Article 25(2) of the CAO sets a general fine range from EUR 10 to EUR 6,000, but a specific fine arises only where provided for in a sanction in the Special Part.
Article 29(3) of the CAO permits confiscation of property only where this is provided for in an article of the Special Part.
The sources provided for this item do not substantiate either presidential liability or any mechanism for reinstating E. Misiūnas to judicial office. They support a narrower conclusion: under the visible legal provisions, this matter does not fall within the field of administrative-offence sanctions, because no Special Part provision has been provided for such conduct. The newsworthy fact is the reopening of the civil case and the renewed dismissal of the claim following the ECtHR judgment. On the basis of the sources provided, the precise issue to be assessed would be whether the described acts may be classified as an administrative offence under Article 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania, and whether penalties may be imposed under Articles 23, 25, 29, 33 and 34 of the CAO.
Article 1(2) of the CAO defines the purpose of the Code: it establishes prohibited acts, penalties, grounds for liability and procedure. Administrative liability would require several elements:
In practical terms, these sources do not permit any prediction of the outcome of E. Misiūnas’s civil claim, the procedure for a new appointment, or the scope of implementation of the ECtHR judgment. They only allow the administrative-sanctions scenario to be rejected on the basis of the normative framework provided. The realistic scenarios supported by the sources are limited:
Article 139(1) of the Criminal Code permits the imposition of community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to one year.
If only breaches of animal welfare or registration requirements causing harm were established, Article 346(4) of the Code of Administrative Offences would provide for a fine of EUR 150 to EUR 300, while repeat offending under paragraph 5 would carry a fine of EUR 300 to EUR 550.
Following the final and binding ruling, the dog owner must serve the imposed restriction of liberty and pay the awarded amounts. The key point for the reader is that criminal liability arose here not from the dogs’ aggressiveness in itself, but from the owner’s duty to foresee and manage the risk they posed. The case concerned whether the owner’s omission constituted negligent minor impairment of health under Article 139(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. This provision applies where, through negligence, a person is injured in such a way that they were ill for a prolonged period or lost a small part of their capacity for work, but where the serious consequences specified in Article 135(1) of the Criminal Code are absent. Article 55 of the Criminal Code explains the sentencing rationale: a person being tried for the first time for a negligent offence is generally given a sentence not involving arrest or fixed-term imprisonment.
In the ruling of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the decisive factor was the totality of circumstantial evidence. The court relied on the victim’s testimony, medical expert conclusions, witness statements, and the convicted person’s conduct after the incident. This case shows that a dog owner’s guilt may be established on the basis of a coherent body of evidence, where it confirms causation and negligence. The owner’s duties in this situation were practical, but their breach crossed into criminal law:
Administrative liability under Article 346(4) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for a fine of EUR 150 to EUR 300 where a breach of animal welfare or registration requirements causes harm to health or property. In this case, however, the consequences were assessed under criminal law because impairment of health under Article 139 of the Criminal Code was established. Article 137 of the Criminal Code applies to serious impairment of health caused by negligence and allows imprisonment for up to three years, or up to five years where special safety rules have been breached. The convicted person’s arguments concerning the enclosure and the absence of witnesses were rejected because the court found the other evidence sufficient. Article 2(3) of the Criminal Code requires guilt and the possibility of demanding lawful conduct, and the regional court found that the owner could and should have foreseen the consequences.
The practical consequence for the convicted person is that he must serve a one-year sentence of restriction of liberty. Within six months, he must participate in a behaviour correction programme and pay a EUR 1,000 contribution to the Fund for Victims of Crime. The financial consequences are:
For animal keepers, this ruling means that it is not sufficient to assert that the dog should have been confined. If the totality of evidence shows that the animal ran loose and injured a person, the owner’s omission may be classified as criminal negligence.
If, in the future, an institution were to link municipal inaction to Article 515 of the Code of Administrative Offences, it would have to identify a specific Lithuanian restrictive measure.
In the event of a repeated violation, Article 515(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for stricter amounts: EUR 2,000 to EUR 6,000 for individuals, and EUR 4,000 to EUR 6,000 for responsible persons.
Members of the Vilnius District Council do not incur a fine under the cited provisions merely for voting against the commission or abstaining. For the reader, the practical position is as follows: the sources provided allow only the limits of administrative liability to be assessed, not any duty to rename streets. The precise question is narrow: whether, in this situation, the elements of an administrative offence are apparent under Article 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania and whether a sanction applies under a specific provision of the Special Part. The closest special provision cited is Article 515 of the Code of Administrative Offences, but it applies to violations of international sanctions implemented in the Republic of Lithuania or restrictive measures established by law. The report refers to a disciplinary sanction imposed by the Holy See on a cardinal, not to an international sanction implemented in the Republic of Lithuania or a statutory restrictive measure.
Under Article 1(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences, the Code defines prohibited acts, penalties, the grounds for liability, and administrative-offence proceedings. Accordingly, liability cannot arise solely from a political dispute, pressure from a picket, or an ethical assessment of commemoration. If a violation of Article 515(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences were established, the sanctions would be specific:
However, the facts provided do not indicate a breach of a Lithuanian restrictive measure, so the mechanism for these fines remains hypothetical for now. If an administrative case were nevertheless examined, the selection of the penalty would be governed by Article 34(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences. That provision requires consideration of the nature of the act, the form and type of fault, the person concerned, and mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Under Article 34(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences, the amount of the fine starts from the average of the minimum and maximum fine prescribed by the special provision. Where only mitigating circumstances are present, the fine would not exceed the average; where only aggravating circumstances are present, it would not be lower than the average. In the case of an administrative order, Article 33(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences generally permits an offer to pay half of the minimum fine. The general catalogue of penalties under Article 23 of the Code of Administrative Offences includes a warning, a fine, and community service. Under Article 25(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences, a fine may not be less than EUR 10 or more than EUR 6,000, except for the EUR 5 threshold applicable to an administrative order. Administrative measures under Article 27 of the Code of Administrative Offences include deprivation of a special right, confiscation of property, and other prohibitions or obligations. Confiscation of property under Article 29(3) of the Code of Administrative Offences is possible only where provided for in an article of the Special Part. Under Article 29(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences, only the instrument, means, object of the offence, or the result of the prohibited act may be confiscated. Article 687 of the Code of Administrative Offences provides that confiscation is carried out by the institution that conducted the investigation or adopted the decision.
The practical significance of this matter, according to the sources provided, lies not in the amount of any fine but in the limited basis for administrative liability. The sources provided do not establish any separate liability for participants in the picket for calling for streets to be renamed or for the title of honorary citizen to be withdrawn. Nor do the sources provided establish any administrative penalty for council members based on their voting motive or failure to support a decision. What realistically remains is the political and administrative decision-making process within the municipality, but its rules are not set out in the sources provided. Without such a measure, there would be no basis for applying the sanction ranges of EUR 200 to EUR 6,000 or EUR 600 to EUR 6,000.