Estonia's Supreme Court Clarifies When Asylum Seekers Can Be Detained

Estonia's Supreme Court this week upheld a lower court's decision to detain a Russian citizen seeking asylum after illegally crossing the border, but simultaneously clarified under what circumstances depriving asylum seekers of their liberty is legal.

The case concerns a Russian citizen of Chechen origin who was detained in Setomaa Parish in summer 2025 after illegally crossing the Russian-Estonian border. The man claimed he fled Russia fearing conscription for the war against Ukraine and requested international protection. Court materials show he had previously been convicted in Chechnya for a drug-related crime and served eight years in a strict-regime colony. After release, he said he was sent to a combat zone, from which he deserted. However, during the application process, he could not name his military unit, place of service, or other details, and also stated he originally intended to reach Austria.

First and second instance courts allowed his detention in a holding center, citing the need to clarify circumstances, risk of flight, and threat to public order. The Supreme Court specified that some of these arguments were erroneous. An asylum seeker cannot be detained solely because officials have not yet completed, translated, or delivered a decision on his case. Deprivation of liberty is only permissible if it is genuinely necessary to establish facts requiring the foreigner's personal involvement.

The court also indicated that a possible appeal of the Police and Border Guard Board's decision cannot serve as grounds for detention. Furthermore, the asylum seeker's unwillingness to return to Russia alone does not indicate a flight risk; on the contrary, the desire to avoid return to a country where danger may threaten is the very foundation of international protection.

Despite this, the court acknowledged that in this particular case, the combination of circumstances – lack of documents, illegal border crossing, a serious criminal record, and intention to go to another EU country – did indicate a risk of evading the procedure and justified detention. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal but altered the legal reasoning of the lower courts' decisions.