Legal prism — 2026-08-28

Paragraph 40 of the description approved by Order No. V-1081 of the Minister of Health assigns responsibility for accounting for capital investments, their purpose, document compliance, contract control and monitoring to the entity implementing the project.

Adverse conclusions by the Ministry, a commission or auditors under paragraph 16 of the description approved by Order No. V-1081 of the Minister of Health may lead to a decision on the expediency of further project implementation.

Core issue

The expansion of the Klaipėda District Municipality Health Centre legally entails greater control over public funds, as repairs, equipment and service expansion are procured under public-sector procedures. The key point for the reader is that the pace of projects is not, in itself, problematic; however, every procurement of works, equipment or services must be justified, accounted for and supervised. The repairs, swimming pool, dental equipment, X-ray machines and nursing infrastructure mentioned in the report fall within the field of modernisation of healthcare service infrastructure. Article 1 of the Law on Public Procurement establishes the objective of ensuring efficient and transparent procurement, including contract performance, disputes, rights, obligations and liability. The precise legal question is whether the health centre works, goods and services supported by the municipality and implemented with European funds are organised in accordance with Article 1 of the Law on Public Procurement, the rules on investment project control and the financing framework for healthcare institutions.

Legal assessment

According to the sources provided, modernisation includes the creation, renewal, acquisition and development of physical and information infrastructure where such infrastructure is intended for the provision of healthcare services. Accordingly, the renovation of the FMR unit, physiotherapy equipment, swimming pool, patient lift, electronic registration and dental equipment should be assessed as infrastructure improvement items under the definition provided in the amendment to the description of monitoring indicators for the 2014-2020 EU funds. Project management obligations are divided as follows:

• Paragraph 41 of the same description provides that the goods, services and works envisaged in the project are to be procured in accordance with the Law on Public Procurement.
• Paragraph 43 of the description treats municipalities as responsible for organising public procurement in projects of healthcare institutions subordinate to them. This means that the health centre cannot rely solely on a managerial need where couches, X-ray equipment, beds, lifts or contract works are being procured. The need must be translated into a procurement object, a financing decision, a contract and documents capable of verification against the project activities. The Ministry’s control is not merely formal. Paragraph 15 of the description approved by Order No. V-1081 of the Minister of Health allows the Ministry, at any stage of the project, to request additional information on the progress of works and the use of funds. Paragraph 16 permits the establishment of commissions or the engagement of auditors, while adverse conclusions may lead to a decision on whether further implementation of the investment project remains expedient. This is particularly relevant where a project prepared in 2023, due to prices and new needs, received additional support of more than EUR 200,000 from municipal funds. The public procurement exemptions appear limited here. Article 6 of the Law on Public Procurement excludes from the public procurement regime, for example, the acquisition or lease of immovable property, arbitration, conciliation and certain legal services. The repair works, medical equipment, information systems and adaptation of transport mentioned in the report do not fall within these apparent exemptions. Article 1 of the Law on Public Procurement in the Field of Defence and Security is likewise inapplicable to this situation, as the described objects are not related to defence or security procurement.

Consequences

In practical terms, the number of projects increases not the health centre’s discretion, but the burden of documentation and control. If procurements and contracts correspond to the financed activities, the centre will be able to continue the development of the swimming pool, home dental services and nursing infrastructure under the approved projects. Risks arise in three areas:

• where the procurement object is formulated more broadly, or differently, than the project activities allow;
• where the documents submitted for payment do not correspond to the contractual obligations;
• where additional municipal financing is not linked to a clear need, price and control of contract performance. The sources provided substantiate not a sanction against specific individuals, but a possible review of project financing and implementation. For suppliers, the practical point is that orders for equipment, works and services must be accessible through procurement procedures, not through an informal list of the institution’s needs. For patients, the most important point is that service expansion will depend on whether the chain of works, equipment and financing is lawfully completed.

Article 182(1) of the Criminal Code permits the imposition of community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to three years.

According to the report, he compensated the EUR 3,104 in damage caused by criminal conduct, paid a EUR 9,000 contribution, and returned EUR 17,630.32 to the budget of Pagėgiai Municipality.

Core issue

For the Mayor of Pagėgiai, the financial risk in this matter has effectively narrowed to payments already made and the conclusion of the civil case. The key point for the reader is that repayment of EUR 17,630.32 does not undo the previously established criminal conduct, but it does remove the principal objective of the civil claim. The civil aspect arose from funds allocated for the activities of a municipal council member, while the criminal aspect concerned damage of EUR 3,104 and 22 advance expense reports. The precise legal issue is twofold: whether the payments were received solely for lawful council-member activities, and whether the inaccurate information amounted to deception. It is assessed under Article 26 of the Law on Local Self-Government of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 12 of the Law on Local Self-Government of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 182 of the Criminal Code, and Article 2 of the Criminal Code.

Legal assessment

Under the earlier version of Article 26(2) of the Law on Local Self-Government, a council member could be paid a monthly allowance for expenses related to council-member activities. The provision covered expenses for stationery, postal services, telephone, internet connection, and transport services, insofar as these were not provided or paid directly by the administration. Under the later version of Article 26(2) of the Law on Local Self-Government, such an allowance must be accounted for at least once every three months. This means that accounting documents are not a mere formality: they substantiate the right to municipal budget funds.

