Legal prism — 2026-08-25

Article 101(1) of the Law on Public Procurement allows a supplier to apply to a regional court where it considers that the contracting authority unjustifiably terminated the contract due to a material breach.

Article 102(1) of the Law on Public Procurement allows a supplier to challenge the actions or decisions of a contracting authority in court even without first submitting a claim to the contracting authority.

Core issue

Energesman’s position is now shaped not only by the dispute concerning the MBA plant, but also by its public procurement reputational status until 9 July 2029. Inclusion in the list of unreliable suppliers may, in practical terms, restrict the company’s participation in public procurement if the basis for that inclusion is not annulled by a court. The news point is narrow: VAATC included the company in the list following termination of the contracts, while the company intends to challenge both the listing and the termination. The precise legal issue is whether VAATC properly classified the termination of the contract as a consequence of a material breach of a procurement contract. That issue will be determined under Article 101(1)(1), (2) and (5) of the Law on Public Procurement of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as under Article 102 of the Law on Public Procurement concerning the filing of claims.

Legal assessment

The sources provided indicate that, after conclusion of the contract, the dispute is moving to court. In this situation, VAATC’s obligations arise from performance of the procurement contract and the legal classification of its termination. Point 2.18.9 of the Ministry of Justice Rules on the Organisation of Public Procurement provides that, where a procurement contract is terminated due to a material breach of that contract, suppliers are included in the list of unreliable suppliers. Accordingly, the lawfulness of the listing depends on whether the ground for termination itself was lawful. The company’s argument concerning the already initiated court proceedings may be relevant both to the content of the entry and to its proportionality. Article 95(1)(5) of the Law on Public Procurement assigns to the Public Procurement Office the function of collecting and publishing information on procurements, contracts, results of contract performance and procurement disputes. Therefore, the existence of a dispute concerning termination is not an extraneous fact if the data in the list are to reflect the outcome of performance of the procurement contract. Energesman may also request interim protective measures under Article 101(2) of the Law on Public Procurement. Such measures would be a procedural means of temporarily managing the consequences of the listing or of the contract terminations pending resolution of the dispute.

Consequences

In practical terms, three legal scenarios are possible.

• If the court finds that termination of the contract due to a material breach was justified, the entry in the list of unreliable suppliers will have a clear normative basis under point 2.18.9 of the Rules.
• If the termination is found to have been unjustified under Article 101(1)(5) of the Law on Public Procurement, the basis for inclusion in the list will also be weakened.
• If breaches in VAATC’s decisions are established, the supplier may rely on Article 101(1)(2) in seeking damages. This is important not only for the parties, but also for the continuity of waste management services in the Vilnius region. The act of Vilnius City states that VAATC organises the operation of regional waste management facilities, including MBA facilities. Another municipal source links the improvement of the MBA facility to VAATC and UAB Energesman, meaning that the dispute affects more than contractual settlement alone. The next point to monitor is the forthcoming court decision on the lawfulness of VAATC’s decision and of the contract terminations.

Correction. The article’s statement that drivers are deemed intoxicated where an alcohol level exceeding 0.4 per mille is established is incomplete. Under the wording of the Law on Road Traffic Safety referred to above, the general permitted ethyl alcohol concentration while driving is 0.4 per mille, but a stricter limit applies to novice drivers and special categories of drivers. It would be more precise to write that the general rule is more than 0.4 per mille, but that for some drivers intoxication is established from 0.01 per mille. For criminal liability in this news item, the decisive threshold is not 0.4 per mille, but the 1.51 per mille threshold under Article 281¹(1) of the Criminal Code.

Under Article 2811(1) of the Criminal Code, such conduct may be punishable by a fine, arrest, or imprisonment for up to one year.

If the vehicle belongs to the offender, Article 72(3) of the Criminal Code provides for mandatory confiscation of such confiscable property.

Core issue

The position of both drivers will be determined by the criminal proceedings, as 1.85 and 1.69 per mille exceed the threshold for criminal liability. The decisive distinction is not the general fact of intoxication, but the threshold set out in Article 2811(1) of the Criminal Code: 1.51 per mille or more. In legal terms, the news report means that pre-trial investigations have been opened into separate episodes of drink-driving. The precise question will be whether each man drove a motor vehicle while intoxicated, with an established blood alcohol level of 1.51 per mille or more. Under Article 2(4) of the Criminal Code, liability is possible only where the act corresponds to the constituent elements of an offence provided for by criminal law.

Legal assessment

In this situation, both alcohol readings fall within the same criminal category, since both exceed the 1.51 per mille threshold. According to the sources provided, administrative liability covers a lower range: more than 0.4 but not more than 1.5 per mille.

• Article 2811(1) of the Criminal Code covers driving where intoxication of 1.51 per mille or more has been established.
• Article 423(3) of the Code of Administrative Offences applies to the range of more than 0.4 but not more than 1.5 per mille.
• Article 427(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, in cases of repeated driving offences, is likewise linked to a threshold of not more than 1.5 per mille.

Accordingly, readings of 1.85 and 1.69 per mille do not, under the cited provisions, constitute ordinary administrative drink-driving cases. Procedurally, the police actions are consistent with the logic of an investigation: the drivers were served with summonses to appear for questioning. Under the police procedure, an officer must suspend a driver suspected of intoxication from driving where more than 1.5 per mille is detected in exhaled air. Under paragraph 3 of the Government Rules, in such a case the person is taken to a healthcare institution for a medical examination. Liability does not depend solely on the driver’s intent, since Article 2811(2) of the Criminal Code also provides for liability for negligent acts. The issue of fault nevertheless remains essential, as Article 2(3) of the Criminal Code permits liability only for a person at fault. A separate practical issue will be the “Mini” and “Skoda Fabia” vehicles. Under Article 72(2) of the Criminal Code, property subject to confiscation includes the instrument or means used to commit a prohibited act. If the vehicle belongs to another person, confiscation is possible subject to the conditions set out in Article 72(4) of the Criminal Code.

