When “national security risk” becomes an empty formula
When “national security risk” becomes an empty formula, the court must remind us: the rule of law prevails, not intuition or belief.
Our team members, partner Andželika Buivydė and Justinas Bieliauskas, successfully represented a client in a case concerning funding under the Defence Technology Development Programme, where institutions refused to finance a project based on an abstract and unsubstantiated “national security risk”.
In the decision — which significantly restricted the client’s operations — the authorities failed to specify:
which exact national security criterion was applied,
what facts supported the alleged threat,
whether any individual assessment had been carried out.
In other words, the decision was taken blindly.
The court was unequivocal: this is not permissible. And this position is now final.
The court annulled the institutions’ decision as unfounded and non-compliant with the requirements of the Law on Public Administration.
The case established that:
The decision did not indicate which specific criterion under Article 11 of the Law on the Protection of Objects Important for National Security had been relied upon;
The authorities failed to disclose the factual circumstances forming the basis of the alleged threat;
No individual assessment was conducted, and conclusions were based solely on generic assumptions;
The client had no real opportunity to understand the grounds of the decision, violating principles of legal certainty, proportionality and transparency.
The court emphasized that while safeguarding national security is a legitimate and important objective, it cannot be based on hypothetical assumptions incompatible with the case law of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. Institutions must justify decisions with objective data, carry out an individual assessment, and provide clear and verifiable reasoning — not block business activity without grounds.
This case is more than a win for one client.
It is a message to institutions: even in today’s geopolitical climate, “national security” cannot be used as a universal justification for restrictions without factual basis.
