Lenaimon (Area of freedom, security and justice - Border checks, asylum and immigration - Crossing of external borders of the Member States - Judgment) [2026] EUECJ C-634/24 (12 February 2026)

Judgment This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 30.6 of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 30 October 2016 (OJ 2017 L 11, p. 23), also known as CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) ('the CETA') and of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2018 L 303, p. 39). The request has been made in proceedings between M. P. and the Migracijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos (Migration Department under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania) ('the Migration Department') concerning the lawfulness of the decision taken by that department refusing to grant M. P. a temporary Lithuanian residence permit ('the decision at issue in the main proceedings'). Legal context International law Article 1.2 of the CETA provides: 'For the purposes of this Agreement, unless otherwise specified: citizen means: (a) for Canada, a natural person who is a citizen of Canada under Canadian legislation; …' Chapter Ten of that agreement is entitled 'Temporary entry and stay of natural persons for business purposes' and contains Articles 10.1 to 10.10 thereof. Article 10.1 of the CETA provides: 'For the purposes of this Chapter: … key personnel means business visitors for investment purposes, investors, or intra-corporate transferees: … (b) investors means natural persons who establish, develop, or administer the operation of an investment in a capacity that is supervisory or executive, and to which those persons or the enterprise employing those persons has committed, or is in the process of committing, a substantial amount of capital; and … natural persons for business purposes means key personnel, contractual services suppliers, independent professionals, or short-term business visitors who are citizens of a Party.' Article 10.2 of that agreement provides: '1. This Chapter reflects the preferential trading relationship between the Parties as well as the mutual objective to facilitate trade in services and investment by allowing temporary entry and stay to natural persons for business purposes and by ensuring transparency in the process. 2. This Chapter applies to measures adopted or maintained by a Party concerning the temporary entry and stay into its territory of key personnel, contractual services suppliers, independent professionals and short-term business visitors. This Chapter shall not apply to measures affecting natural persons seeking access to the employment market of a Party, nor shall it apply to measures regarding citizenship, residence, or employment on a permanent basis. 3. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across its borders, provided that such measures are not applied in such a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Party under the terms of this Chapter. The sole fact of requiring a visa for natural persons of a certain country and not for those of others shall not be regarded as nullifying or impairing benefits under this Chapter. 4. To the extent that commitments are not taken in this Chapter, all other requirements of the laws of the Parties regarding entry and stay continue to apply, including those concerning period of stay. …' Under Article 10.3(1) of the CETA: 'Each Party shall allow temporary entry to natural persons for business purposes of the other Party who otherwise comply with the Party's immigration measures applicable to temporary entry, in accordance with this Chapter.' Article 10.6(1) of that agreement provides: 'This Agreement does not impose an obligation on a Party regarding its immigration measures, except as specifically identified in this Chapter and in Chapter Twenty-Seven (Transparency).' Article 10.7 of that agreement provides: '1. Each Party shall allow the temporary entry and stay of key personnel of the other Party subject to the reservations and exceptions listed in Annex 10-B. 2. Each Party shall not adopt or maintain limitations on the total number of key personnel of the other Party allowed temporary entry, in the form of a numerical restriction or an economic needs test. … 4. Each Party shall allow the temporary employment in its territory of intra-corporate transferees and investors of the other Party. 5. The permissible length of stay of key personnel is as follows: … (c) investors: one year, with possible extensions at the discretion of the Party granting the temporary entry and stay; …' Article 28.3(2) of the CETA provides: 'For the purposes of Chapters … Ten (Temporary Entry and Stay of Natural Persons for Business Purposes), … subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between the Parties where like conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on trade in services, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by a Party of measures necessary: (a) to protect public security or public morals or to maintain public order … (b) to protect human, animal or plant life or health … (c) to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement including those relating to: … (iii) safety.' Article 28.6 of the CETA provides: 'Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed: … (b) to prevent a Party from taking an action that it considers necessary to protect its essential security interests: … (ii) taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations; or … (c) prevent a Party from taking any action in order to carry out its international obligations for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.' Article 30.6 of that agreement provides: '1. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as conferring rights or imposing obligations on persons other than those created between the Parties under public international law, nor as permitting this Agreement to be directly invoked in the domestic legal systems of the Parties. 