Construction
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor
vehicles, motorcycles and personal and
household goods
Hotels and restaurants
Transport, storage and communication
Financial intermediation
Real estate
Public administration
Education
Health and social work
Other activities
Had not been working for one year and
longer
2008
100,0%
44,0%
0,6%
0,0%
9,3%
0,2%
5,1%
9,7%
2009
100,0%
18,7%
0,2%
0,0%
2,4%
0,1%
2,0%
2,4%
2010
100,0%
15,0%
0,2%
0,0%
2,3%
0,1%
1,5%
3,7%
2011
100,0%
18,2%
0,3%
0,0%
3,1%
0,2%
1,8%
4,6%
2013
100,0%
17,2%
0,3%
0,0%
3,2%
0,1%
1,5%
3,7%
2014
100,0%
18,4%
0,3%
0,0%
3,4%
0,2%
1,6%
4,0%
3,5%
4,7%
0,5%
4,2%
1,2%
2,1%
1,3%
1,6%
56,0%
1,0%
7,3%
0,1%
0,2%
0,3%
0,5%
0,2%
1,9%
81,3%
1,1%
1,6%
0,2%
0,2%
0,3%
0,6%
0,4%
0,0%
85,0%
1,6%
1,9%
0,2%
0,2%
0,4%
0,7%
0,5%
0,0%
81,8%
1,5%
2,6%
0,2%
0,1%
1,4%
0,6%
0,4%
1,5%
82,8%
1,7%
2,8%
0,2%
0,1%
1,5%
1,5%6
0,6%
0,6%
81,6%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
6
Includes highly educated professionals and academics
23
Table 1.12. Resident population by age (2002 – 2014) (%)
Age
0-14
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
2002
17,4%
13,4%
13,3%
14,9%
12,1%
11,2%
17,7%
2006
16,6%
14,7%
13,3%
14,9%
13,7%
10,6%
16,3%
2011
14,8%
14,1%
12,5%
13,8%
15,3%
11,6%
18,0%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
2012
14,7%
13,7%
12,4%
13,6%
15,3%
12,0%
18,2%
2013
14,7%
13,5%
12,5%
13,5%
15,3%
12,2%
18,2%
2014
14,59%
13,09%
12,67%
13,15%
15,09%
12,82%
18,58%
24
2.2. Immigration
2.2.1. Trends in Immigration
A comparatively unattractive economic standing of Lithuania has maintained a low level of
immigration throughout the observed period of 2005 to 2014. A particular boom in total
immigration can be traced to the year 2011, when the numbers nearly tripled. It has been on a
steady increase ever since, rising again by 10.4% last year, with a total increase of 4.6 times since
2005. Most of this amount, however, is due to return migrants, who, e.g., took up a share of 80.4 %
of total immigration in 2014. As evident from chart 1.1., the returnee immigration trend follows
total immigration very closely. Nonetheless, according to a recent/ 2014 study “Return Migrants
Integration into the Lithuanian Labour Market”, as many as 9.3% of returnees intend to re-emigrate,
21.9% are considering such option and only 20.6% are sure to not leave again.7 Immigration of
foreign nationals is considerably less significant – migrants from non-EU/EFTA countries take up a
share of 16.7%, while EU/EFTA migrants only contribute to 3% of the total. The amount of people
coming from non-EU/EFTA states has been on the increase since 2010, and has this year topped the
earlier peak of 2008 (4049 compared to 2577). In comparison with last year, immigration of third
country nationals (TCNs) rose by 72.4%, which has been the steepest rise for ten years.
Immigration from EU/EFTA countries, on the other hand, fails to follow a particular tendency and
remains fluctuating – increasing by a mere 4.4% last year, still 5% behind the peak two year
earlier.
Chart 1.1. Immigration to Lithuania by nationality of immigrants (2005 – 2014)
Immigrants, units
25000
20000
15000
EU/EFTA
10000
TCN
5000
0
Lithuanian
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
EU/EFTA
435
396
320
383
267
149
503
755
687
717
TCN
1649
1841
2148
2577
1399
911
1170
1731
2349
4049
Lithuanian
4705
5058
6141
6337
4821
4153 14012 17357 18975 19528
total
6789
7295
8609
9297
6487
5213 15685 19843 22011 24294
total
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
2.2.2. Countries of Origin
The most common immigrants’ previous countries of residence mirror population emigration
destinations very closely, again implying the influence of returnees in such data. United Kingdom
has been, since 2005, the topmost prevailing country of origin (table 1.1.). In 2014 it constituted for
37.8% of total immigration flow, followed by Ireland 8.9(%), Norway 8.2(%) and Russia 7.8(%).
7
Dovile Zvalionyte: http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa-0001:E.02~2014~D_20141006_10303648918/DS.005.0.01.ETD
25
Among the most common origin states, only immigrants from Spain and Ireland have decreased in
numbers; not incidentally, the importance of these states as destinations for Lithuanian emigrants
has also been diminishing for some time. This year has witnessed a particularly pronounced
increase of incomers from Ukraine and Russia (2.4 times and 1.6 times, respectively). Two main
factors could account for such a tremendous rise: the unstable geopolitical situation in the region
and temporary work contracts. Overall, however, the inadequate comparative weight of returnee
quantities vs. other immigrants render the data based on the joint immigrant population less
analytically relevant. Thus, the two demographics must also be analysed separately.
Table 1.1. Immigrants by country and year (2004-2014)
2004
TOT Total by
country
IE Ireland
BY Belarus
ES Spain
GB United
Kingdom
US United
States
NO Norway
RU Russia
UA Ukraine
DE Germany
VEP Other
countries
PXX Not
indicated
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5.553 6.789 7.745 8.609 9.297 6.487 5.213 15.685 19.843 22.011 24.294
188
441
250
541
423
583
360
766
945
366
884
961
1.032 1.228
416
422
765
569
311
607
332
247
1.192 1.528 1.792 1.993 1.639 1.439
1.837
399
740
2.234
508
919
2.167
607
831
2.165
667
781
6.385
8.199
9.128
9.184
451
600
614
735
718
532
325
498
546
508
622
101
993
334
629
104
858
336
698
114
956
382
575
141
888
500
592
148
805
577
563
115
579
273
405
246
499
190
274
1.171
759
229
682
1.471
936
434
901
1.750
1.206
505
1.116
1.979
1.886
1.204
1.229
2.985
3.673
4.156
4.506
0
22
37
71
1.504 1.614 1.466 1.578 1.862 1.269 1.054
121
21
33
51
20
30
0
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
2.2.3.
Composition of Immigration Flows
Nationality composition
Separating Lithuanian and foreign nationals reveals a truer picture of immigration composition. As
per table 1.2., the most incomers among foreign nationals in 2014 were Russian, closely followed
by Ukrainians and, though quite far behind, Belarusians. A significant increase in immigrant
Ukrainians and Russians is observed - over the last year, the amount of incoming Ukrainian
nationals has nearly tripled last year (increased 2.7 times), while the amount of Russians doubled.
The pattern again is suggestive of certain issues pertaining to the two countries in particular – no
other national group has witnessed such an influx in terms of both absolute and relative values
(immigration of Belarusians, though on the rise for four years now, has only increased by 7.9% in
2014). Nationals of other countries lag far behind the top three in scale of immigration, often
providing only symbolic and fluctuating contribution to the total trend. It might be argued that
individual cases have more influence on the data of migrants of these countries than general
political, economic or social factors.
26
Table 1.2. Immigration of foreign nationals (2004 – 2014)
Nationality 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2.210 2.084 2.237 2.468 2.960 1.666 1.060 1.673 2.846
Total
203
329
647
746
987
438
255
254
363
Belarus
Russian
294
396
416
368
312
248
373
526
Federation 441
246
251
294
422
508
209
145
181
377
Ukraine
161
148
141
123
94
47
32
34
28
The USA
121
100
84
70
60
46
15
57
77
Germany
56
54
57
24
64
41
16
73
137
Poland
51
52
69
48
30
37
14
90
113
Latvia
103
288
14
24
16
15
10
12
8
Stateless
828
568
535
595
833
521
325
599 1.217
Other
2013
3036
482
2014
4.766
520
757
413
18
69
78
131
36
1052
1.496
1.120
31
95
70
96
22
1.316
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Age composition
The age distribution of immigrants reflects a particularly young flow of incomers, the biggest share
of which in 2014 belonged to immigrants aged 25-29 (22.3%), followed by those aged 30-34
(16.5%) and 20-24 (14.0%)(chart 1.2.). The age distribution of immigrants in many ways mirrors
the age of emigrant Lithuanians, where the biggest share in age distribution is also of people 20-34
year old. There is, however, one major difference in the trends – youth aged 19 and less as well as
child immigration remained low during the entire observed period. In 2014, people aged 0-19
accounted for only 12.8% of all immigrants, while people aged 25-34 accounted for 52.8%. In the
years following 2010 the number of immigrants in the latter age group witnessed a steep increase in
terms of absolute numbers – between the years 2010-2014, their inflow increased fourfold. In terms
of percentage share, however, no significant fluctuations have been observed throughout the past 10
years.
Chart 1.2. Immigrants, by age group (2005 – 2014) (%)
25,0%
People, %
20,0%
15,0%
2005
2010
2011
10,0%
5,0%
2012
2013
2014
0,0%
27
Table 1.3. Immigrants, by age group (2005 – 2014) (%)
Age
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-17
18-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80+
2005
3,8%
3,0%
3,5%
2,4%
3,1%
17,6%
18,8%
12,5%
9,2%
7,9%
6,8%
3,5%
2,8%
1,6%
1,3%
0,8%
0,7%
0,8%
2010
6,1%
2,5%
1,7%
1,7%
2,7%
15,7%
19,7%
14,9%
10,4%
7,0%
5,8%
4,5%
2,6%
2,2%
0,5%
0,7%
0,7%
0,6%
2011
4,5%
2,3%
1,3%
0,9%
2,5%
23,0%
23,5%
13,8%
8,4%
6,1%
5,1%
4,0%
2,5%
1,1%
0,3%
0,3%
0,2%
0,2%
2012
5,5%
2,4%
1,1%
0,8%
2,1%
20,2%
24,2%
14,0%
8,9%
6,4%
5,3%
4,5%
2,3%
1,2%
0,3%
0,3%
0,2%
0,2%
2013
5,6%
2,8%
1,3%
0,9%
1,9%
17,7%
23,6%
15,6%
9,1%
7,1%
5,3%
4,4%
2,5%
1,3%
0,4%
0,2%
0,2%
0,2%
2014
5,7%
3,2%
1,5%
0,8%
1,6%
14,0%
22,3%
16,5%
10,8%
7,4%
6,0%
4,7%
3,1%
1,3%
0,4%
0,2%
0,2%
0,2%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Gender composition
Between 2005 and 2014 men have been slightly more common among immigrants than women
(table 1.5.). The difference between the two was increased slightly last year (9.6% more men than
women, compared to a 9% difference in 2013 and 2012). The difference was much more significant
in the years 2005-2008 (12.4%, 12.9%, 11.0% and 18.4%, respectively).
Table 1.4. Immigration by gender (2005 – 2014)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
6.789
7.745
8.609
9.297
6.487
Women
2.973
3.373
3.832
3.795
Men
3.816
4.372
4.777
43,8
%
56,2
%
43,6
%
56,4
%
44,5
%
55,5
%
Women
Men
5.213
2011
15.68
5
2012
19.84
3
3.130
2.421
7.188
5.502
3.357
2.792
40,8
%
59,2
%
48,3
%
51,7
%
46,4
%
53,6
%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
8.497
8.937
10.90
6
2013
22.01
1
10.01
2
11.99
9
2014
24.29
4
10.97
2
13.32
2
45,8%
45,0%
45,5%
45,2%
54,2%
55,0%
54,5%
54,8%
28
Skill composition
Though official statistics on the education of immigrants is not compiled, certain alternative sources
do provide information on the portrait of immigrants’ skill composition. In 2015, as part of the
research project “Analysis of the living and working conditions of Labour immigrants in
Lithuania”, social – demographic characteristics of foreign/ TCN labour immigrants was analysed8.
As the results of the study regarding education show (chart 1.3.) an absolute majority – 55.9% of
immigrants have medium-to-high qualifications, i.e., a professional or higher education below
university level, or university education. A substantial amount (32.2%) are only low-qualified
workers, most of them, however, have finished secondary school (26.1%).
Chart 1.3. Labour immigrants aged 15-64 by education (2015)
50
45
46,2%
Immigrants, %
40
35
30
25
26,1%
20
15
10
5
9,7%
6,1%
1,9%
0
Below
secondary
school
Secondary
school
Professional
education
University
education
Other
Source: Diversity Development Group, Lithuanian Centre for Social Research, Institute of Ethnic Research
2.2.4. Reasons for immigration/ grounds for temporary residence permit
Department of Statistics does not provide information on the reasons for immigration of foreign
nationals, this information can best be derived analysing the grounds for issuing temporary
residence permits. As data (table 1.6.) show, the most common grounds for issuing temporary
residence permits are engagement in lawful activities, i.e., entrepreneurship and expertise (46% of
all TRPs issued last year), followed by family reunification (20.3%), work (19%) and study (11%).
