Legal prism — 2026-08-23

Under Article 15(1) of the Lithuania-Switzerland Double Taxation Convention, remuneration from employment may be taxed in Switzerland if the work is actually performed in Switzerland.

Under Article 23 of the Convention, where income of a Lithuanian resident may be taxed in Switzerland, Lithuania allows a deduction from Lithuanian income tax equal to the income tax paid in Switzerland.

Core issue

For a Lithuanian considering employment in Switzerland, the principal legal risk concerns the status of the contract, taxation and professional qualification. A high gross salary legally guarantees nothing if it is unclear who the employer is, where the work is performed and what payments remain after taxation. This is determined under Articles 15 and 23 of the Lithuania-Switzerland Double Taxation Convention, Articles 1 and 2 of the Labour Code, Article 1 of the Law on Employment and the rules applicable to contracts for work abroad.

Legal assessment

The exception applies only where the three conditions in Article 15(2) are satisfied simultaneously:

• the employee is present in Switzerland for no more than 183 days in any twelve-month period;
• the remuneration is paid by, or on behalf of, an employer who is not a resident of Switzerland;
• the remuneration is not borne by a permanent establishment or fixed base of the employer in Switzerland.

If these conditions are not met cumulatively, the advertised EUR 4,000, EUR 5,000 or EUR 6,500 must be assessed as an amount whose tax outcome will depend on the place where the work is performed and the employer’s status. However, the credit may not exceed that part of the Lithuanian tax attributable to the income taxable in Switzerland. The content of the employment contract must be specified in accordance with paragraph 18 of the submitted rules:

• the name of the country;
• the employer;
• the duration of employment;
• the nature of the work;
• the amount of remuneration and the payment procedure;
• the amount of social insurance contributions and the payment procedure;
• the procedure for reimbursing job-search and employment-related expenses.

Where employment is arranged through an intermediary, paragraph 15 of the rules requires the contract with the foreign employer to address qualification requirements, duration of work, remuneration arrangements, social insurance, compensation in the event of illness or accident, and living conditions. This matters because lawful intermediation must be verifiable by reference to contractual obligations. Article 1 of the Law on the Recognition of Regulated Professional Qualifications establishes the principles and procedures for recognition of qualifications in Lithuania. Article 2 of the same law applies to all nationals of Member States seeking to work in a regulated profession in the Republic of Lithuania. The Lithuanian sources provided do not support the conclusion that the qualification of a Lithuanian doctor, nurse, teacher or architect will automatically permit work in Switzerland.

Consequences

The practical conclusion for the employee is to calculate not the advertised salary, but the legally verifiable job offer. Before signing the contract, there must be a clear answer to three issues:

• whether the work will actually be performed in Switzerland within the meaning of Article 15 of the Convention;
• whether the 183-day rule, the employer’s residence and permanent establishment conditions may alter the place of taxation;
• whether the contract specifies remuneration, social insurance, duration of work, the employer and reimbursement of expenses.

For Lithuanian employers, this issue is significant in light of the principles enshrined in Article 2 of the Labour Code: freedom to choose work, fair remuneration and stability of employment relations. These rules do not prohibit an employee from choosing Switzerland, but they show that competition for employees primarily becomes a matter of remuneration and working conditions. The expected document is an individual employer’s offer setting out the terms of work, remuneration, social insurance and expenses.

Under Article 22(4)(2) of the Law on Noise Management, a legal person engaged in trade must comply with such requirements no later than within 30 calendar days.

Under Article 27(2)(1) of the Law on Noise Management, municipal institutions, together with the Ministry of Health or an institution authorised by it, have the right temporarily to restrict the operation of stationary noise sources.

Core issue

The continuity of “Kaprizai” operations will depend not on the number of complaints, but on whether the competent authority establishes a legally relevant noise violation. The practical risk for the bar is twofold: fines for responsible persons for disturbing public peace and temporary operational restrictions on the noise source. The precise issue to be resolved is this: whether the bar’s music and sounds caused by patrons constitute a noise violation under Article 22 and Article 27 of the Law on Noise Management and Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The substantive rule for restricting an alcohol licence is not among the sources provided, and therefore its grounds cannot be expanded.