2. A Party shall not provide for a right of action under its domestic law against the other Party on the ground that a measure of the other Party is inconsistent with this Agreement.' European Union law Decision (EU) 2017/38 Recitals 4 and 6 of Council Decision (EU) 2017/38 of 28 October 2016 on the provisional application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part (OJ 2017 L 11, p.1080) state: '(4) Parts of the Agreement falling within the competence of the Union may be applied on a provisional basis, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion. … (6) In accordance with Article 30.6(1) of the Agreement, the Agreement does not confer rights or obligations which can be directly invoked before Union or Member State courts or tribunals,' Article 1 of that decision provides: '1. The [CETA] shall be applied on a provisional basis by the Union as provided for in Article 30.7(3) thereof, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion, and subject to the following points: …' The Schengen Borders Code Under Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2016 L 77 p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2018/1240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 (OJ 2018 L 236, p. 1) ('the Schengen Borders Code'): 'For intended stays on the territory of the Member States of a duration of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period, which entails considering the 180-day period preceding each day of stay, the entry conditions for third-country nationals shall be the following: … (b) they are in possession of a valid visa, if required pursuant to [Regulation 2018/1806], except where they hold a valid residence permit or a valid long-stay visa; …' The Visa Code Article 1(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1155 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 (OJ 2019 L 188, p. 25) ('the Visa Code'), provides: '1. This Regulation establishes the procedures and conditions for issuing visas for intended stays on the territory of the Member States not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period. … 3. This Regulation also lists the third countries whose nationals are required to hold an airport transit visa by way of exception from the principle of free transit laid down in Annex 9 to the [Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944 ( United Nations Treaty Series , Volume 15, No 102) and entered into force on 4 April 1947], and establishes the procedures and conditions for issuing visas for the purpose of transit through the international transit areas of Member States' airports.' Article 2 of the Visa Code provides: 'For the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply: … 2. “visa” means an authorisation issued by a Member State with a view to: (a) an intended stay on the territory of the Member States not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period; or (b) transit through the international transit areas of airports of the Member States; …' Regulation 2018/1806 Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1806 provides: 'Nationals of third countries listed in Annex I shall be required to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States [(“the Schengen visa”)].' Article 4(1) of that regulation provides: 'Nationals of third countries listed in Annex II shall be exempt from the requirement set out in Article 3(1) for stays of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period.' Article 6 of that regulation provides: '1. A Member State may provide for exceptions from the visa requirement provided for in Article 3 or from the exemption from the visa requirement provided for in Article 4 as regards: (a) holders of diplomatic passports, service/official passports or special passports; (b) civilian air and sea crew members in the performance of their duties; (c) civilian sea crew members, when they go ashore, who hold a seafarer's identity document issued in accordance with the [Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention (No 108), adopted on 13 May 1958 at the Forty-first session of the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and entered into force on 19 February 1961,] or [The Seafarers' Identity Documents Convention (Revised) (No 185), adopted on 19 June 2003 at the Ninety-first session of the General Conference of the ILO and entered into force on 9 February 2005,] or the [Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic, signed in London on 9 April 1965 and entered into force on 5 March 1967 ( United Nations Treaty Series , Volume 591, No 265)]; (d) crew and members of emergency or rescue missions in the event of a disaster or an accident; (e) civilian crew of ships navigating in international inland waters; (f) holders of travel documents issued by intergovernmental international organisations of which at least one Member State is a member, or by other entities recognised by the Member State concerned as subjects of international law, to officials of those organisations or entities. … 3. A Member State may provide for exceptions from the exemption from the visa requirement provided for in Article 4 as regards persons carrying out a paid activity during their stay.' Annex I to that regulation lists third countries whose nationals are required to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States. The Russian Federation is one of those third countries. Annex II to Regulation 2018/1806 lists third countries whose nationals are exempt from the requirement to be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States for stays of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period. Canada and the State of Israel are among those third countries. Lithuanian law The Law on foreigners Article 40(1)(16) of the Lietuvos Respublikos įstatymas dėl užsieniečių teisinės padėties Nr. IX-2206 (Law of the Republic of Lithuania No IX-2206 on the Legal Status of Foreigners) of 29 April 2004 (Žin., 2004, No 73-2539), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings ('the Law on