Consequences

Realistically, each driver faces three alternative criminal sanctions: a fine, arrest, or imprisonment for up to one year. The type of sanction will depend on the circumstances established during the investigation, the issue of fault, and the court’s decision.

• If it is confirmed that the person drove with an alcohol level of 1.51 per mille or more, the case will remain within the scope of criminal liability under Article 2811 of the Criminal Code.
• If the vehicle is recognised as the means of committing the act and belongs to the offender, it will be subject to mandatory confiscation under Article 72(3) of the Criminal Code.
• If the vehicle belongs to a third party, the conditions under Article 72(4) of the Criminal Code will have to be assessed.

For carriers and transport businesses, this provision is also significant from a reputational perspective. In the list of offences provided, Article 2811 of the Criminal Code is classified among the offences that may cause a carrier, manager, or transport manager to lose good repute.

Correction. The article’s statement that, in the event of a road traffic accident, the police must be notified and the damage registered with Lietuvos draudimas is too broad. The referenced check under Article 12 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Third-Party Liability Insurance concerns a situation where the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident agree on the circumstances and, under the applicable legal rules, agree not to call the police. A more precise formulation would be: in order to obtain an insurance payment, the loss is registered with the insurer, while the police are notified in cases where this is required by the rules on registering road traffic accidents or where it is necessary to record the circumstances of the specific incident. This does not alter the condition of the promotion itself: the cover applies from 1 to 30 September and the payment depends on the nature of the injury.

If a breach of the Road Traffic Rules caused minor impairment of another person’s health, Article 423(2) of the Code provides for a fine of EUR 150-300 for the driver.

According to the notice, the insurance benefit is up to EUR 5,000 and depends on the injury and the nature of the trauma.

Core issue

In September, practical protection for Kaunas schoolchildren will have two layers: an insurance benefit of up to EUR 5,000 under the campaign and administrative liability for the offender. The automatic nature of the insurance does not eliminate obligations under the Road Traffic Rules, because liability arises on the basis of the offender’s act, fault and consequences. The legal question is precise: what administrative liability applies if a schoolchild is injured in traffic as a result of a breach of the Road Traffic Rules. It is resolved under Articles 2, 417, 420 and 423 of the Lithuanian Republic Code of Administrative Offences and, where necessary, Articles 415, 422 and 682. Article 1 of the Code defines its purpose: to protect human rights, and the interests of society and the State, from administrative offences by legal means.

Legal assessment

Under Article 2(1), (3) and (4) of the Code of Administrative Offences, only a natural person whose culpable conduct meets the elements established in the Code may be held liable. Accordingly, the mere occurrence of a traffic accident is not sufficient for the police; a specific breach of the Road Traffic Rules and its causal link to the consequences must be established.

• If the breach is limited to failure to comply with road signs, road markings or drivers’ duties towards pedestrians, Article 417(1) of the Code provides for a fine of EUR 30-90 for the driver.
• If the driver’s conduct created a dangerous situation, Article 420(1) of the Code provides for a fine of EUR 170-230 for the driver.
• If such conduct is committed by a person who does not hold the right to drive, Article 423(2) of the Code provides for a fine of EUR 600-850. The fact of intoxication would substantially affect the legal classification, because Article 423(3) of the Code provides for a fine of EUR 1,200-1,500 where a driver with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.41-1.5 per mille causes minor impairment of health or damage to property. If the vehicle participating in public traffic were not covered by compulsory civil liability insurance, Article 415(1) of the Code provides for a fine of EUR 50-100 for the driver. This is a separate public traffic obligation and is not the same as the accident insurance being provided to schoolchildren as a gift. Under the cited rules of the Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration, the amount of the fine is determined from the average of the sanction set out in the special provision. Departures from that amount depend on the nature of the offence, the form of fault, and mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Any reduction or increase of the fine must be reasoned in the decision in the administrative offence case.
• Parents or guardians should, according to the notice, report the incident to the police and register the damage in the manner specified by the insurer.
• For the authority, it is relevant to identify the offender, their condition, the vehicle, the consequences and the applicable article of the Code.
• The regulations of the Register of Administrative Offences indicate that the register records the articles of the Code, status, penalties, measures of administrative effect and vehicle data. The sources provided do not include case law, so the assessment is based only on the cited legal provisions. If the right to drive were withdrawn, Article 682(1)-(3) of the Code governs seizure of the driving licence and extension of the term where the licence is not submitted on time.

Consequences

Realistically, this initiative does not change the liability regime for drivers, cyclists or scooter riders. It provides additional financial protection for the schoolchild, but the administrative case would proceed according to the elements set out in the Code of Administrative Offences. The practical consequences will depend on the seriousness of the incident:

• a simple breach of the Road Traffic Rules may result in a fine of EUR 30-90 under Article 417(1) of the Code;
• minor impairment of health may mean a fine of EUR 150-300 for the driver under Article 423(2) of the Code;
• an intoxicated driver in such a case falls within the sanction range of EUR 1,200-1,500 under Article 423(3) of the Code;
• if withdrawal of the right to drive is imposed, its enforcement is linked to seizure of the driving licence under Article 682 of the Code. For schoolchildren and parents, the most practically important point is that, according to the notice, the protection applies automatically from 1 September 2026 until the end of 30 September 2026. The next expected milestone is the entry into force of the protection on 1 September 2026; in the event of a specific incident, the subsequent monitoring points would be the police procedural document and the insurer’s decision on the benefit.