8
Vita Petrušaukaitė, Karolis Žibas, Vija Platačiūtė, Aleksandra Batuchina, Giedrė Blažytė “Analysis of the living and
working conditions of Labour immigrants in Lithuania”, 2015. European fund for integration of third-country nationals.
http://www.ces.lt/projektai/vykdomi-projektai/darbo-migrantu-gyvenimo-ir-darbo-salygu-tyrimas-lietuvoje/
29
Table 1.6. Number of TRP issued/renewed to aliens, by grounds for entry (2005-2014)
Year
2005
2012
In
total
In
total
2013
Ground for issue or renewal
Alien has retained the right to citizenship of
the Republic of Lithuania according to the
procedure laid down in the Law on
1
25
Citizenship
1
41
Alien is a person of Lithuanian descent
2824
4384
Alien enters for family reunification
Alien intends to take up employment in the
1469
3345
Republic of Lithuania
Alien intends to take up highly qualified
n/a
n/a
employment in the Republic of Lithuania
509
2 908
Alien intends to engage in lawful activities
Alien intends to acquire education, study at
an educational establishment, participate in a
traineeship, up-skilling and vocational
698
1161
training
55
173
Other
5557
12037
In total
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Migration
2014
Issued
TRP
In
total
Issued
TRP
In
total
Issued
TRP
Renewed
TRP
19
33
867
37
33
4911
20
19
1163
79
130
5509
63
107
1980
16
23
3529
1743
3728
1700
3903
1847
2056
n/a
1 396
41
4523
25
2376
152
6615
94
4481
58
2134
340
53
4451
1429
215
15073
683
82
6068
1678
230
18296
1073
104
9749
605
126
8547
Table 1.7. Number of TRP issued/renewed to aliens, by grounds for entry (2005-2014) (%)
Year
Ground for issue or renewal
Alien has retained the right to
citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania according to the procedure
laid down in the Law on Citizenship
Alien is a person of Lithuanian descent
Alien enters for family reunification
2005
2012
2013
2014
In total
In
total
Issued
TRP
In
total
Issued
TRP
In
total
Issued
TRP
Renewed
TRP
0,02%
0,2%
0,4%
0,2%
0,3%
0,4%
0,6%
0,2%
0,02%
0,3%
0,7%
0,2%
0,3%
0,7%
1,1%
0,3%
50,8%
36,4%
19,5%
32,6%
19,2%
30,1%
20,3%
41,3%
26,4%
27,8%
39,2%
24,7%
28,0%
21,3%
18,9%
24,1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
0,3%
0,4%
0,8%
1,0%
0,7%
9,2%
24,2%
31,4%
30,0%
39,2%
36,2%
46,0%
25,0%
12,6%
9,6%
7,6%
9,5%
11,3%
9,2%
11,0%
7,1%
1,0%
1,4%
1,2%
1,4%
1,4%
1,3%
1,1%
1,5%
Alien intends to take up employment
in the Republic of Lithuania
Alien intends to take up highly
qualified employment in the Republic
of Lithuania
Alien intends to engage in lawful
activities
Alien intends to acquire education,
study at an educational establishment,
participate in a traineeship, up-skilling
and vocational training
Other
30
During the entire observed period (2005-2014), the number of TRP issued has been increasing
every year, as the number of TRP issued in 2014 is more than three times higher than in 2005 (3.3)
(table 1.7.). The most pronounced increase has been observed in TRP issued/renewed for aliens of
Lithuanian descent and those otherwise entitled to Lithuanian citizenship – only a single permit has
been issued on these grounds in 2005, while by 2014 the amount has increased to 130 and 79
respectively. Important tendencies can be revealed by looking into TRP issued/renewed for aliens
intending to engage in lawful activities – not only has the amount of TRP issued/renewed on this
ground increased 13 times, but it also takes up a bigger share of all TRPs (36,2% in 2014, compared
to 9.2% in 2005). The numbers of TRPs issued/renewed for family reunification have also been
increasing throughout the past 10 years (2.7 times higher in 2014 than in 2005), still the share of
TRPs issued/renewed on this ground has actually been on the decrease (50.8% in 2005, 36.4% in
2012, 32.6% in 2013 and 30.1% in 2015). “Blue card” (highly qualified) employment, which has
only been introduced in 2013, has attracted the attention of 3.7 times more employees last year than
the year before.
In general, current immigration does differ from the one observed decade ago: now it is more and
more shaped by economic reasons (58.3% compared to 35.6% in 2005), whereas family related
reasons become less pronounced (30.1% compared to 50% in 2005). Even more pronounced
difference is observed, if current immigration determinants are compared to reasons of immigration
of all past immigrants/ foreign born Lithuanian residents and their descendants.
In 2014, a Lithuanian Department of Statistics conducted the survey on the situation of foreign born
Lithuanian population and their direct descendants on the labour market, which also included section on the
reasons for immigration. As is seen from chart 1.4., the most common reason of immigration is family reunion,
as well as other family-related concerns (70.9%). Subsequent reasons include work (19.7%) and, far less
significantly, study (2.2%). Family reunion is the more common migration factor for women (80.3% compared
to 59.4% for men), while men more often than women come in order to work (26.3% compared to 14.3%).
Chart 1.4. Foreign born residents (stocks) by reason for migration and gender (2014)
7,2%
5%
9,9%
Other
2,2%
0,4%
4,4%
Study
Total
Men
19,7%
26,3%
14,3%
Work
Women
Family
59,4%
0
20
40
60
70,9%
80,3%
80
100
Source: Study “The Labour Market Situation of Immigrants and their Direct Descendants” buy the Lithuanian
Department of Statistics
2.2.5. Foreign residents in Lithuania
Stocks
As of the beginning of 2015, 39980 aliens were living in Lithuania (a 12.7% increase from last
year), which amounts to 1.4% of the Lithuanian population (table 1.5.). Most of the aliens (36.6%)
are Russian nationals, though their proportion among aliens has been in decrease through the whole
31
observe period (5% fall since 2005). Quite far behind are Belarusian (15.3% of all aliens) and
Ukrainian (13%) nationals. While the share of Belarusian residents has slightly decreased last year
(1.8%), it has been on the increase for 10 years between 2005-2014 (4% increase). Similarly, the
proportion of Ukrainian residents has been increasing for the whole of 2005-2015 (5.7%, 2.5% of
which this year). The amount of residents from African States has witnessed the fastest leap of all
state groups – it has increased 7.9 times during the past 11 years, though the share of African
nationals in the distribution is only at 1.1%. The amount of stateless persons witnessed the most
pronounced drop – 2.4 times, yet stateless persons still comprise 9.1% of all alien residents.
Table 1.5. Number of aliens residing in the Republic of Lithuania, by country (2005-2015)
European states including:
- EU Member States, including:
- Latvia
- Poland
- Germany
- EFTA States
- Other European states,
including:
- Armenia
- Belarus
- Russia
- Ukraine
North American states,
including:
- USA
Central and South American
states
Australia and Oceania
Asian states, including:
- Israel
- Kazakhstan
- China
African states
Stateless persons
In total
2005
24511
2263
391
541
398
111
2013
26232
3146
586
495
489
117
2014
28265
3655
718
548
550
135
2015
32455
4567
861
707
677
151
22137
22969
24475
27739
322
4020
14676
2539
402
5463
12801
3240
428
5846
13331
3713
447
6113
14648
5164
435
404
415
454
402
366
375
404
57
104
113
130
19
1502
323
290
218
58
8708
35290
25
2094
366
290
373
264
4130
33253
28
2396
380
321
339
378
3892
35487
28
2810
344
342
368
456
3645
39980
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Migration
Situation of foreigners in the labour market and occupation
According to the Statistical Department survey of immigrants and their direct descendants, 70.6% of foreign
born residents aged 20-64 were employed in 2014 (the national average of this age group is 71.6%) 9.
Nonetheless, 12.4% of foreign born immigrants aged 15-64 (and their direct descendants, whose at least one
parent is foreign born) claim that their qualifications are too high for their current place of employment. 10
Women are more often overqualified for their job than men – 13.6% and 11.2%, respectively.
9
Lithuanian Department of Statistics, “The Labour Market Situation of Immigrants and their Direct Descendants”,
2014. Part of an EU-wide study.
10
Lithuanian Department of Migration press release 31st October 2014
32
Analysis based on work permits (table 1.9.) indicate, that the vast majority of non-EU/EFTA
incomers were working in transport, storage and communication (80.4%), the areas which also are
the most common previous workplaces of Lithuanian emigrants (see table 1.5. in section 2.1
Emigration). Second most prevailing area of immigrant employment is manufacturing (10.76%),
which is also the second most common previous workplace of emigrants, as per the aforementioned
table. Rest of the employment areas hold markedly less share, with more pronounced contribution
of hospitality (2.58%), construction (2.06%) and trade (1.71%), all sectors which have previously
lost significant amounts of employees due to emigration.
Table 1.9. Areas of employment of immigrants (based on work permits), 2014.
Total
Agriculture
Mining and quarrying
Manufacturing
Electricity, gas and water supply
Construction
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of
motor vehicles, motorcycles and
personal and household goods
Hotels and restaurants
Transport, storage and communication
Financial intermediation
Real estate
Public administration
Education
Health and social work
Other activities
Amount
5382
7
0
579
0
111
92
Percentage
100%
0,13%
0,00%
10,76%
0,00%
2,06%
1,71%
139
4327
11
5
10
39
12
50
2,58%
80,40%
0,20%
0,09%
0,19%
0,72%
0,22%
0,93%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Labour Exchange
Foreign students
Immigration for the purpose of studies was steadily increasing – in numbers and proportion, as well
as stocks of foreign students in Lithuania, which has been on the rise for five consecutive years
(table 1.8.) up until 2014, when preliminary estimations project a fall of 12.6%. Compared to 2010,
however, the number is still almost three times (2.7) higher. Notably more students come from TCN
states than from the EU/EFTA region (82.5% vs. 17.5%).
33
Table 1.8. Stocks of foreign students by nationality (2010 – 2015)
Total
EU/EFTA
TCN
EU/EFTA
(%)
TCN (%)
2010
1479
358
1121
2011
3402
436
2966
2012
3767
584
3183
2013
4233
710
3523
2014
4642
818
3824
2015
4059
711
3348
24,20% 12,80% 15,50% 16,80% 17,60% 17,50%
75,80% 87,20% 84,50% 83,20% 82,40% 82,50%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Ministry of Education and Science at svis.emokykla.lt
2.2.6. Citizenship and naturalisation
Acquisition and deprivation
Lithuanian citizenship, as regulated by the Law on Citizenship, can only be acquired by birth jus
sanguinis or via naturalisation. Naturalisation requires 10 years of permanent residence in the
country, passing of language and Constitution exams, a lawful source of income and no history of
violent crime. Additionally, the applicant must also either be a stateless person or agree to give up
the current citizenship upon the acquisition of Lithuanian citizenship. A simplified acquisition
procedure lex sanguinis is possible for applicants of Lithuanian descent. Dual citizenship is only
possible under particular circumstances in exceptional cases, in accordance with the best interests of
Lithuania.
In 2014, 37324 people acquired Lithuanian citizenship, which is 255 less than in 2013. In most
cases (95.6%), citizenship was acquired by birth jus sanguinis. 1079 people had their citizenship
reinstated (209 more than last year) (the procedure of restoration is applicable to persons who held
citizenship of Lithuania before 15 June 1940 or their descendants, who were forcibly expelled from
Lithuania or left the country for political or other reasons during the occupation), while 75
applicants of Lithuanian descent gained it via the simplified procedure (39 more than last year).
Citizenship was restored to 21 individuals, which is 16 people less than in 2013.
179 foreign citizens were naturalised last year, maintaining a very similar level to previous years
(173 in 2013, 183 in 2012). Most of those who acquired citizenship last year were stateless –
34.1%. Of those who prior to naturalisation held other citizenships most were Russian (27.4%),
Ukrainian (14.5%) and Belarusian (6.7%). Notably, the amount of newly ordained citizens from
Ukraine has increase from 19 in 2013 (and in 2012) to 26 last year, making it the only group, other
than the stateless persons, to increase its numbers. Despite the ratification on 9 May 2013 of the
1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the adopted amendments to the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Citizenship, which has introduced more favourable conditions of
naturalisation to stateless people, the naturalisation of such persons has only increased by 7% in
2014. Compared to mid-last decade, naturalisation of stateless persons continues to diminish, as
does the level of citizenship acquisition in general.