foreigners'), provides that a temporary residence permit may be issued or renewed to a foreigner if he or she is a national of Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, New Zealand or South Korea and intends to take up employment or to pursue other lawful activities in the Republic of Lithuania. The Law establishing restrictive measures Under Article 1 of the Lietuvos Respublikos ribojamųjų priemonių dėl karinės agresijos prieš Ukrainą nustatymo įstatymas Nr. XIV-1888 (Law No XIV-1888 of the Republic of Lithuania establishing restrictive measures on account of the military aggression against Ukraine) of 20 April 2023 (TAR, 2023, No 2023-7804; 'the Law establishing restrictive measures'), that law is intended to protect the national security and foreign policy interests of the Republic of Lithuania and to attain the objectives referred to in Article 1(1) of the Lietuvos Respublikos tarptautinių sankcijų įstatymas Nr. IX-2160 (Law of the Republic of Lithuania No IX-2160 on international sanctions) of 22 April 2004 (Žin., 2004, No 68-2369), by establishing the restrictive measures applied in Lithuania on account of the military aggression committed by foreign states against Ukraine. Under Article 3(1) and (2) of the Law establishing restrictive measures, first, the acceptance of visa applications from citizens of the Russian Federation and of the Republic of Belarus by the visa offices of the Republic of Lithuania located abroad is to be suspended, except in cases where the submission of the application concerned is mediated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania and, second, the acceptance of national visa applications by citizens of the Russian Federation and of the Republic of Belarus via an external service provider abroad is to be suspended. Under Article 3(3) of the Law establishing restrictive measures, the acceptance of applications made by citizens of the Russian Federation via an external service provider abroad for a temporary Lithuanian residence permit is to be suspended, with the exception of citizens of the Russian Federation for whom an authority authorised by the Lithuanian Government acts as an intermediary in the cases determined by the Lithuanian Government. The acceptance of those applications is also to be suspended in Lithuania, with the exception of applications submitted by citizens of the Russian Federation who hold a valid Schengen visa or a valid national visa issued abroad or in Lithuania by the visa office of the Republic of Lithuania, or a valid residence permit issued by the Republic of Lithuania or by another EU Member State. Under Article 4(1) of the Law establishing restrictive measures, the restrictive measures referred to in Article 3 thereof, with the exception of the restrictive measure referred to in Article 3(2) thereof, are to apply for a period of one year from the date of entry into force of that law. Under Article 5 of the Law establishing restrictive measures, that law entered into force on 3 May 2023 and remained in force until 2 May 2024. The Law of 25 April 2024 Article 2 of the Lietuvos Respublikos ribojamųjų priemonių dėl karinės agresijos prieš Ukrainą nustatymo įstatymo Nr. XIV-1888 3, 4 ir 5 straipsnių pakeitimo įstatymas Nr. XIV-2581 (Law No XIV-2581 amending Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Law No XIV-1888 of the Republic of Lithuania establishing restrictive measures on account of the military aggression against Ukraine) of 25 April 2024 (TAR, 2024, No 2024-8222k; 'the Law of 25 April 2024') amended inter alia Article 4(1) of the Law establishing restrictive measures so that the restrictive measures provided for in Article 3, with the exception of that referred to in paragraph 8 thereof, were applicable from 3 May 2024 to 2 May 2025. Article 3 of the Law of 25 April 2024 amended Article 5 of the Law establishing restrictive measures by providing that the latter is to remain in force until 2 May 2025. Article 4(1) of the Law of 25 April 2024 provides that that law is to enter into force on 3 May 2024, with the exception of Article 1(5) and Article 4(3) thereof. The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling M. P., who is a Canadian, Russian and Israeli national, entered Lithuania with a Canadian passport. The competent Lithuanian authorities did not, therefore, require him to hold a visa in order to enter the territory of that Member State. On 13 October 2023, M. P. submitted an application for a temporary Lithuanian residence permit under Article 40(1)(16) of the Law on foreigners, which he requested to be treated with urgency. He claimed that he was a Canadian national, that he held shares in an undertaking which carried on its activity in Lithuania and that he had travelled to Lithuania in order to work there. Amongst other documents, the appellant attached to his application copies of his Canadian, Russian and Israeli passports. On 19 October 2023, the Klaipėda (Lithuania) Division within the Migration Department agreed to examine his application. On 20 October 2023, the Migration Department asked M. P. to specify the nationality under which he was applying for a temporary Lithuanian residence permit. M. P. stated, once again, that he was applying for that permit as a Canadian national. By the decision at issue in the main proceedings, notified to M. P. on 30 November 2023, the Migration Department withdrew the decision of the Klaipėda Division agreeing to examine M. P.'s application for a residence permit, on the ground that M. P. was not only a Canadian national but also a Russian national and that he had not attached to his application any of the documents referred to in Article 3(3) of the Law establishing restrictive measures, namely a valid Schengen or national visa, issued by the visa office of the Republic of Lithuania, or a valid residence permit issued by a Member State. M. P. brought an action before the Regionų administracinio teismo Vilniaus rūmai (Vilnius Chamber of the Regional Administrative Court, Lithuania) seeking, inter