How Morgenshtern Managed to Overturn His Entry Ban to Lithuania

A lawyer with Chuzhie in Lithuania has obtained the ruling of Lithuania’s Supreme Administrative Court concerning the Russian rapper.

In April 2026 the court overturned the decision of the Migration Department, which in 2025 had declared Morgenshtern a threat to national security or public order and banned him from entering Lithuania for 10 years.

The migration authority had based that decision on a letter from the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry. The ministry accused the rapper of provocative behaviour at concerts, recalling the fine a Russian court imposed on him in 2021 for promoting drug use in his songs.

Officials also saw promotion of pro-Russian views in one of his songs — and in the conduct of his fans who attended a concert in 2023: “people made obscene gestures and wore clothing bearing the letter Z.”

In addition to these arguments, the Foreign Ministry pointed out that Morgenshtern is listed in the Mirotvorets database as a person implicated in crimes against Ukraine.

In the Migration Department’s view, the rapper’s activity “creates direct conditions for the indoctrination of particular groups within society and contributes to sustaining hostility towards Ukraine’s struggle for freedom, and therefore towards the foreign policy of the Republic of Lithuania and… the national security interests of the Republic of Lithuania.”

Counsel for the rapper argued in court that the Migration Department’s decision was most likely connected to Morgenshtern’s Russian citizenship. Yet he has not lived in Russia since 2022 and has been designated a “foreign agent” at home — that is, an opponent of Putin’s regime.

He has performed in Lithuania twice since then. During his stays in the country, not a single instance of a threat to state security or public order was established. The allegation that audience members displayed banned symbols was not substantiated, and the case was closed.

What is more, the Migration Department had no power to rule that Morgenshtern posed a threat to national security and public order on the basis of Foreign Ministry material. That falls within the competence of the State Security Department (VSD), the police and the State Border Guard Service.

Meanwhile the VSD itself, joined to the proceedings as an interested party, stated that it had taken no part in the decision on Morgenshtern — and asked to be removed from the case.

The court of first instance sided with the Migration Department. But the Supreme Administrative Court disagreed and quashed the migration authority’s decision.

The Chuzhie lawyer explains exactly how the higher court reasoned. (The texts of the rulings in Lithuanian and Russian are in the chat.)

Hello everyone!

So, here is the most important of what the court said:

1. In paragraph 32 the court states that the Migration Department may not declare a person a threat to national security or public order and ban them from entering the country on the basis of information supplied by the Foreign Ministry. Only the State Security Department can assess whether a foreign national poses a threat to national security. An assessment of a threat to public order or to society is carried out either by the police or by the State Border Guard Service.
2. In paragraph 34 the court recalls that the Migration Department must not automatically transpose the State Security Department’s conclusions into its own decisions. The migration authority is obliged to take into account data obtained from other sources, carry out its own assessment and reach an independent conclusion as to whether the person poses a threat to national security. Moreover, a conclusion that such a threat exists “must be reached with particular circumspection, must be reasoned and substantiated, proportionate rather than formalistic.”
3. Paragraph 36 states that the decision of another state — in this case Ukraine, which entered the rapper into the Mirotvorets database — cannot automatically be treated as a threat to Lithuania’s national security.
4. In paragraph 37 the court specifically noted that the arguments about provocative behaviour at concerts, the promotion of a cult of violence and cruelty, and the distribution and consumption of narcotic and psychotropic substances, all allegedly creating the preconditions for conflict, amount to no more than subjective assessment. The court applied the same characterisation to the accusations that his concerts attract followers of the “Russian world,” provoke protests from Ukrainians and create a threat to order and security.

If you are in Vilnius and it matters to you to understand exactly how Lithuania designates foreign nationals as national security threats, come to a free meeting with our lawyers. On 24 September at 19:00, Mikhail Benyash and Dmitry Zakhvatov will be speaking at ABF. They will discuss the risks and how to prepare for them. Details here.