Legal assessment

Article 2(9) of the Law on Noise Management links night-time noise to the period from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. and to the sleep disturbance indicator. This corresponds to the content of the residents’ complaints, as they refer to low-frequency music at night and interference with rest or work. Under Article 13(1)(2) of the Law on Noise Management, the municipal council approves rules for noise prevention in public places. Under Article 13(1)(3), it approves noise indicators within the municipal territory. Under Article 22(3), noise control is carried out by authorised state and municipal institutions. The bar’s obligations arise when the control authority imposes requirements to reduce noise. The role of the police is narrower, but practically significant. Article 488(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for liability for loud singing, playing music, or other noise-generating actions where peace, rest, or work is disturbed. The fine for individuals ranges from EUR 80 to EUR 200, and for heads of legal persons or other responsible persons from EUR 200 to EUR 300. A repeated offence under Article 488(2) would cost heads or responsible persons from EUR 300 to EUR 400. The municipality may also take a stricter route if exceedances of limit values are established. This would be the legal basis for restricting not the entire nightlife of the city centre, but a specific noise source.

Consequences

The nearest realistic scenario is a noise control procedure, because a residents’ request alone does not in itself establish a violation. If measurements or other actions by an authorised authority substantiated an exceedance of limit values, the bar could be ordered to implement noise reduction measures. If they were not implemented within 30 calendar days, a risk of liability would arise under Article 22(7) of the Law on Noise Management. In practical terms, three categories of consequences are relevant for the bar:

• fines for responsible persons under Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences;
• mandatory noise reduction requirements under Article 22(4) of the Law on Noise Management;
• temporary restriction of the operation of a stationary noise source under Article 27(2)(1) of the Law on Noise Management. For residents, the significance of this case is that the complaint must become either a violation established by an authority or a specific requirement addressed to the operator of the noise source. For businesses, the significance of this case is that the administrative designation of the building does not in itself exclude liability for noise during evening and night-time hours.

Correction. The article’s statement that drivers are deemed intoxicated above 0.4 per mille is incomplete. The wording of the Law on Road Traffic Safety referred to links the 0.4 per mille threshold to the general regime for the permitted concentration while driving. A factual check indicates that novice drivers and drivers in certain categories are deemed intoxicated once they exceed 0 per mille. A more precise formulation would be: the general permitted limit is 0.4 per mille, but zero tolerance applies to certain drivers, while criminal liability under Article 281¹ of the Criminal Code begins at 1.51 per mille.

The practical turning point here is not a traffic accident or damage, but the state of driving itself: Article 281¹(1) of the Criminal Code criminalises driving from 1.51 per mille.

If these facts are confirmed, the sanction framework is clear: a fine, arrest, or imprisonment for up to one year.

Core issue

For the driver stopped in Krekenava, the case is proceeding as a criminal matter rather than an administrative one, because the reported intoxication level of 2.53 per mille exceeds the 1.51 per mille threshold. The reported facts are limited to the following: a man born in 1958 was driving a Peugeot 307, was served with a summons for questioning, and a pre-trial investigation was opened. The precise legal question will be whether he drove a motor vehicle while intoxicated, where an intoxication level of 1.51 per mille or more was established. This question is assessed under Article 281¹(1) of the Criminal Code and the general conditions for liability under Article 2(3)–(5) of the Criminal Code. Under these provisions, it is necessary to establish guilt, correspondence with the elements of the offence, and to impose punishment only in accordance with the law.

Legal assessment

The information provided corresponds to the main elements of Article 281¹(1) of the Criminal Code: a motor vehicle was driven and an intoxication level exceeding 1.51 per mille was established. The reading of 2.53 per mille is 1.02 per mille above the criminal liability threshold, so any dispute would primarily concern the lawfulness of the testing procedure and the fact of driving.

• Under point 3.2 of the procedure governing the compulsory removal of vehicles, a police officer removes the driver from driving and brings the driver for a medical examination where more than 1.5 per mille is established in exhaled air.
• Under point 3 of the intoxication testing rules approved by Government resolution, a medical examination is also applied where testing establishes more than 1.5 per mille.
• Service of a summons for questioning is consistent with the opening of a pre-trial investigation, since the person is identified as suspected of committing a criminal offence.

Article 427(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences covers repeated driving with an intoxication level of more than 0.4 but not more than 1.5 per mille. Article 281(8) of the Criminal Code also shows that, in traffic accident cases involving consequences, intoxication is linked to 0.41 per mille or more, but this case is based on the special provision in Article 281¹.

Consequences

The realistic first scenario is the maintenance of a charge under Article 281¹(1) of the Criminal Code if the investigation confirms the fact of driving and the 2.53 per mille result. The second scenario would depend on the procedure for establishing intoxication, because, under the rules cited, a level above 1.5 per mille is linked to being brought for a medical examination. If the procedural data and the fact of driving are consistent, the outcome of the case will mainly depend on the assessment of guilt and the elements of the offence under Article 2(3)–(4) of the Criminal Code. This is also important for the police, because the threshold of more than 1.5 per mille triggers the mechanism for removal from driving and medical examination.