alia, the annulment of the decision at issue in the main proceedings. Following the dismissal of his action, by judgment of 2 April 2024, M. P. brought an appeal against that judgment before the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania), which is the referring court. M. P. claims that, although they had accepted that he was a Canadian national, had applied the visa-free regime to his entry into Lithuanian territory and had agreed to examine his application for a temporary Lithuanian residence permit on account of his status as a Canadian national, the Lithuanian authorities subsequently decided to take account of his Russian nationality in order to apply in his regard the provisions of the Law establishing restrictive measures. He argues that there is no provision which prohibits a person who is a national of several third countries from choosing from amongst his or her nationalities the nationality on which he or she intends to rely in order to submit an application for a residence permit to the Lithuanian authorities. According to M. P., his Canadian nationality was thus disregarded, whereas, under Articles 10.1 and 10.6 to 10.9 of the CETA, the parties to that agreement must allow certain nationals of those parties, such as entrepreneurs, investors, company executives or professionals, to enter and reside in the country concerned, without further authorisation, to work in companies established there or to engage in business activities in the country concerned. M. P. claims that the CETA provisions establish a right for such Canadian citizens to obtain a permit to reside temporarily in Lithuania, and that the corresponding regulation is implemented at the national level by Article 40(1)(16) of the Law on foreigners. In the event of a conflict between the CETA and Article 3(3) of the Law establishing restrictive measures, that agreement should prevail. The Migration Department, for its part, contends that the Law establishing restrictive measures does not exclude from its scope Russian nationals who are also citizens of another country. It is not for that department to determine the nationality of the person who has applied for a temporary Lithuanian residence permit; rather that department must confine itself to examining the documents attached to that application. The referring court notes, in the first place, that Article 30.6 of the CETA states that nothing in that agreement is to be construed as conferring rights or imposing obligations on persons other than those created between the parties under public international law, nor as permitting that agreement to be directly invoked in the domestic legal systems of the parties, as confirmed by the Court of Justice in Opinion 1/17 (EU-Canada CET Agreement) of 30 April ( EU:C:2019:341 ). That being said, according to the referring court, since the case which gave rise to that opinion differs from the case in the main proceedings, it is necessary to determine whether Article 30.6 of the CETA must be interpreted as precluding M. P. from relying on the provisions of that agreement before the referring court. In the second place, that court notes that, under Article 3(1) of, and Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1806, Russian nationals wishing to enter Lithuanian territory must hold a visa, whereas, under Article 4(1) of, and Annex II to, that regulation, Canadian nationals are exempt from that requirement for stays of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period. In the present case, although the Lithuanian authorities applied to M. P.'s entry into their territory, as a Canadian national, a visa-free regime, they subsequently made it subject, when applying for a temporary Lithuanian residence permit, to an obligation to present either a Schengen or national visa or a valid residence permit issued by the Republic of Lithuania, or a valid residence permit issued by another EU Member State. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 3(1) and (2) of the Law establishing restrictive measures, M. P. cannot obtain a national visa as a Russian national. Furthermore, according to the referring court, M. P. does not fall within any of the situations that may be the subject of exceptions from the visa exemption referred to in Article 6(1)(a) to (f) of Regulation 2018/1806. Moreover, although Article 6(3) of that regulation also allows Member States to provide for such exceptions in respect of persons carrying out a paid activity during their stay, the purpose of M. P.'s entry into Lithuanian territory is nonetheless irrelevant for the purposes of the application of the Law establishing restrictive measures. Accordingly, the referring court considers that Article 6(3) is also not applicable in the present case. In those circumstances, the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: '1. Should Article 30.6 of the [CETA] be interpreted as precluding a person holding Canadian, Israeli and Russian citizenship from relying on the provisions of that agreement in an appeal to a national court regarding a permit to reside temporarily in the Republic of Lithuania in circumstances such as those [at issue in the main proceedings]? 