Over the past 11 years, 4858 more people have renounced or been deprived of Lithuanian
citizenship than acquired it. Though in 2014 the amount of people granted citizenship has increased
by 3.5%, during the same period 86.3% more people have also lost their nationality. Citizenship
34
acquisition numbers last year remained far from their peak in 2004 (240.8% less in 2014 than in
2004), while the amount of loss continued trending towards the apex of 2007 (only 20.5% less in
2014 than in 2007).
Chart 1.6. Acquisition of Lithuanian citizenship by previous nationality (2004-2014)
People, units
250
200
150
100
50
0
Stateless
2005
214
2006
238
2007
184
2008
128
2009
106
2010
78
2011
125
2012
86
2013
57
2014
61
Russia
151
151
113
54
49
43
97
39
53
49
Ukraine
21
30
20
31
27
19
44
19
19
26
Belarus
24
28
31
10
12
11
17
14
14
12
Armenia
5
3
9
2
4
2
6
7
8
6
Other
20
17
13
15
16
9
22
18
22
25
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Migration
Table 1.10. Acquisition and deprivation of Lithuanian citizenship (2004-2014)
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total 20042014
Persons
granted
citizenship
610
435
467
370
240
214
162
311
183
173
179
Persons who
lost
citizenship
798
755
898
1015
926
878
579
614
445
452
842
Balance
-188
-320
-431
-645
-686
-664
-417
-303
-262
-279
-663
3344
8202
-4858
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Migration
35
Dual citizenship
A person might hold a second citizenship en masse with being a Lithuanian national only under the
following circumstances11:
1. If the person is under 21 years of age and has acquired Lithuanian citizenship by birth jus sanguinis
and a second citizenship by birth jus soli.
2. If the person has been an exile expelled from the occupied Republic of Lithuania prior to 11 March
1990, and has acquired a second citizenship.
3. If the person has fled from Lithuania prior to 11 March 1990, and has acquired a second citizenship.
4. If the person is a descendant of individuals described in sections 2 and 3.
5. If the person has acquired a second citizenship ipso facto by marriage.
6. If the person is under 21 years of age and has acquired Lithuanian citizenship by adoption while
under 18 years of age.
7. If the person is a Lithuanian national under 21 years of age and has acquired a second citizenship by
adoption while under 18 years of age.
8. If the person has acquired Lithuanian citizenship under exceptional procedure, while being a national
of another country.
9. If the person had refugee status upon acquiring Lithuanian citizenship.
Notably, despite having a second citizenship, a Lithuanian citizen is always considered to be solely
Lithuanian by all Lithuanian government institutions for all legal purposes. The possession of
another citizenship does not relieve the individual from Constitutional duties.
Due to the migrating nature of Lithuanians, dual citizenship has been an increasingly topical issue
for several years now. A number of Lithuanian organisations abroad have advocated for
establishing a more common ground for allowing a second citizenship to individuals who have
acquired citizenships in their countries of residence. Dual citizenship has been recognised as the
cornerstone issue by the World Lithuanian Community Seimas during a session on 7th-10th July
2015.
The Liberal Movement, a conservative-liberal political party in Seimas proposed a dual citizenship
referendum to take place along with the upcoming general elections on 9th October 2016. The
proposed question formula concerns amending the constitution; it goes as follows: “I agree, that
part 2 article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania – “no individual can be a citizen of
Lithuania and a citizen of another state en masse, except in specific cases” – would be declared null
and void.” On 5th May 2015 Seimas accepted the proposal for referendum. The World Lithuanian
Community, however, argues that the referendum cannot take place until an online voting system
has been established, as the current system neglects a substantial amount of concerned potential
voters. Previously, the Community has declared the referendum to be undesirable, and advocated
avoiding constitutional amendments, using instead other methods of lawmaking to favour the
conditions for dual citizenship.12 The World Lithuanian Community are concerned the outcome of
the referendum might be unsatisfactory.
11
Lithuanian Department of Migration, http://www.migracija.lt/index.php?603045334
Lithuanian News Radio, http://www.ziniuradijas.lt/epizodas/2015/06/04/pasaulio-lietuviu-bendruomene-nenorireferendumo-del-dvigubos-pilietybes/45195
12
36
Annexes/ Tables and charts
Table 1.11. Immigrants by country and year (2004-2014) (%)
2004 2005 2006
IE
3,4% 6,2% 9,9%
Ireland
BY
7,9% 8,6% 12,2%
Belarus
4,5% 5,3% 4,7%
ES Spain
GB
United
9,7% 17,6% 19,7%
Kingdom
US United
8,1% 8,8% 7,9%
States
NO
1,8% 1,5% 1,5%
Norway
RU
17,9% 12,6% 12,3%
Russia
UA
6,0% 4,9% 4,9%
Ukraine
DE
Germany 11,3% 10,3% 7,4%
VEP
Other
countries 27,1% 23,8% 18,9%
PXX Not
2,2% 0,3% 0,4%
indicated
2007
2008
2009
2012
2013
2014
10,3% 10,3% 11,8% 11,6% 11,7% 11,3%
9,8%
8,9%
12,0% 13,2%
4,8% 4,5%
2,8%
3,8%
2,7%
3,2%
8,8%
4,8%
2010
6,4%
4,7%
2011
2,5%
4,7%
2,6%
4,6%
20,8% 21,4% 25,3% 27,6% 40,7% 41,3% 41,5% 37,8%
8,5%
7,7%
8,2%
6,2%
3,2%
2,8%
2,3%
2,6%
1,6%
1,6%
1,8%
4,7%
7,5%
7,4%
8,0%
8,1%
10,3%
8,7%
8,9%
9,6%
4,8%
4,7%
5,5%
7,8%
5,8%
6,2%
4,2%
3,6%
1,5%
2,2%
2,3%
5,0%
6,9%
6,1%
6,2%
5,3%
4,3%
4,5%
5,1%
5,1%
18,3% 20,0% 19,6% 20,2% 19,0% 18,5% 18,9% 18,5%
0,6%
0,2%
0,5%
0,0%
0,0%
0,1%
0,2%
0,3%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Chart 1.7. Immigrants by country and year (2004-2014) (%)
45,0%
IE Ireland
40,0%
BY Belarus
35,0%
ES Spain
Immigrants, %
30,0%
25,0%
GB United Kingdom
20,0%
US United States
15,0%
NO Norway
10,0%
RU Russia
5,0%
UA Ukraine
0,0%
DE Germany
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
37
Table 1.12. Immigration of foreign nationals (2004 – 2014) (%)
Nationality
2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
9,2% 15,8% 28,9% 30,2% 33,3% 26,3% 24,1% 15,2% 12,8% 15,9% 10,9%
20,0% 14,1% 17,7% 16,9% 12,4% 18,7% 23,4% 22,3% 18,5% 24,9% 31,4%
Belarus
Russian
Federation
Ukraine
The USA
Germany
Poland
Latvia
Stateless
Other
11,1% 12,0% 13,1% 17,1% 17,2% 12,5% 13,7% 10,8% 13,2% 13,6% 23,5%
7,3% 7,1% 6,3% 5,0% 3,2% 2,8% 3,0% 2,0% 1,0% 0,6% 0,7%
5,5% 4,8% 3,8% 2,8% 2,0% 2,8% 1,4% 3,4% 2,7% 2,3% 2,0%
2,5% 2,6% 2,5% 1,0% 2,2% 2,5% 1,5% 4,4% 4,8% 2,6% 1,5%
2,3% 2,5% 3,1% 1,9% 1,0% 2,2% 1,3% 5,4% 4,0% 4,3% 2,0%
4,7% 13,8% 0,6% 1,0% 0,5% 0,9% 0,9% 0,7% 0,3% 1,2% 0,5%
37,5% 27,3% 23,9% 24,1% 28,1% 31,3% 30,7% 35,8% 42,8% 34,7% 27,6%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Table 1.13. Immigration to Lithuania by nationality of immigrants (2005 – 2014) (%)
Country
EU/EFTA
TCN
Lithuanian
2005
6,4%
24,3%
69,3%
2006
5,4%
25,2%
69,3%
2007
3,7%
25,0%
71,3%
2008
4,1%
27,7%
68,2%
2009
4,1%
21,6%
74,3%
2010
2,9%
17,5%
79,7%
2011
3,2%
7,5%
89,3%
2012
3,8%
8,7%
87,5%
2013
3,1%
10,7%
86,2%
2014
3,0%
16,7%
80,4%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Chart 1.8. Immigrants, by age group (2005 – 2014)
6000
Immigrants, units
5000
2005
4000
2010
3000
2011
2000
2012
1000
2013
2014
0
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
38
Table 1.14. Immigrants, by age group (2005 – 2014)
Age
2005
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0-4
257
320
708
1090
1228
1384
5-9
205
132
354
484
618
779
10-14
235
90
208
228
286
373
15-17
162
88
134
166
199
192
18-19
209
143
392
426
423
390
20-24
1192
818
3600
4001
3887
3407
25-29
1278
1027
3693
4808
5201
5418
30-34
849
778
2162
2777
3423
4005
35-39
622
540
1314
1771
2006
2633
40-44
539
365
964
1270
1552
1799
45-49
460
300
807
1045
1175
1450
50-54
237
232
626
888
971
1130
55-59
188
137
390
456
546
752
60-64
110
117
165
234
277
322
65-69
90
25
54
64
88
106
70-74
56
35
42
57
46
55
75-79
50
34
35
35
40
47
80+
51
32
37
43
45
52
Total
6790
5213
15685
19843
22011
24294
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Table 1.15. Immigrants, by nationality (2005 – 2014) (%)
European states including:
- EU Member States, including:
- Latvia
- Poland
- Germany
- EFTA States
- Other European states,
including:
- Armenia
- Belarus
- Russia
- Ukraine
North American states,
including:
- USA
Central and South American
states
Australia and Oceania
Asian states, including:
- Israel
- Kazakhstan
- China
African states, including
Stateless persons
2005
2013
2014
2015
69,5%
6,4%
1,1%
1,5%
1,1%
0,3%
78,9%
9,5%
1,8%
1,5%
1,5%
0,4%
79,6%
10,3%
2,0%
1,5%
1,5%
0,4%
81,2%
11,4%
2,2%
1,8%
1,7%
0,4%
62,7%
0,9%
11,4%
41,6%
7,2%
69,1%
1,2%
16,4%
38,5%
9,7%
69,0%
1,2%
16,5%
37,6%
10,5%
69,4%
1,1%
15,3%
36,6%
12,9%
1,2%
1,1%
1,2%
1,1%
1,2%
1,1%
1,1%
1,0%
0,2%
0,1%
4,3%
0,9%
0,8%
0,6%
0,2%
24,7%
0,3%
0,1%
6,3%
1,1%
0,9%
1,1%
0,8%
12,4%
0,3%
0,1%
6,8%
1,1%
0,9%
1,0%
1,1%
11,0%
0,3%
0,1%
7,0%
0,9%
0,9%
0,9%
1,1%
9,1%
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Migration
39
Table 1.16. Acquisition of Lithuanian citizenship by previous nationality (2004-2014) (%)
Year
Stateless Russia Ukraine Belarus Armenia Other
49,2% 34,7%
4,8%
5,5%
1,1%
4,6%
2005
51,0% 32,3%
6,4%
6,0%
0,6%
3,6%
2006
49,7% 30,5%
5,4%
8,4%
2,4%
3,5%
2007
53,3% 22,5%
12,9%
4,2%
0,8%
6,3%
2008
49,5% 22,9%
12,6%
5,6%
1,9%
7,5%
2009
48,1% 26,5%
11,7%
6,8%
1,2%
5,6%
2010
40,2% 31,2%
14,1%
5,5%
1,9%
7,1%
2011
47,0% 21,3%
10,4%
7,7%
3,8%
9,8%
2012
32,9% 30,6%
11,0%
8,1%
4,6% 12,7%
2013
34,1% 27,4%
14,5%
6,7%
3,4% 14,0%
2014
Source: Data of the Lithuanian Department of Migration
40
2.3. Irregular migration
The scale of irregular migration in Lithuania is not high, though after certain decrease in 2008 –
2009 is on the rise once again. Every year, around 2 000-4 000 foreigners (2 865 in 2013; 3 448 in
2014) who do not meet the entry conditions (for example by not having the required documents,
visa or presenting false documents, etc.) are denied access to the territory of Lithuania. In addition,
over a year, around 2 000 cases are determined already in the territory of Lithuania in which
foreigners violate the requirements for entry, stay or residence in Lithuania and thus have to leave
the country (2 250 cases in 2014). In 2014, around one half of these violations were made by
Belarusian, Kyrgyz and Russian nationals.