• A council member is entitled to an allowance only for expenses related to his or her activities as a council member.
• The part of transport expenses not paid by the municipal administration may be reimbursed if it falls within the procedure established by the regulations.
• Accounting for the allowance must demonstrate a genuine link between the expenses incurred and the council-member activities.

If advance expense reports contain false information concerning fuel, the legal assessment shifts to the element of deception. Article 182(1) of the Criminal Code provides for liability for a person who, by deception, acquires another person’s property for his or her own benefit. In this situation, the indicated damage of EUR 3,104 falls within the logic of the fraud provision, because the funds were paid from the budget of the municipal administration. Article 2(3) and 2(4) of the Criminal Code require guilt and that the act correspond to the elements of an offence established by criminal law. Therefore, the mere inconvenience of the reimbursement procedure cannot replace the question whether a specific person submitted inaccurate information and obtained funds. Article 230(1) of the Criminal Code classifies state politicians and persons performing public-authority functions in municipal institutions as civil servants. However, the sources provided in relation to this matter most clearly support an assessment of fraud and the lawfulness of the allowances, rather than an independent classification as failure to perform official duties under Article 229 of the Criminal Code. The current system is structured differently: Article 12(1) of the Law on Local Self-Government establishes a council member’s remuneration equal to 20 percent of the salary of the mayor of that municipality. The leader of the opposition and the chairs of committees or commissions receive council-member remuneration increased by 20 percent, while deputy chairs receive remuneration increased by 10 percent. This version is important for municipal practice and the broader governance environment, because a fixed remuneration model replaces part of the previous reimbursement model.

Consequences

In practical terms, the consequences now relevant to the mayor are not a new civil debt, but the effect of payments already made and the earlier criminal decision. The civil claim for EUR 17,630.32 loses its principal economic substance because the amount has already been transferred to the municipality. Nevertheless, the repayment itself does not alter the rule in Article 2 of the Criminal Code that liability is linked to the elements of a culpably committed act.

• For the mayor, the practical issue is whether the court will formally close the civil case after full payment of the amount claimed.
• For the municipality, the important point is that the budget has recovered the full EUR 17,630.32 sought in the civil claim.
• For other council members, this matter shows that accounting for transport and other expenses must satisfy the requirement of a link to council-member activities.
• For voters, the relevant distinction is between the absence of an outstanding debt and the finding of criminal conduct in the criminal part of the case.

Under Article 24(1) of the Law on the Rights of Patients and Compensation for Damage to Health, the Commission examines such applications free of charge.

Under the submitted wording of Article 25(1) of the Law on the Rights of Patients and Compensation for Damage to Health, the patient and other entitled persons may apply to a court of general jurisdiction within 30 days.

Core issue

The patient’s or relatives’ route to compensation first runs through the Commission, not directly through a dispute with the healthcare institution. What will be decisive is not proving the physician’s fault, but substantiating the damage, its amount, and the causal link with healthcare actions. The Commission is a mandatory pre-litigation body for compensation for damage, except for a civil claim in a pre-trial investigation or criminal case. The precise legal issue in this situation is whether a specific treatment error caused compensable pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage to the patient’s health. It will be assessed under Article 24 and Article 13 of the Law on the Rights of Patients and Compensation for Damage to Health, the Commission’s Regulations, and the Description approved by the Government.

Legal assessment

The application must specify:

• the damage;
• the amount of compensation sought;
• the factual circumstances substantiating the damage and the amount claimed.

The application may be submitted in person, by registered mail, by courier, by email, or by other means enabling the applicant’s identity to be established. Where the application is submitted by someone other than the patient, documents confirming representation or the right to compensation must be provided. If the patient has died, under the submitted amendment to Article 13 of the Law on the Rights of Patients and Compensation for Damage to Health, non-pecuniary damage may also be claimed by employable parents and adult children, provided they had an especially close and strong relationship with the patient. The Commission decides whether such a relationship existed, assessing the intensity of communication and the nature of mutual care. Paragraph 6 of the Commission’s Regulations defines its practical competence:

• to examine applications from patients and other entitled persons;
• to determine whether the damage meets the conditions set out in Article 24(6) of the Law;
• to adopt a decision on compensation;
• to determine the amount of compensable damage;
• to transmit the decision for execution to the institution administering the account.

The Commission adopts its decision on compensation without assessing the fault of the healthcare institution or professional. The Commission’s decision states the compensation for damage, which is paid as a lump sum. Damage is compensated from the account in which contributions from personal healthcare institutions for compensation of damage are accumulated. Paragraph 35 of Bulletin No. 46 of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania’s administrative law practice distinguishes between two methods of protecting patients’ rights. A patient may submit a complaint concerning a violation of rights under Article 23 of the Law on the Rights of Patients and Compensation for Damage to Health, or claim pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage under Article 24.

Consequences

The first practical scenario is a Commission decision recognizing the damage and setting a lump-sum payment. The second scenario is a Commission finding that no compensable damage has been established, or awarding lower compensation than requested. If the application is not submitted to the Commission within the time limit established in Article 24(1), the Commission route to compensation itself becomes procedurally risky. For the healthcare institution, the practical significance is different: the decision on compensation is made by the Commission, and payment is linked to the administered account. For the patient, the most important task is to collect medical evidence, evidence of expenses and income, and evidence of the relationship with the deceased patient, because these data determine the basis of the application.