2. Is Article 4(1) of Regulation [2018/1806], read in conjunction with Annex II [to that regulation], to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation valid for a limited period, under which a Russian citizen seeking to apply for a permit to reside [temporarily] in the Republic of Lithuania is subject to a requirement to present a valid visa or residence permit, notwithstanding the fact that such a person has entered the Republic of Lithuania under a visa-free regime as a national of a [country] listed in Annex II to [that regulation], while at the same time raising the question of the compatibility of those provisions of [that regulation] with [the] CETA in circumstances such as those [at issue in the main proceedings]?' By letter of 8 July 2025, the Registry of the Court of Justice sent the referring court a request for clarification. In response to that request, the referring court stated, first, that, in its view, M. P. could be regarded as an 'investor' within the meaning of Article 10.1 of the CETA, second, that Article 3(3) of the Law establishing restrictive measures did not have the effect of suspending the admission of applications for temporary residence permits submitted by Russian nationals if they held a Lithuanian residence permit or a residence permit issued by another Member State and, third, that, under the Lietuvos Respublikos ribojamųjų priemonių dėl karinės agresijos prieš Ukrainą nustatymo įstatymo Nr. XIV-1888 3, 4 ir 5 straipsnių pakeitimo įstatymas Nr. XV-170 (Law No XV-170 amending Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Law No XIV-1888 of the Republic of Lithuania establishing restrictive measures on account of the military aggression against Ukraine) of 17 April 2025 (TAR, 2025, No 2025-7432), the measures provided for in Article 3(3) thereof were applicable until 2 May 2026. Consideration of the questions referred The first question It is apparent from the statements made by the referring court in its first question in the request for a preliminary ruling and from its answer to the request for clarification sent to it by the Court that the referring court is uncertain whether the provisions of Chapter Ten of the CETA may be invoked before it by an individual, having the status of a Canadian investor, within the meaning of Article 10.1 of that agreement. It follows that, by its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 30.6 of the CETA must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Chapter Ten have direct effect. In the first place, it must be pointed out that, as the European Commission has noted, Chapter Ten falls within the competence of the European Union and has been applied provisionally since 21 September 2017, in accordance with Article 1 of Decision 2017/38. Accordingly, the question whether the provisions in Chapter Ten have direct effect is not to be determined exclusively by the national courts on the basis of their national law (judgments of 14 December 2000, Dior and Others , C‑300/98 and C‑392/98, EU:C:2000:688, paragraph 48; of 11 September 2007, Merck Genéricos – Produtos Farmacêuticos , C‑431/05, EU:C:2007:496, paragraphs 34 and 47; and of 8 March 2011, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie , C‑240/09, EU:C:2011:125 , paragraphs 32 and 33). In the second place, it follows from settled case-law that it is only if the international agreement in question has not dealt with the question of its direct effect that it is for the Court of Justice to decide that question, on the basis in particular of the agreement's spirit, general scheme or terms (judgment of 13 January 2015, Council and Others v Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht , C‑401/12 P to C‑403/12 P, EU:C:2015:4 , paragraph 53 and the case-law cited). As noted by the Lithuanian Government and the Commission, Article 30.6 of the CETA unambiguously precludes the provisions of that agreement from being directly invoked by an individual before a national court. It follows that the provisions of Chapter Ten of that agreement must be regarded as not having direct effect (see, to that effect, Opinion 1/17 (EU-Canada CET Agreement) of 30 April 2019, EU:C:2019:341 , paragraphs 181 and 198). In the third place, it is nevertheless important to add, in order to provide a useful answer to the referring court, that, where the dispute in the main proceedings falls within the scope of EU law, the applicable national law must be interpreted, to the fullest extent possible, in a manner consistent with an international agreement forming part of EU law, even where that agreement does not have direct effect (see, to that effect, judgments of 4 July 2006, Adeneler and Others , C‑212/04, EU:C:2006:443 , paragraph 113; of 8 November 2022, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Approval of motor vehicles) , C‑873/19, EU:C:2022:857 , paragraph 66; and of 11 January 2024, Societatea Civilă Profesională de Avocaţi AB & CD , C‑252/22, EU:C:2024:13 , paragraphs 76 and 82 and the case-law cited). However, such an obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law has certain limits. Thus, the obligation on a national court to refer to the content of an international agreement when interpreting and applying the relevant rules of domestic law is limited by general principles of law and it cannot serve as the basis for a contra legem interpretation of national law (see, by analogy, judgments of 20 February 2024, X (Lack of reasons for termination) , C‑715/20, EU:C:2024:139 , paragraph 70, and of 27 February 2024, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann, C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2024:172 , paragraph 74). It follows that, notwithstanding the lack of direct effect of the provisions in Chapter Ten of the CETA, if a provision of Lithuanian law, relevant to the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings, proves to be incompatible with those provisions, it would be for the referring court to examine whether it is possible, within the limits referred to in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment, to interpret its national law in a manner consistent with those provisions, taking the whole body of that domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law (judgment of 15 October 2024, KUBERA , C‑144/23, EU:C:2024:881, paragraph 51). It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the first question is that Article 30.6 of the CETA must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Chapter Ten of that agreement do not have direct effect, which does not, however, preclude them from being used as a basis for an interpretation of the national legislation concerned in conformity with EU law. The second question By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 4(1) of Regulation 2018/1806, read in conjunction with Annex