When Lithuania became a fully-fledged Schengen area member in 30 March 2008, it took full
responsibility for protecting external EU borders (Lithuania shares external borders with the
Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation (1 070 km in total). While there were many
concerns over the possible drastic expansion of irregular migration flows, over the years, the trends
of irregular migration although increased, but did not show a drastic jump. The largest irregular
migration flows come from the Republic of Belarus. The border is mostly crossed with attempts of
illegitimate entry to the Schengen area. The main methods of irregular immigration remain the
same: illegal migration across the “green” state border and illegal state border crossing by using
forged documents. Among those detained for illegal border crossing dominate Georgian,
Vietnamese, Afghan nationals, and to lesser degree Russian and Belarusian nationals. The year
2014 witnessed a particularly sharp increase in the number of Vietnamese citizens attempting to
unlawfully enter the country. Though in general illegal border crossing cases have decreased from
477 in 2012 to 375 in 2014.
Over the recent years, other forms of irregular migration have emerged. These include obtaining a
visa or residence permit by setting up of fictitious companies or marriages of convenience.
It has been observed that aliens often acquire the enterprises registered in Lithuania, appoint
themselves as heads of the company and apply for the issue of a temporary residence permit
seeking to gain access to the Schengen Area rather to carry out lawful activities. On 1 November
2014, amendments to the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens entered into force stipulating more
stringent requirements for the issue of a temporary residence permit to aliens who enter to engage in
lawful activities/business. The amendments introduced the requirement for an alien to participate in
achieving objectives of an enterprise or in its management, also it became mandatory that an
enterprise would have carried out the activities indicated in its documents of incorporation for not
less than 6 months prior to the alien’s application for the issue of a temporary residence permit, that
the value of the enterprise equity capital/assets would amount to not less than EUR 28 000, of
which not less than EUR 14 000 would be the assets invested by the alien, and that such an
enterprise had created workplaces for not less than 3 full-time employees. Since 1 November 2014,
259 applications have been lodged, that is, following the change in the conditions of the issue of a
temporary residence permit on the ground of lawful activities the number of applications for the
issue of a temporary residence permit on this ground has considerably decreased.
41
2.3.1. Scope and trends of irregular migration to Lithuania.
Currently there are no official estimates on the possible number of irregular migrants in the country.
Data is available on detected cases of illegal migration only and are recorded separately for those
detected still on the border and “refused entry” and those found illegally present in the country.
Since Lithuania’s accession to the Schengen Area the numbers of third country nationals refused
admission was steadily increasing (2 865 cases in 2013, 3 453 in 2014 – a 20 per cent increase).
The number of foreigners found to be illegally present in Lithuania are fluctuating with 1 345 cases
in 2010, 1 895 cases in 2011, 2 080 in 2012, 1 910 in 2013 and 2 466 in 2014. Again, the numbers
remain not high, representing approximately 5-6 per cent of all foreign residents in Lithuania.
The aliens who are in breach of the terms of lawful entry, stay and residence must leave the
Republic of Lithuania. In 2014, the aliens leaving Lithuania were mostly citizens of Belarus (516),
Russia (365) and Kyrgyzstan (325) who have violated the conditions of legal stay in the Republic of
Lithuania. If an alien fails to voluntary comply with a return decision within the period granted to
him (7-30 days), he is expelled from the Republic of Lithuania.
In 2014, expulsion from the Republic of Lithuania was applied in respect of 362 aliens, most of
them being citizens of Vietnam (185), Georgia (95), Russia (30) and Belarus (12). In comparison, in
2013, expulsion was applied in respect of 279 aliens, the majority of whom were citizens of
Georgia (173).
The number of irregular migrants who were trying to misuse asylum system and whose asylum
applications therefore have been rejected was also increasing and even has doubled during the
period of 2009-2012 (155 rejections in 2009, 180 in 2010, 280 in 2011 and 335 in 2012), but was
followed by a sharp decrease to 115 rejection cases in 2013 and 106 in 2014.
Since the transposition of the Council Directive 2001/51/EC (Carriers Directive) in 2006 there have
been only slightly more than 100 cases when carriers have been prosecuted for transportation of
aliens without necessary documents.
2.3.2. Refused admission
According to the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens, a foreigner is refused admission to the
Republic of Lithuania if he fails to provide a valid travel document, does not have a valid visa or
other permit allowing stay in Lithuania if it is required, provides fraudulent documents, has
overstayed the period of time authorized on a visa, there is a suspicion that the foreigner might be
involved in criminal activity or has committed serious crimes against humanity, is entered in the list
of foreigners who are banned entry to the Republic of Lithuania or the EU, or has insulted the
officers who are issuing a visa.
The number of migrants who were refused admission has been steadily falling since Lithuania
joined the EU in 2004, with only slight increases during 2010-2012 period, and quite sharp increase
in 2013-2014; (and shows a tendency of catching up to the level of pre-accession period) 3448
42
migrants were refused entry in 2014 compared to 4777 in 2004) (Table 2.3.1.). In 2014, 86% of
migrants who were refused entry were citizens of the Republic of Belarus or the Russian Federation
(including Russians transiting Lithuania from mainland Russia to Kaliningrad Oblast of the Russian
Federation) (Table 2.3.10.) The Russians made almost a half of all persons refused entry in 2014.
Table 2.3.1. Number of persons refused entry, 2004-2014
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Total number
of thirdcountry
4 774 3 165 3 029 2 937
2 208
1 751 1 967 2 215 2 215
nationals
refused entry
Source: State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
2013
2014
2865
3448
The most common grounds for admission refusal in 2014 were absence of a valid visa or residence
permit (1383) or absence of appropriate documents justifying the aim and conditions of stay (753)
(Table 2.3.2.). The same reasons for refusing admission were dominant in 2013 and 2012 as well.
However, the number of persons considered to be a public threat increased more than twice in 2014
(in comparison to 2013), becoming one of the dominant grounds for refusal of entry.
Table 2.3.2. Grounds for refusal of entry, 2014
2013
2014
No valid travel document
5
95
False/counterfeit/forged travel document
2
0
1 436
1 383
2
13
Purpose and conditions of stay not justified
633
753
Person already stayed 3 months in a 6-months period
48
169
No sufficient means of subsistence
329
276
An alert has been issued
133
122
Person considered to be a public threat
277
637
No valid visa or residence permit
False visa or residence permit
Source: State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
Attempts to enter Lithuania with false visa or residence permits are not numerous: 2 in cases fixed
2013 and 13 in 2014. While for the period of 2006-2010 the numbers of refusal to entry on the
ground of not having sufficient means of subsistence were steadily decreasing (from 230 in 2006 to
only 39 cases in 2010), the numbers reached 329 cases in 2013 and went downwards again with 276
cases in 2014 (Table 2.3.9.)
43
Table 2.3.3. Type of border where refused entry in 2005-2014
Type of border/
year
Land
Sea
Air
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2 729
287
149
3 165
2 791
125
113
3 029
2 702
106
129
2 937
2 036
67
105
2 208
1 657
50
44
1 751
1 871
41
55
1 967
2 099
35
81
2 215
2 127
37
51
2 215
2810
16
39
2865
3 211
74
163
3 448
TOTAL
Source: State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
2.3.3. Irregular stay and residence
Third country nationals found to be illegally present in Lithuania
Numbers of third country nationals found to be illegally present in Lithuania were not high and
consisted of around 1 000 persons per year during 2005 – 2008. Since 2009 an upward trend can be
traced: 2 080 cases in 2012, 1 910 in 2013 and 2 466 in 2014.
Table 2.3.4. Third country nationals found to be illegally present in Lithuania in 2005-2014
Total number of
third-country
nationals found to be
illegally present
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
1 182
1 166
1 045
910
1 495
1 345
1 895
2 080
1 910
2 466
* Data on the number of foreigners obliged to leave, apprehended for over 48 hours and on those for whom alternative
detention measures have been applied
Source: Migration Services and State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Most of those illegal migrants are male (79.3 per cent in 2014), adults form over 92 per cent. In
2014, the proportion of minors remained relatively low – children aged bellow 18 formed 7.5 per
cent.
Nationals of five main countries – Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Vietnam, Georgia, Kazakhstan and
Tajikistan – form more than 87 per cent of all irregular migrants in Lithuania.
Chart 2.3.1. Top 10 countries of irregular migrants found to be illegally present in Lithuania,
2014
563
600
500
441
438
400
298
300
200
100
176
123
117
75
46
23
0
Source: State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
44
2.3.4. Detention of irregular migrants
Foreigners who breach the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens and either enter, stay, or try to leave
Lithuania illegally can be subject to detention. Detention is used when arrangements for expulsion
or forced return are made, if foreigners do not collaborate with the officers and on some other
grounds. Alternative means to detention are also foreseen by the Law, though in practice are
implemented rarely.
Detected irregular migrants can be detained by police for a period not exceeding 48 hours. If there
are grounds for detaining a foreigner for a period of over 48 hours, this is done on a court order.
Chart 2.3.2. Irregular migrants detained, total (2004-2014)
800
699
679
700
612
600
473
500
400
301
300
200
323
292
251
173
208
177
100
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: State Border Guard Service and Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
Lithuania
The number of detention cases has been constantly increasing since 2009 with an exception in year
2013 (612 cases). In 2014 the figure slightly increased again and reached 699. In 2014, the
dominant nationalities among foreigners that were detained or subject to alternative measures were
nationals from Asian states, as well as Russia and Georgia.
In 2014 of all detentions 407 persons were detained for up to 48 hours, while 292 persons stayed in
detention over 48 hours, meaning that court decision had to be obtained. In 2014 also 55 cases were
fixed when alternative measures to detention were applied (a six-fold increase from 9 cases in
2013); however, this composes only 7.7 per cent of all foreigners subject to detention or alternative
measures.
45
Table 2.3.6. Number of aliens who were detained for up to 48 hours for illegal entry to and
(or) illegal stay in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania or subject to Alternative
Detention Measure in 2014, by country of origin
Number of aliens
Alien’s country of origin
European states,
including:
- Belarusian
- Georgian
- Russian
Asian states
African states
North American
states
Stateless
Unknown
In total
Detained only
for 48 hours
Those subject to Alternative
Detention Measure (except lodging
in the Aliens’ Registration Centre
not applying restrictions to freedom
of movement)
Detained for
over 48
hours
Accommodated at
the Aliens’
Registration Centre
not applying
restrictions to
freedom of
movement
116
15
123
11
12
74
23
271
7
1
11
2
35
1
8
88
23
159
4
9
2
4
-
1
-
1
-
5
7
407
2
2
55
4
-
1
-
292
15
Sources: Migration Yearbook 2014.
Table 2.3.5. Number of aliens who were detained for more than 48 hours for illegal entry to
and (or) stay in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania from 2007 to 2014 by country of
origin
Alien’s country of origin
European states,
including:
- Belarusian
- Georgian
- Russian
Asian states
African states
North American states
Central and South
American states
Stateless
Unknown
In total
Source: Migration Yearbook 2014.
Number of aliens
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2007
2008
102
95
124
99
189
281
236
123
32
39
19
7
-
31
10
32
43
16
-
18
50
37
76
4
-
9
49
20
27
5
1
7
139
24
37
8
-
15
231
27
79
10
-
15
181
27
120
5
-
8
88
23
159
4
1
2
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
n/i
15
n/i
-
n/i
8
8
-
7
-
145
157
212
140
241
5
375
2
363
4
1
292
46
2.3.5. Smuggling and organized illegal border crossing
In 2014, 54 persons (in 2013 – 25) were arrested for illegal smuggling of migrants. Among
smugglers were citizens of Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Russian Federation, Armenia, Pakistan,
Vietnam, and Switzerland. In 2014, the majority of the smugglers were citizens of Lithuania.
Compared with 2013, in 2014 more smugglers were nationals of neighbouring Latvia and Estonia
(nationals of these countries were mainly smuggling Vietnam citizens); additionally, the number of
Russian smugglers increased. In 2014, nationals of Vietnamese and Kyrgyzstan also emerged as
migrant (mostly nationals of their countries) smugglers.
2.3.6. Removal of irregular migrants.
Persons, who are found to be illegally staying in Lithuania, are obliged to leave the country. They
can either do so voluntarily (individually or with the help of IOM’s assisted voluntary return and
reintegration programme) or they will be removed.
In the field of return of aliens, institutional responsibilities and procedures have not undergone any
major changes since 2008. The amendments to the LLSA adopted on 8 December 2011 harmonised
the provisions of the LLSA with the provisions of Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive), but
return procedures have not been substantially changed, and the competence of the institutions
implementing these procedures remains unchanged.
In the field of return the following 3 types of decisions are adopted:
1) A decision to return (formerly the obligation to depart) – an alien is granted a period from 7
to 30 days (this period can be extended if necessary) to voluntarily depart from Lithuania.
Unaccompanied minor aliens are returned to a foreign state only when such a decision serves the
best interests of the minors.
2) Obligation to depart – a version of the decision to return intended for the aliens entitled to
reside or stay in another European Union Member State or a member country of the European Free
Trade Association. These aliens will be granted a period of up to 30 days during which they can
voluntarily depart from Lithuania to a Member State which they are entitled to enter for stay or
residence (e.g., who have a residence permit or national visa issued by another European Union
Member State or a member country of the European Free Trade Association).
3) A decision to expel – a decision under which an alien is expelled from Lithuania. This
decision is adopted in respect of the aliens who are illegally staying in Lithuania and who entered
Lithuania without having the right to enter it; the aliens who fail to depart voluntarily within the
voluntary departure period granted to them, and the aliens whose stay in Lithuania constitutes a
threat to national security or public order will also be expelled.
As it can be seen from statistical data the first type of decisions dominate and the numbers of orders
issued to third country nationals obliging them to leave Lithuania since 2008 show a stable growth
tendency with a slight drop to 1 533 fixed cases in 2013 (compared to 1711 cases in 2012). In 2014,
1 895 aliens were obliged to depart from Lithuania.
47
Table 2.3.7. Aliens obliged to depart (voluntarily) from Lithuania and expelled (2006-2014)
Obliged to depart/
return
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
1002
898
759
1035
1188
1618
1711
1533
1895
149
147
123
144
137
125
236
279
362
Expelled
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
Increase in decisions to return has been reported for almost all migrant nationalities in 2014.
Especially obvious increase is seen due to higher number of nationals from Asian states obliged to
depart: and increase from 239 in 2010 to 733 in 2014. (Table 2.3.14).
Chart 3.4 Foreigners obliged to depart from the Republic of Lithuania, 2002-2014
2000
1895
1800
1618
1711
1533
1600
1400
1188
1200
1024
1035
1002
898
1000
759
800
600
400
477
569
244
200
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
*Both return decision and obligation to depart compose the number.
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
Most migrants, issued decision to return, leave the country on their own, but if they do not possess
enough means, proper documents or are in vulnerable situation, they may apply for Assisted
Voluntary Return programme operated by IOM Vilnius office. Even though officially Voluntary
return scheme is given priority to forced returns/ deportations, numbers of assisted voluntary return
cases are still not high. However, the need for such services is increasing.
Table 2.3.8 Number of migrants returned by Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes
Year
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Number of
assisted
35
3
12
15
55
47
65
43
66
returnees
Source: IOM Vilnius Office
Total
298
48
On the other hand, number of forced return is not high as well. More so, there has been traced a
steady decline of expulsions of aliens from the Republic of Lithuania from 2003 onwards 2011.
However some changes in legislation made it practically impossible for any migrant who entered
Lithuania illegally to return voluntarily (these provisions are again under revision) and a swift
increase in deportations in 2012-2014 manifested, reaching 362 persons in 2014. (Chart 3.5.).
Negotiations are ongoing regarding ways of making EU provision, that voluntary return should be
given priority to deportations, work in practice.
Chart 3.5. Foreigners expelled from the Republic of Lithuania, 2003-2014.
400
376
362
350
300
279
236
250
206
200
189
149
150
147
144
137
2009
2010
123
125
100
50
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2011
2012
2013
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
2014
49
Annexes/ Tables
Third country nationals refused entry at the external borders
Table 2.3.9. Grounds for refusal of entry in 2005-2014
No valid travel document
False/counterfeit/forged
travel document
No valid visa or residence
permit
False visa or residence
permit*
Purpose and conditions of
stay not justified
Person already stayed 3
months in a 6-months
period
No sufficient means of
subsistence
An alert has been issued
Person considered to be a
public threat
2005
219
2006
104
2007
87
2008
25
2009
22
2010
15
2011
21
2012
8
23
17
16
22
12
3
9
8
2 592
2 454
2 435
1 624
1 321
1 455
1 492
1 348
5
21
55
23
7
303
191
169
224
405
146
96
149
2
9
19
24
16
17
47
39
103
126
87
100
158
120
227
138
63
230
133
51
4
8
32
122
118
120
83
47
63
* Information on these grounds was not collected prior to 2008.
Source: State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
55
2013
5
2
2014
95
-
1 436
1 383
2
13
633
753
48
169
329
276
133
277
127
637
50
Table 2.3.10. Main 10 countries of citizenship of third-country nationals refused entry
2006
2007
2008
2009
in 2005-2014
2010
2011
2013
2012
2014
Positi
on
Name of the
country of
citizenship
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
1st
Russia
1465
Russia
1346
Russia
1048
Russia
835
Russia
800
Russia
1003
Belarus
1074
Belarus
1278
Name
of the
country
of
citizens
hip
Russia
2nd
Belarus
856
Belarus
707
Belarus
732
Belarus
533
Belarus
703
Belarus
850
Russia
806
Russia
1198
Belarus
1 304
3rd
4th
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
312
72
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
352
100
Ukraine
Kyrgyzstan
120
55
Ukraine
Georgia
104
74
Georgia
Ukraine
145
100
Georgia
Ukraine
116
60
Georgia
Ukraine
113
55
Georgia
Ukraine
109
61
Georgia
Ukraine
127
68
5th
India
51
India
74
Kazakhstan
54
Moldova
41
Kyrgyzstan
60
Kyrgyzstan
53
Moldova
31
Armenia
43
n/a
n/a
6th
7th
8th
Stateless
43
Kyrgyzstan
64
India
33
Kazakhstan
30
Tajikistan
27
Kazakhstan
29
Kazakhstan
25
Kyrgyztan
41
n/a
n/a
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
40
33
Moldova
Stateless
59
27
Moldova
Armenia
30
20
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
30
25
Kazakhstan
Moldova
26
30
Armenia
India
21
16
Armenia
Kyrgyzstan
19
16
Tajikistan
Kazakhstan
31
26
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9th
10th
Uzbekistan
Turkey
16
14
Turkey
Uzbekistan
15
15
Georgia
Uzbekistan
16
15
Armenia
India
18
16
India
Armenia
15
10
Moldova
China
15
7
Israel
Tajikistan
15
14
Moldova
Afganistan
11
6
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Total
Total
1 562
51
Third country nationals found to be illegally present
Table 2.3.11. Age of migrants found to be illegally present in 2005-2014
2005
Fewer than 14
years
From 14 to 17
years
From 18 to 34
years
35 years or over
2006
30*
1152*
38*
1128*
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
105
2013
85
2014
105
30
40
50
107
15
20
15
43
30
17
79
410
675
555
802
900
550
1 214
455
765
720
847
1 045
648
1 068
38*
1007*
Source: Migration Department and State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
Table 2.3.12. Gender of migrants found to be illegally present in 2005-2014
Male
Female
2005
907*
275*
2006
855*
311*
2007
840*
205*
2008
675
235
2009
1 110
385
2010
925
420
2011
1 324
485
Source: Migration Department and State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
2012
1 565
515
2013
2014
961
343
1957
509
52
Table 2.3.13. Main 10 countries of citizenship of migrants found to be illegally present in Lithuania in 2005-2014
2005
Position
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
1st
2006
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
494
2nd
Belarus
3rd
2007
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
402
220
Ukraine
Ukraine
127
4th
Kazakhstan
5th
2008
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
241
174
Belarus
Belarus
163
33
Kazakhstan
Moldova
35
6th
Armenia
7th
Azerbaijan
8th
2009
2010
2011
2013
2012
2014
Total
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
625
Kyrgystan
304
Belarus
563
484
Belarus
430
Belarus
256
Kyrgyzstan
441
Kyrgystan
180
Kyrgystan
295
Russia
255
Russia
438
97
Geogia
169
Georgia
265
Georgia
211
Vietnam
298
Kyrgystan
81
Kazakhstan
107
Kazakhstan
140
Kazakhstan
125
Georgia
176
80
Kazakhstan
65
Ukraine
74
Ukraine
70
Vietnam
68
Kazakhstan
123
80
Georgia
55
Afghanistan
46
Tajikistan
55
Tajikistan
65
Tajikistan
117
Turkey
50
Moldova
20
Uzbekistan
35
Uzbekistan
35
Uzbekistan
27
Ukraine
75
30
Armenia
30
Armenia
25
Armenia
27
Afghanistan
15
Afganistan
11
Azerbaijan
46
30
Moldova
30
India
15
Tajikistan
24
Stateless
15
Armemia
10
Armenia
23
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Total
Name of
the country
of
citizenship
Total
Name of
the country
of
citizenship
Russia
180
Russia
515
Russia
430
Russia
591
174
Belarus
175
Belarus
330
Belarus
360
Belarus
Ukraine
153
Ukraine
140
Ukraine
130
Ukraine
125
60
Kazakhstan
80
Tajikistan
97
Tajikistan
97
Tajikistan
Moldova
51
Uzbekistan
28
Kyrgyzstan
81
Kyrgystan
81
16
Armenia
16
Azerbaijan
23
Tajikistan
18
Moldova
26
Kazachstan
21
Turkey
50
Kazakhstan
45
Georgia
Stateless
9
Stateless
12
Azerbaijan
18
China
45
9th
Turkey
8
Philippines
9
Georgia
9
Georgia
10th
Pakistan
6
Turkey
6
Moldova
Source: State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
Total
53
Third country nationals ordered to leave (after being found illegally present)
2.3.14. Main 10 countries of citizenship of third-country national ordered to leave in 2005-2014
2005
Position
1st
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
2nd
2007
2006
465
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
372
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
Belarus
184
Ukraine
169
3rd
Ukraine
4th
Kazakhstan
110
Belarus
33
Kazakhstan
5th
Moldova
25
6th
Armenia
7th
Azerbaijan
2008
202
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
Ukraine
142
125
Belarus
60
Kazakhstan
Moldova
29
16
Armenia
12
Uzbekistan
8th
Stateless
9
9th
Turkey
10th
Somalia
2009
143
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
Belarus
140
141
Ukraine
80
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
28
23
Tajikistan
20
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
19
8
Azerbaijan
6
Philippine
Total
2010
2014
Total
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
151
Kyrgyzstan
304
Belarus
560
Belarus
31
Belarus
256
Kyrgyzstan
441
202
Kyrgyzstan
23
Russia
255
Russia
431
141
Ukraine
9
Georgia
211
Vietnam
183
Ukraine
82
Kazakhstan
8
Kazakhstan
125
Georgia
127
23
Tajikistan
53
Tajikistan
3
Vietnam
68
Kazakhstan
122
16
Uzbekistan
36
Turkey
3
Tajikistan
65
Tajikistan
116
Azerbaijan
8
Philippines
18
Vietnam
3
Uzbekistan
27
Ukraine
74
9
Moldova
7
Armenia
17
Stateless
3
Afghanistan
11
Azerbaijan
46
8
Georgia
5
Georgia
15
Pakistan
2
Armenia
10
Armenia
23
509
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
343
399
Belarus
285
Belarus
358
Belarus
470
130
Ukraine
52
Kazakhstan
99
Ukraine
74
Kazakhstan
121
Kyrgyzstan
69
Kazakhstan
Tajikistan
20
Tajikistan
21
Kyrgyzstan
29
26
Kyrgyzstan
20
Azerbaijan
19
Kyrgyzstan
16
Azerbaijan
20
Tajikistan
15
Uzbekistan
Azerbaijan
18
Turkey
15
Turkey
13
14
Moldova
9
Georgia
9
Armenia
9
Uzbekistan
14
Armenia
10
Uzbekistan
Total
2013
Total
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
Total
2012
Name of
the country
of
citizenship
Name of
the
country of
citizenship
Russia
Total
2011
Total
Total
Total
Source: State Border Guard Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
54
2.4. Refugees and asylum seekers.
4.1.1. General trends
According to statistics, since 2009 the number of asylum applications was steadily increasing
with a sharp drop (approx. 40 per cent) in 2013 – to 399 applications only. This was the
lowest figure during the whole decade. In 2014 the number again increased to 496 (Table
4.1).
Chart 4.1. Number of Aliens’ Applications for Asylum in the Republic of Lithuania, by
Nationality 2004–2014
700
628
600
528
500
458
454
472
503
527
496
449
406
399
400
300
200
100
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
Asylum applications in Lithuania are divided into those which are submitted for the first time
(for 1 year) and the repeated applications. The data above does not indicate the trend of inflow
of asylum seekers, since a large amount of submitted applications form repeated asylum
applications, i.e. when aliens granted subsidiary protection are applying to extend their status.
This type of protection can be extended for a number of years in a row (the number of times
to extend subsidiary protection is not capped).
Until 2009 the number of repeated applications was higher than the first-time lodged,
however, since 2010 the trend has changed (Table 4.1). Significant increase is noted in 2012,
when the number of first-time asylum applications was five times higher than the repeated
ones, respectively 529 and 98. Such a change might be explained by 2 reasons: non-renewal
of subsidiary protection for Chechen nationals/ Russian Federation and the inflow of
Georgian nationals arriving to seek asylum and having no ground for it, which started in 2010
and continued till 2012. In 2014, the number of first-time asylum applications increased to
400 and 4 times exceeded the number of repeated applications.
55
Table 4.1. First time and repeated applications13 to grant asylum in Lithuania 2004–
2014
Year
First-time asylum applications
Repeated asylum applications
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
167
118
147
116
210
211
373
406
529
277
400
291
288
307
356
318
238
130
121
98
122
96
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
4.1.2. Type of protection granted
In 2014, 447 decisions were adopted on granting/refusal of asylum in the Republic of
Lithuania which is 32 per cent more than in 2013 (381 decisions). In 2014, 24 persons were
granted refugee status (amounting to 5 per cent of all decisions made), 153 persons received
subsidiary protection (or 34 per cent of all decisions), 106 applications were refused asylum,
151 cases were terminated, 13 asylum applications were not examined in substance –
decisions were taken to return asylum seekers to the EU member state responsible for
examination of the asylum application according to the Dublin II Regulation.
During the last decade the proportion of positive decisions was steadily decreasing – from 80
per cent in mid-2000 to less than 20 per cent in 2011-2012. The 2013 mark the change in
established trend – positive decisions accounted for more than one third (35 per cent) of total
decisions regarding asylum. In 2014, the number of positive decisions continued to increase
and almost reached 40 per cent of total decisions.
If refusal rates are considered, the opposite trend can be traced. The number of rejected
applications was continuously increasing from 30 in 2005 (12 per cent) to 335 in 2012 – more
than 50 per cent. However, in 2013 the number of rejections was three times fewer and
amounted to only 115 (approx. each third application was rejected). In 2014 the number
further decreased to 106 rejections. The reason of such fall down in numbers is not only the
decrease in total number of asylum applications, but the changes in corps of asylum
applicants, i.e. decreased applications from Georgian nationals, as Georgia is considered a
safe third country by state officials.
It has been observed that the number of decisions to terminate the examination of applications
for asylum that are taken when there is no opportunity to contact an asylum seeker for a
period of one month (he/she leaves his/her place of residence and fails to appear at interviews)
has also been increasing. Even though in 2014 this figure amounted to 34 per cent out of total
adopted decisions (31 per cent in 2013), but as compared with 2008, the figure has increased
13
The number does not include asylum applications from aliens transferred from other ES states under Dublin
procedure.
56
significantly – in 2008 such decisions amounted to 6 percent only, in 2006 to barely 4 percent
out of the total number of decisions adopted that year.
Chart 4.2. Decisions taken on asylum applications 2003-2014
600
500
485
407
385
400
393
350
328
335
280
300
221
180
200
155
123
110
100
56
3
0
2002
50
12
30
15
2004
29
12
51
2006
49
14
9
11
2008
Subsidiary protection granted
1
88
7
2010
153
111
115
106
13
15
24
2012
Refugee status granted
2014
2016
Protection not granted
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
Table 4.2. Granting Asylum to Aliens in the Republic of Lithuania
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Refugee Status
granted
Subsidiary
protection granted
6
28
11
15
3
1
3
12
15
12
9
14
11
1
7
13
15
24
80
266
287
485
407
328
385
393
350
221
110
88
111
123
153
Rejection of
application for
asylum
53
116
171
113
58
37
56
50
30
29
51
49
155
180
280
335
115
106
Examination of
application
terminated
108
104
200
97
55
230
91
7
16
32
28
98
209
146
169
124
151
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
57
In addition there appear single cases (increase in the beginning of 2009) when temporary
residence permits are issued to aliens, though subsidiary protection status is not extended,
since they cannot be expelled from the Republic of Lithuania to the country of origin due to
objective reasons. The numbers, though fluctuating, remain low with only 8 such cases in
2013 (down from 27 in 2011). As can be seen from the Table 4.3., most of such migrants are
stateless persons.
Table 4.3. Number of temporary residence permits issued to aliens, whose subsidiary
protection status was not extended, but who could not be expelled from the Republic of
Lithuania due to objective reasons, 2007-201314.
Nationality
Angola
Belarus
Congo DR
Congo
Cuba
Pakistan
Kyrgyzstan
Russia
Sri Lanka
Cameroon
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Stateless
Total
2007
1
1
2008
1
2009
2010
1
2
2011
2012
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
2013
2014
8
…
2
1
1
2
1
2
7
4
1
9
27
1
6
19
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
4.1.3. Nationalities
Applications. In 2014, as well as in 2010-2013, the major part of asylum seekers consisted of
Georgian citizens (24 percent - 117 applications out of total 496; Table 4.4.). The second
largest group of asylum seekers were citizens of Afghanistan (99 applications). The number
of applications from citizens of the Russian Federation remained similar as compared with
2013 (74 applications in 2014 and 72 applications in 2013). However, the number of asylum
seekers from the Ukraine increased dramatically (70 applications in 2014, 5 applications in
2013 and 2012), as well as the number of applications from citizens of Azerbaijan (from 4 in
2013 to 19 in 2014). The number of applications from citizens of the neighbouring Belarus
remained relatively low, – 16 applications in 2014.
The crisis in Syria had practically no influence on the flows of asylum seekers – only 17
applications for asylum in Lithuania were received from citizens of Syria, 11 of them were
granted subsidiary protection in 2014.
14
Data might include also cases of non-refoulement of other types of migrants, not asylum seekers.
58
Refugee status. In 2014, refugee status was granted to citizens of Russia (11), Afghanistan
(10), Belarus (1), Kazakhstan (1), and 1 stateless person.
Subsidiary protection. In 2014, subsidiary protection was granted to 51 citizens of
Afghanistan, 37 citizens of Russia and 31 citizens of Ukraine (these three nationalities
account for 77.6 per cents of all decisions to grant subsidiary protection). Other persons who
received subsidiary protection in 2014 included nationals of Syria (11), Belarus (8), Kirgizia
(4), Nepal (2), Stateless (2), Ivory Cost (1), Egypt (1), Iraq (1), USA (1), Uzbekistan (1),
Tajikistan (1), and Georgia (1) nationals.
Chart 4.3. Number of aliens’ applications for asylum according to citizenship 2014 (in
per cent)
Other
20%
Georgia
24%
Belarus
3%
Azerbaijan
4%
Afghanistan
20%
Ukraine
14%
Russia
15%
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
Table 4.4. Main nationalities of aliens’ asylum applicants in Lithuania 2004–2014
Nationality
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011 2012 2013 2014
Afghanistan
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Iraq
Cuba
Pakistan
Russia
Sri Lanka
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Stateless
Others
Total:
28
1
20
-
23
1
22
5
16
2
16
3
4
2
2
20
358
4
3
4
5
2
342
4
7
4
4
1
7
369
2
7
13
2
3
2
366
1
15
9
4
8
7
415
7
14
76
14
2
8
243
18
1
14
24
458
5
25
410
6
5
30
459
6
6
7
40
480
12
1
2
42
540
10
3
10
32
449
37
22
4
13
249
6
1
113
10
1
6
12
3
26
503
55
28
20
229
8
1
111
3
8
7
57
527
93
1
3
19
305
4
3
87
3
5
6
47
13
38
86
8
4
21
121
1
1
2
72
5
2
26
5
45
99
1
19
16
117
5
4
74
1
70
1
28
6
55
627
399
496
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
59
4.1.4. Demographic characteristics of asylum applicants
Men domination among asylum applicants is clearly expressed – in 2014 they lodged 68 per
cent of all applications for protection (Chart 4.4.). Dividing asylum seekers according to the
age groups (Table 4.5.) shows that the majority of them in 2014 were young people – persons
aged 18 - 34 formed nearly half of all asylum applicants (49 percent).
Chart 4.4. Asylum applications in 2014 by gender (in per cent)
32%
Male
Female
68%
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
Table 4.5. Asylum applications in 2014 by age groups
Age
Number of applications
Number of applications in
per cent
0-17
18-34
35-64
65 and over
111
242
140
3
22%
49%
28%
1%
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
4.1.5. Unaccompanied Minors
In Lithuania, to be recognized as an unaccompanied minor asylum seeker, one has to be under
18 years of age and has to arrive in Lithuania without parents or other legal guardians or be
left without parental guidance after having entered the territory of Lithuania. Unaccompanied
minors are placed under guardianship or appropriate care and free accommodation in the
Republic of Lithuania. Moreover, their living costs are covered from the state budget, they
have access to medical care and legal aid, receive social services and have a right to attend
comprehensive or vocational schools. The numbers of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum
in the Republic of Lithuania are low, and after peak in 2004 (39) decreased to 1 in 2008, later
fluctuating at a low level, but without pronounced trend. (Table 4.14.).
60
In 2014, among 111 children applying for asylum in the Republic of Lithuania there were 5
unaccompanied minors – 4 from Vietnam and 1 from Afghanistan. This accounts to 4.5 per
cent of all children seeking asylum and 1 per cent of all asylum seekers in 2014.
It should be noted that statistical data on unaccompanied minors who do not apply for asylum
and on minors who are refused entry is not gathered. In some cases minors are not informed
about the possibility to claim asylum or are not able to provide a properly filled in request and
therefore are refused entry. No data on detention of unaccompanied minors is available either.
While extensive support is envisioned for unaccompanied minors-asylum seekers, minors
who do not seek asylum are treated as ordinary irregular migrants. This is rather problematic
as it contradicts the principle of the best interest of a child and questions whether the
protection may be rejected in the cases when it should be granted.
4.1.6. Implementation of the Dublin II regulation provisions
The Dublin II regulation was implemented in Lithuania starting from May 1, in 2004. It
determines whether a state is responsible for an asylum seeker or not, in regard to through
which country the person entered the European Union, where she or he is staying and where
the asylum application is lodged. The regulation is supplemented by the EURODAC and
DubliNet systems providing evidence through collecting and matching fingerprints. This
instrument prevents the same asylum seeker from submitting an asylum application for
several times in different member states. The Regulation is also applied for Iceland, Norway,
Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
As it can be seen from the Table 4.6., the number of incoming requests for taking over
responsibility to examine asylum applications increased drastically from 36 in 2007 to 485 in
2014. In 2014, the majority of requests (362) have been accepted and the responsibility for
examination of the applications has been assumed, and 123 requests have been refused. The
majority of requests to assume responsibility were submitted by Germany (192) and Sweden
(72). The majority of the requests were concerning citizens of Georgia (119 requests or 24.5
per cent of all requests), Azerbaijan (51 requests or 10.5 per cent), and Russian Federation (50
requests or 10 per cent).
Completely different situation if outgoing requests are considered: statistics is rather stable
with some downward trend until 2014, when the number increased again (Table 4.7.). In 2014
Lithuania has submitted 23 requests to other Member States requesting assumption of
responsibility regarding the examination of the application for asylum, 14 asylum seekers
were transferred from Lithuania to other Member States, most to Sweden (4), Poland (3) and
Belgium (3).
61
Table 4.6. Incoming requests for taking responsibility to examine asylum applications in 2014
Requesting state
Requests
Refused requests
Accepted requests
Transferred aliens
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lichtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Total (2014)
Total (2013)
Total (2012)
Total (2011)
Total (2010)
Total (2009)
Total (2008)
Total (2007)
18
17
4
7
2
14
37
192
1
1
2
4
2
1
36
17
17
2
2
8
72
25
4
485
453
562
481
490
280
137
36
2
7
1
2
4
17
50
1
2
2
1
1
5
2
2
20
3
1
123
100
66
53
58
26
8
14
16
10
3
5
2
10
20
142
1
4
35
12
17
8
52
22
3
362
353
496
422
400
222
119
26
14
2
1
1
4
1
14
2
1
4
4
11
6
2
67
108
126
119
108
28
27
20
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
Table 4.7. Outgoing requests for taking responsibility to examine asylum application for 2014
Requested state
Austria
Belgium
France
Germany
Italy
Poland
Spain
Sweden
Total (2014)
Total (2013)
Total (2012)
Total (2011)
Total (2010)
Total (2009)
Total (2008)
Total (2007)
Requests
Refused requests
Accepted
requests
Transferred
foreigners
2
3
1
7
1
4
1
4
23
15
19
22
19
44
35
10
1
4
1
6
6
6
4
9
25
2
5
3
1
2
3
1
4
14
10
12
16
5
17
33
5
1
1
2
3
1
4
12
9
7
11
2
7
32
4
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
62
4.1.7. Integration
All persons granted asylum in Lithuania are entitled to one-year integration program and
supported by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. According to the law “On the
Legal Status of Aliens” they are entitled to: state language teaching, education, employment,
provision with accommodation (access to free accommodation in the place designated by the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania), social protection (to receive a monetary allowance
if they have no other income in the Republic of Lithuania, to receive emergency care and
necessary assistance in terms of social care), health care, and to be provided with all the
necessary information regarding their legal status in the Republic of Lithuania in their native
language or in a language which they understand. In 2014, 92 aliens granted asylum were
receiving state support for integration in municipalities and 175 in Refugee Reception centre
in Rukla.
Chart 4.5. State integration support to Aliens, granted asylum in Lithuania, in
municipalities 2001–2014
450
404
400
361
350
279
300
250
223
186
200
150
297
269
129
128
102
100
36
50
56
76
92
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Source: Refugee Reception Centre under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour.
4.1.8. Court proceedings
As can be seen from Table 4.8., the majority of negative decisions (58 per cent in 2014) are
appealed. In 2014 the Courts (Vilnius District Administrative Court and Supreme
Administrative Court) have examined 62 appeal cases. Most of these cases come from Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court (first instance) – 47 cases compared to 15 of the Supreme
Administrative Court (24 per cent).
The decisions made by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court are overwhelmingly
negative/ i.e. not to satisfy complaints of asylum seekers and leaving the decisions made by
Migration department. In 33 cases out of the total, the judgement was to leave the decision
adopted by the Migration Department unchanged and not to satisfy the appeal, no decisions of
the Migration Department were annulled by the Court and the cases were returned to be
repeatedly examined, the hearing the of appeals was terminated or appeals were left unheard
in another 14 cases.
63
Table 4.8. Appeals against asylum decisions in courts 2006-2014
Submitted Decisions in first instance courts
appeals
Decisions
Total
(% from
Appeal
to refuse
Year
decisions
decisions
Appeal
Case
granted
asylum
to refuse dismissed (fully or dismissed
asylum)
partially)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
444
490
465
495
504
529
632
381
447
47
88
101
155
180
280
355
115
106
47 (100%)
75 (85%)
83 (82%)
135 (87%)
95 (53%)
216 (77%)
270 (77%)
167
62 (58 %)
24
35
50
85
55
83
134
110
33
11
7
3
3
6
2
9
3
0
2
4
7
16
89
87
28
14
Decisions in appeals instance
courts
Appeal
dismissed
8
23
16
10
25
38
32
14
11
Appeal
Case
granted
(fully or dismissed
partially)
2
1
4
4
7
2
3
1
2
5
3
18
2
2
5
11
2
Appeals
granted
(fully or
partially)
(%)
13(27.6%)
8 (10.7%)
7 (8.4%)
7 (5.5%)
13 (13.7%)
4 (1.9%)
12 (4.4%)
4 (2.4%)
2 (3.2%)
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
In 2014, the officers of the Division of Asylum Affairs represented the Migration Department
in the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania in examining 15 cases; in 11 cases out of
the total, the judgements not to satisfy the appeals and leave the judgements of the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court to leave the decision adopted by the Migration Department
unchanged were adopted. In 2 cases the hearing of appeals was terminated or appeals were
left unheard. The decision to dismiss a case is made when it is not possible to reach
complainant in the period of one month. In 2014, 2 decisions were made to revoke the
decision made by Migration Department in Courts, (in 2013 – 4, in 2012 – 12).
Appeals by nationality
In 2014, appeals of nationals of the following countries were heard in Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court: Georgia (11), Russian Federation (9), Vietnam (9), India (5), Guinea
(3), Afghanistan (1), Armenia (1), USA (1), Cuba (1), Morocco (1), Nigeria (1), Kazakhstan
(1), Syria (1), and Pakistan (1).
In 2014, the Supreme Administrative Court examined 15 appeals of nationals of Afghanistan
(2), Belarus (2), Guinea (2), India (2), Kirghizia (2), Cuba (1), Morocco (1), Russian
Federation (1), Pakistan (1) and Vietnam (1).
4.1.9. Returns
On the basis of legislation in Lithuania rejected asylum seekers and irregular immigrants can
be expelled or ordered to leave the country voluntarily. Aliens have the possibility to use the
assisted voluntary return (AVR) scheme/ services provided by the International Organization
for Migration (IOM) Vilnius office.
64
Assisted Voluntary Return
Table 4.9. The number of aliens who voluntarily departed from the Republic of
Lithuania with assistance of the Vilnius Office of the International Organization for
Migration
Year
AVR
returnees
Of which
asylum
applicants
Beneficiaries
of
reintegration
assistance
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Total
35
3
12
15
-
55
47
65
45
66
343
-
-
11
12
-
44
41
50
33
35
226
-
-
-
-
-
4
5
14
8
21
52
Source: IOM Vilnius office
In recent years, the number of asylum seekers applying/using services of Assisted Voluntary
Return is getting rather significant. From January 2010 to December 2014, out of 278
migrants who decided to return voluntarily to their countries of origin, 203 were asylum
seekers.
Expulsion
If an alien, rejected asylum seeker refuses to return voluntarily, he has to be treated under the
forced return-expulsion scheme. Forced returns are implemented by the State Border Guard
Service under the Ministry of Interior. (See also chapter 2.3).
65
Table 4.10. Number of Aliens’ Applications for Asylum in the Republic of Lithuania and of Decisions Taken in 2014
Asylum applications
Citizenship
Decisions
Positive decisions
First
applications
Second
applications
Returned by the
Dublin II
Total
Refugee status
Subsidiary
protection
Rejected
Terminated
cases
To transfer by
the Dublin II
Total
Afghanistan
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Benin
Cameron
D.R.Congo
Egypt
Georgia
Germany
Guinea
India
Iran
Iraq
Ivory Coast
Kazakhstan
Kirghizia
Mali
Mexico
Nepal
Nigeria
Pakistan
Russia
Sri Lanka
Stateless
Syria
Tadzhikistan
Ukraine
USA
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Total (2014)
68
1
7
1
2
2
104
1
7
4
1
1
4
4
26
1
3
8
1
64
1
28
339
30
8
7
1
1
4
1
1
39
3
9
1
3
1
1
110
1
19
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
10
3
3
48
99
1
19
16
1
1
2
2
117
1
8
1
5
2
5
1
1
2
4
4
74
1
6
17
5
70
2
1
28
496
10
1
1
11
1
24
51
8
1
1
1
1
4
2
37
2
11
1
31
1
1
153
2
1
1
1
33
3
7
1
1
1
1
3
3
16
1
2
1
1
7
1
19
106
18
16
2
2
70
1
8
1
1
1
1
9
1
4
2
8
6
151
1
1
1
7
3
13
81
1
16
13
2
2
105
1
3
15
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
3
5
4
80
1
6
16
4
49
2
1
25
447
Total (2013)
262
103
Total (2012)
Total (2011)
Total (2010)
499
362
362
84
81
101
34
399
15
123
115
124
4
381
44
84
40
627
527
503
13
7
1
111
88
110
335
280
180
169
146
209
4
8
5
632
529
504
66
Total (2009)
Total (2008)
Total (2007)
Total (2006)
Total (2005)
185
210
116
147
118
227
318
356
307
288
37
12
8
5
4
449
540
480
459
410
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania
11
14
9
12
15
221
350
393
385
328
155
49
51
29
30
98
28
32
16
7
14
24
5
2
4
495
465
490
444
384
67
Table 4.11. (extended) Number of Aliens’ Applications for Asylum in the Republic of Lithuania, by Nationality
2001-2014
Nationality
Afghan
Albanian
Algerian
Angolan
Armenian
Australian
Austrian
Azerbaijani
Bangladeshi
Belarusian
Benin
Cameroonian
Canadian
Chinese
Congolese DR
Cuban
Dutch
Egyptian
Eritrean
Estonian
Ethiopian
Filipino
Georgian
German
Ghanaian
Guinean
Indian
Iranian
Iraqi
Israeli
Ivory Coast
Kazakh
Kirghiz
Latvian
Lebanese
Liberian
Libyan
Malian
Mexican
Moldavian
Mongolian
Moroccan
Nepalese
Niger
Nigerian
Pakistani
Polish
Russian
Serbian
Sierra Leonean
Somali
Sri Lankan
Stateless
Sudanese
Syrian
Tajik
Togolese
Turkish
Ukrainian
USA
Uzbek
Vietnamese
Yemeni
Zimbabwean
Total:
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
71
28
25
28
20
23
22
16
16
37
1
55
93
86
99
5
1
1
2
3
22
28
1
8
1
3
4
19
19
21
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
3
1
1
1
5
1
6
1
1
2
12
2
4
1
2
1
1
3
2
7
1
7
15
14
4
1
13
1
3
3
6
6
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
4
8
20
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
5
1
3
1
6
1
2
2
305
121
117
1
1
3
1
2
4
1
1
4
4
3
13
9
76
249
1
4
7
1
14
1
2
6
1
8
4
1
1
1
5
1
2
3
2
30
2
1
1
1
229
3
6
1
5
1
2
1
1
8
1
3
1
1
25
1
1
2
3
2
1
3
2
5
1
5
4
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
12
8
5
1
2
5
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
6
2
270
3
1
1
435
2
13
6
7
9
4
12
1
1
2
2
1
425
546
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
4
4
1
1
1
3
2
4
4
72
74
2
20
12
2
2
7
1
2
2
7
1
8
358
342
369
366
415
243
113
1
111
87
2
5
4
26
2
4
14
4
4
5
2
2
5
3
1
7
1
7
2
1
18
10
1
10
3
1
3
7
3
13
1
1
1
1
6
2
7
2
3
5
2
5
7
2
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
18
4
3
3
2
14
5
481
1
11
9
1
16
644
1
5
1
1
3
1
6
6
6
12
1
10
3
6
12
8
1
459
1
480
2
540
1
449
1
503
1
527
3
1
458
410
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
1
1
1
3
3
5
1
12
1
2
1
6
17
5
2
5
2
6
47
5
2
26
70
2
1
28
627
1
399
496
68
Table 4.12. Number of Aliens to Whom Subsidiary Protection Has Been Granted in the
Republic of Lithuania, by Nationality 2001-2014
Nationality
Afghan
Armenian
Austrian
Azerbaijan
Belarusian
Cameroonian
Chinese
Congolese DR
Cuban
Egypt
Eritrean
Estonian
Ethiopian
German
Georgian
Iranian
Iraqi
Israeli
Ivory Cost
Kazakh
Kirghiz
Latvian
Malian
Nepalese
Nigerian
Pakistani
Polish
Russian
Somali
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
16
2
1
12
1
16
3
26
1
21
23
21
5
15
13
14
1
16
35
41
51
8
6
1
11
2
1
2
3
2
5
3
5
4
4
14
15
8
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
3
5
6
4
3
4
4
5
3
1
3
1
1
1
172
1
67
1
55
1
8
6
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
6
6
4
1
221
1
110
2
4
2
195
8
Sri Lankan
Stateless
Syrian
Tajik
Togolese
Ukrainian
Uzbek
USA
Vietnamese
Yemeni
Yugoslavian
Zimbabwean
Total:
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
231
10
5
409
5
1
348
1
1
288
3
343
4
341
3
4
3
4
5
2
1
5
10
7
5
3
1
1
15
1
8
1
2
1
11
1
1
2
6
302
1
6
1
3
2
46
33
37
3
2
1
2
14
1
2
11
1
2
3
4
1
31
1
1
1
111
1
123
153
1
1
1
266
287
485
407
328
385
1
393
2
350
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
88
69
Table 4.13. Number of Aliens Granted the Refugee Status in the Republic of Lithuania, by
Nationality 2001-2014
Nationality
2001
Afghan
Armenian
Belarusian
Ethiopian
Eritrean
Iraqi
Kazakh
Russian
Stateless
Tajik
Ukrainian
Uzbek
3
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
3
2007
2008
1
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2
1
8
10
5
2
3
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
1
2
12
15
9
1
6
6
1
1
11
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
Total:
3
1
3
12
15
15
9
14
11
1
Source: Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania.
7
2
1
1
13
15
24
Table 4.14. Number of Unaccompanied Minors – Asylum Seekers, by Nationality and Gender
2003-2014
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Nationality
M
Afghan
Armenian
Austrian
Belarusian
Congolese
DR
Stateless
Estonian
Ethiopian
Eritrean
Georgian
Guinean
Indian
Iraq
Latvian
Nigerian
Pakistani
Russian
Sri Lankan
Tajik
Ukrainian
Uzbek
Vietnamese
1
1
Total:
12
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
14
M
F
2
M
F
M
3
8
2
2
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
9
7
10
2
8
2
2
5
1
2
3
12
24
28
11
39
6
5
11
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
5
1
1
3
8
3
1
9
10
10
3
1
4
2
2
3
1
4
1
5
70
2.5. Economic (labour) migration
The labour immigration policy in Lithuania is based on demand and compensation principles:
TCNs are admitted only to satisfy the existing labour shortage which cannot be compensated by the
national labour market itself, returning Lithuanian emigrants or EU citizens. One of the key
objectives of Lithuania’s national policy is to promote the return of Lithuanian citizens who
emigrated. Hence, the aim is to ensure that third-country nationals do not occupy jobs/ compete
with the returning Lithuanian citizens. The main principles of labour immigration are temporality,
complementarity and response to mismatch between demand and supply in the national labour
market.
2.5.1. Labour market situation
Demand for foreign labour is affected by the situation in the labour market. Therefore labour
market trends need to be analysed in order to predict the demand for foreign labour force. In 2009
labour immigration to Lithuania felt drastically as a consequence of economic slowdown. With the
recovery of the economy one can notice the growing demand for foreign workers. However, it still
did not reach the pre-crisis level.
Unemployment rate. In 2014, compared with the previous years, the annual average registered
unemployment rate in the country continued to moderately decrease. The annual average
unemployment rate of the working-age population was 9.5 per cent, or 1.4 per cent lower than the
annual average registered unemployment rate in 2013. Such a trend should be linked with the
overall improvement of the economic situation in the country (see Chart 1).
Chart 1. Unemployment rate (%), 2009-2014
18
Unemployment rate, %
16
15,9
14
13,1
12
11,7
10 10,2
10,9
9,5
8
6
4
2
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: Lithuanian Department of Statistics
In 2014, the youth unemployment rate also continued to decrease, still in 2014, every fourth young
person aged 15-24 and capable of work was unemployed. Youth unemployment is seen as one of
the main causes of emigration, thus reducing the unemployment rate in this age group is a matter of
importance in reducing emigration levels.
71
Chart 2. Youth unemployment (15-24 age group), 2009-2014
40
35,7
Unemployment level, %
35
32,6
30
29,6
26,7
25
21,9
20
15
19,3
13,3
10
5
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: Lithuanian Department of Statistics
At the end of 2014, registered unemployed residents accounted for over 173 000, i.e. almost 28 000,
or 14 per cent less than in 2013 (see Chart 3). This is the lowest rate over the 5-year period. Data on
the proportion of aliens in this figure are not available.
Chart 3. Number of registered unemployed in Lithuania, 2009-2014
Registered unemployed,
thousands
350
312,1
300
250
247,2
216,9
200 203,1
201,3
150
173
100
50
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: Lithuanian Department of Statistics
Mismatch between labour supply and demand. Labour demand was growing. Data of the Lithuanian
Labour Exchange show that in 2014, employers registered in the database of the Labour Exchange
263 000 vacancies (in 2013 – 242 000). There was a 11 per cent decrease for unskilled work.
The biggest problem is not only quantitative, but also qualitative mismatch between supply and
demand in the labour market. The majority of the unemployed are the persons not capable of
competing in the labour market, the long-term unemployed and young people lacking the necessary
professional competence or occupational skills as required by employers. Employers are facing the
shortage of qualified workers, and it becomes increasingly difficult for them to find appropriately
qualified professionals. The shortage of qualified workers is even referred to by entrepreneurs as a
factor impeding the growth of enterprises. Another problem is an imbalanced Lithuanian education
system, which should focus on the training of professionals required by Lithuanian economy/
72
employers. It is generally agreed that immigration policy should focus on the attraction of qualified
workers and researchers. However, employers believe that it is necessary to establish more flexible
and liberal immigration procedures. In their opinion, this is the only way to address the acute
problem of shortage of qualified workers, to attract the intellectual potential and to positively affect
the competitiveness of the state. The Prime Minister of Lithuania has also spoken in favour of
Lithuania attracting qualified professionals from abroad, as workforce shortage may emerge in the
course of implementation of any more or less large-scale projects.
2.5.2. Entry of TCN workers with a work contract
Situation. As already noted the scope of labour immigration depends on economic situation in the
country and the unemployment rate (Chart 4). Economic crisis and rising unemployment
particularly hit sectors where TCN workers were employed (construction, transport). As the
consequence, demand for foreign labour decreased, many work contracts were terminated and
TCNs had to leave the country. In 2014 the situation in the labour market continued to improve and
the number of work permits increased (to 5382) if compared to 2012 (4627 permits).
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
-1
2006
2007
2008
2009
Work permits
2010
2011
2012
2013
Unemployment rate, %
Issued work permits, units
Chart 4: Interdependence between unemployment and arrival of TCN workers, 2006-2014
2014
Unemployment rate
Source: Department of Statistics and Lithuania Labour Exchange
It must be noted that Lithuania compared with other EU countries, is a very homogeneous country.
The number of foreigners residing in Lithuania is low, a bit more than 1% (the EU average is
6.5%). The share of workers is marginal (see table 5).
Chart 5. Number of employees (national and foreign) in Lithuania
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Labour force
1620.6 1606. 1588.3
1603.1
1614.3
1640.9
1634.8
1482. 1473.7
1465.
(thousands)
8
5
2
Unemployed
184.4
132.9 89.3
69.0
94.3
225.1
291.1
226.1 195.2
172.5
(Thousands)
Foreign
877
1,565 2,982
5,686
7,819
2,239
1,808
3,327 4,627
5036
workers
Share of
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
0,28
0.31
foreign
workers in %
Source: Department of Statistics, Lithuanian Labour Exchange. * Data for 2011 is recounted according to Census.
2014
1478.7
183.4
5382
0.36
73
Work permits issued. In 2014, the Lithuanian Labour Exchange15 issued 5 382 work permits to
aliens (7 per cent more than in 2013). The increased issuance of work permits can be explained by
the recovering economy and the growing number of vacancies, especially in the transport sector.
Chart 6. Number of work permits issued to aliens, 2006-2014
9000
Issues work permits, units
8000
7819
7000
6000
5686
5000
5036
4627
5382
4000
3000
3327
2982
2239
2000
1808
1000
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: Lithuanian Labour Exchange
Main sectors. TCNs in Lithuania are employed in sectors in which workers in the national labour
market cannot be found either due to experience required (shipbuilding) or working conditions
(drivers) or emigration (construction). These sectors remained the same for the last 5 years.
The only sector that reached pre-crisis situation in 2014 is the transport sector. The need for
long-haul drivers is permanent and cannot be satisfied by national workers. (see Chart 7).
People, units
Chart 7. TCN workers by sectors in 2009-2014
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2009
2010
2011
Transport
(drivers)
Shipbuilding
Construction
Services
(chefs)
Other
2009
726
210
521
126
224
2010
1135
109
78
9
251
2011
2269
363
236
115
344
2012
3265
406
139
132
685
2013
3783
363
342
146
402
2014
4316
278
111
161
434
2012
2013
2014
Source: Lithuanian Labour Exchange
15
Data of the Lithuanian Labour Exchange report 2013 on the issuance of work permits to aliens in the Republic of
Lithuania
74
In 2014 the absolute majority of work permits were issued to aliens in occupations
recognised as shortage occupations in Lithuania. The lists of shortage occupations are approved by
the Ministry of Social Security and Labour. In 2014, such occupations were registered in the
industry (welders and ship hull assemblers) and services (kitchen chefs and long-haul truck drivers)
sectors. As shown in Chart 9, in 2014 the majority of work permits were issued to long-haul truck
drivers – 80 per cent, 5 per cent – to ship hull assemblers, 3 per cent – to welders (see Chart 9).
Chart 9. Work permits by occupation, 2014
Welders Chefs
Other 4%
3%
8%
Ship hull
assemblers
5%
Long-haul
truck
drivers
80%
Source: Lithuanian Labour Exchange
Countries of origin. The majority of foreign workers come to Lithuania from the
neighbouring countries (Ukraine, Belarus and Russia) (see Chart 10). Among all three only
Ukraine show significant increase, whereas numbers of labour migrants from Russia and Belarus
have even dropped.
Chart 10. Countries of origin of TCN workers, 2008-2014
3500
Workers, units
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Belar
us
2008 2367
2010
Russi Ukrai
Mold Georg Turke
China
India
a
ne
ova
ia
y
269
1137
454
409
129
108
78
636
67
323
83
46
0
5
67
2011 1431
129
1208
173
118
50
6
63
2012 1942
148
1916
178
115
48
7
63
2013 1882
136
2487
113
111
32
3
57
2014 1542
98
3159
157
128
75
3
34
Source: Lithuanian Labour Exchange
75
In 2014, the majority of work permits (3 159) were issued to citizens of Ukraine, which
accounts for 59 per cent of all work permits (see Chart 11). This can be explained by the Crimean/
Ukrainian crisis, when Ukrainians started looking for emigration routes to Lithuania and other EU
countries.
Chart 11. Employees entering with a work permit by citizenship, 2014
China Moldova
2%
3% Russia
Other 2%
5%
Belarus
29%
Ukraine
59%
Source: Lithuanian Labour Exchange
Gender. Labour migration to Lithuania is exclusively male. This can be explained by the
fact that most professions where there is a shortage in Lithuania are male dominated. Therefore,
women comprise only a very small percentage of all foreign workers. In 2014 female constituted 3
percent.
Chart 12. Work permit by gender, 2014
Women
3%
Men
97%
Source: Lithuanian Labour Exchange
76
2.5.3. Entry for the purposes of highly qualified employment
Situation. The main requirements set forth for aliens wishing to enter on as a highly qualified
worker are higher education diploma and a salary which may not be less than two amounts of
average monthly gross earnings in the whole economy most recently published by the Lithuanian
Department of Statistics (Q3 2015 – a monthly salary of not less than EUR 1 426). An application
for the issuance of a temporary residence permit (blue card) must be examined within two months
(if the paid salary is twice the average monthly salary) or within one month (if the paid salary is
three times the average monthly salary). As of November 2014, a temporary residence permit valid
up to three years can be issued for an alien who comes to Lithuania as a highly quailed worker.
Another major facilitation introduced in 2014 was the exemption of highly qualified workers who
receive a monthly salary three times the average monthly salary from the labour market test.
In 2014, 98 temporary residence permits (‘blue card’) were issued or replaced to aliens entering for
the purposes of highly qualified employment. This is twice as much as in 2013. The majority of
Blue Cards were granted for citizens of the Ukraine (over 30 per cent), citizens of Russian
Federation, the US and Belarus. Profession-wise, most of highly qualified migrants to Lithuania in
2014 were engineers, IT specialists, economists.
Currently, the only way to prove high qualifications is by holding a higher education diploma;
however there is no possibility to prove qualifications by professional experience. Such issue has
been criticized by employers and foreigners, since in some industries; employees do not need to
possess university diplomas but require to have considerable experience in the field and could be
considered as highly qualified workers. The Government is discussing needed changes to allow to
recognizing higher qualification based on experience.
2.5.4.. Entry of aliens for the purpose of engaging in lawful activity
Situation. Until November 2014 Lithuania had rather liberal rules for admission of persons wishing
to engage in lawful activities. A temporary residence permit could be issued to an alien if (1) (s)he
is the owner or co-owner of an enterprise registered in Lithuania whose authorised capital is not less
than LTL 50 000 and his stay is necessary for the carrying out of the activities; (2) (s)he is the
owner and head of an enterprise, agency or organisation registered in Lithuania and the principal
goal is to work at the enterprise, agency or organisation; (3) (s)he intends to engage in lawful
activities in Lithuania for which no work permit is required.
The number of temporary residence permits issued on this ground significantly increased. During
2014, 6 600 temporary residence permits were issued (see Chart 16) – nearly 5 times the number of
such permits in 2010.
77
Chart 16. Temporary residence permits for the purpose of engaging in lawful activity,
2010-2014
7000
6615
Issued permits, units
6000
5000
4181
4000
3000
2816
2000
1000
1816
1348
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: Migration Yearbook
The majority of temporary residence permits for the purpose of engaging in lawful activities were
issued to citizens of Russian Federation, Belarus and Ukraine. Temporary residence permits issued
to citizens of Iran and Pakistan account for approximately 5 per cent.
It has been observed in practice that aliens abuse the ground of lawful activities for entry: they often
acquire the enterprises registered in Lithuania, appoint themselves as heads of the company and
apply for the issue of a temporary residence permit seeking to gain access to the Schengen Area
rather to carry out lawful activities. On 1 November 2014, amendments to the Law on the Legal
Status of Aliens entered into force stipulating more stringent requirements for the issue of a
temporary residence permit to aliens who enter to engage in lawful activities/business. The
amendments introduced the requirement for an alien to participate in achieving an enterprise’s
objectives or in its management, also it became mandatory that an enterprise would have carried out
the activities indicated in its documents of incorporation for not less than 6 months prior to the
alien’s application for the issue of a temporary residence permit, that the value of the enterprise’s
equity capital/assets would amount to not less than EUR 28 000, of which not less than EUR 14 000
would be the assets invested by the alien, and that such an enterprise would have created
workplaces for not less than 3 full-time employees.
In 2015, after more stringent requirements were introduced, the number of temporary residence
permits on the ground of engaging in lawful activities has sharply decreased.
The amendments of November 2014 also introduced a new category of business person who has
invested not less than EUR 260 000 in an enterprise and created no less than five working places.
For such aliens temporary residence permit is issued up to three years and they are eligible for
immediate family reunion.