II to that regulation, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which the acquisition, by a Russian national, of a permit to reside temporarily in its territory is conditional upon that national presenting a visa issued by the authorities of that Member State or a residence permit issued by any of the Member States where that national entered the territory of the first of those Member States without having to present a visa, on the ground that he or she is also a national of one of the countries referred to in Annex II to that regulation. The referring court also has doubts as to whether those provisions of Regulation 2018/1806 are compatible with the CETA. In the first place, it is apparent, first, from Article 6(1) of the Schengen Borders Code that the residence permit conferred by that code on third-country nationals authorises them only to stay on the territory of the Schengen area for a maximum period of 90 days in any 180-day period (judgment of 5 February 2020, Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Signing-on of seamen in the port of Rotterdam) , C‑341/18, EU:C:2020:76 , paragraph 58). Second, Article 6 also lays down the obligation, for some of those third-country nationals, to be in possession of a valid visa in order to be able to benefit from such a short-term right of residence. As is apparent from Article 1 of the Visa Code, that code thus has the objective of establishing the procedures and conditions for issuing visas for transit through or intended stays on the territory of the Member States not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period. In Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of the Visa Code the concept of 'visa' is defined, for the purpose of that code, as meaning 'an authorisation issued by a Member State' with a view, respectively, to 'an intended stay on the territory of the Member States not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period' and to 'transit through the international transit areas of airports of the Member States' (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 March 2017, X and X , C‑638/16 PPU, EU:C:2017:173 , paragraph 41). In a similar vein, Regulation 2018/1806 sets out the list of third countries whose nationals are subject to such a visa requirement or who are exempt from complying with it. Accordingly, Article 4(1) of Regulation 2018/1806 provides that nationals of third countries listed in Annex II to that regulation are not obliged to obtain a visa to cross the external borders of the European Union for stays of no more than 90 days in any 180-day period. It follows that that provision exempts nationals of certain third countries, including Canada, but not the Russian Federation, from the requirement to obtain a visa in order to stay for a short period in the territory of the Schengen area. In the light of the information provided by the referring court, such a short-term stay is not at issue in the main proceedings. First, it is apparent from the order for reference that M. P. is seeking a temporary right of residence in order to work in Lithuania for a manifestly longer period than that of the stay granted under the Schengen Borders Code. Second, it is in no way clear from that order that the dispute in the main proceedings concerns the lawfulness of M. P.'s entry into Lithuanian territory or a decision of the Lithuanian authorities which extinguished in an anticipated manner MP's right to a short stay in that territory, as guaranteed by the Schengen Borders Code. Since Regulation 2018/1806 does not concern the grant of a temporary right of residence, such as that at issue in the main proceedings (see, by analogy, judgment of 16 January 2018, E , C‑240/17, EU:C:2018:8 , paragraph 41), that regulation cannot preclude legislation such as that described in the second question referred for a preliminary ruling. It follows, in the second place, that it is not necessary to examine the remainder of the question relating to whether Article 4(1) of Regulation 2018/1806 and Annex II thereto are compatible with the CETA. It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the second question is that Article 4(1) of Regulation 2018/1806, read in conjunction with Annex II to that regulation, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which the acquisition by a Russian national of a permit to reside temporarily in its territory is conditional upon that national presenting a visa issued by the authorities of that Member State or a residence permit issued by any of the Member States where that national entered the territory of the first of those Member States without having to present a visa, on the ground that he or she is also a national of one of the countries referred to in Annex II to that regulation. Costs Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 30.6 of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 30 October 2016, must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of Chapter Ten of that agreement do not have direct effect, which does not, however, preclude them from being used as a basis for an interpretation of the national legislation concerned in conformity with EU law. 2. Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, read in conjunction with Annex II to that regulation, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which the acquisition by a Russian national of a permit to reside temporarily in its territory is conditional upon that national presenting a visa issued by the authorities of that Member State or a residence permit issued by any of the Member States where that national entered the territory of the first of those Member States without having to present a visa, on the ground that he or she is also a national of one of the countries referred to in Annex II to that regulation. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Lithuanian. i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. © European Union The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII