Under Article 211(2) of the Labour Code, the manager should notify employee representatives no later than 20 working days before the body is formed.
If a board is formed, Article 10(1) establishes a four-year term of office and a minimum of five members.
The core of the Vilnius decision is the legality of the future composition of the boards: if the new boards are formed before 1 November 2026, the obligation to appoint employee representatives may not yet apply to that term of office. For the reader, the key issue is whether the municipality is using its power of recall in a way that, in practical terms, neutralizes the effect of the new employee participation rule for four years. The news fact is narrow: from 29 October 2026, the boards of five companies controlled by Vilnius Municipality are expected to be recalled. The precise legal question is whether, in companies and enterprises owned by the municipality, the early recall of boards may be based solely on the owner’s competence where the concurrent aim is to avoid the participation of employee representatives in the new term. This must be assessed under Articles 9 and 10 of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises, Article 211 of the Labour Code, Article 2.66 of the Civil Code and, for companies, Article 20(1)(4) and Article 4(2)(8) of the Law on Companies as cited in the source.
Under Article 9(2) of the Law on State and Municipal Enterprises, a board is not always mandatory in a state or municipal enterprise: it may be provided for in the articles of association. The same provision means that a new board is not merely a technical change, because it begins a new four-year governance cycle. The sources provided indicate the following principal duties and limits:
Realistically, two legal routes are possible. First, the competent owner’s or shareholder’s body recalls the boards, records the decisions in writing and forms new boards before 1 November 2026 under the procedure then in force. The second route would arise if a new board were formed after 1 November 2026, or if the founding documents already provided for the right of employee representatives. If the employee representatives did not appoint members, Article 211(3) of the Labour Code would require repeated notice and a period of not less than five working days. In practical terms, this matters for three groups:
The regulation was initiated by the drafters of the bill, who sought to expand the role of the public institution Governance Coordination Centre in overseeing the governance of large municipally owned enterprises. The objective was to strengthen control over the governance of municipal enterprises, particularly in relation to the formation and operation of collegial supervisory or management bodies. The Legal Department did not raise any substantive political objections, identifying only technical and legal-clarity shortcomings: an inaccurate reference to an article of the law, wording requiring clarification, and a redundant law number.
Article 76²(2) of the Law on Higher Education and Research provides that in 2026 and subsequent years, 20 per cent of the previous year’s basic study funding appropriations is allocated to incentive funding.
By that date, under Article 59(2) and Article 77(1) of the Law on Higher Education and Research, the principles for calculating the competitive score, other criteria and competitive rankings relevant to the 2027 admission cycle must be published.
In legal terms, the admission results primarily indicate not a market forecast, but pressure to review state-funded places and admission criteria for the 2027 admission cycle. For students whose contracts have already been concluded, those contracts generally fix the conditions applicable at the time of their admission, because Article 2(4) of the Law Amending the Law on Higher Education and Research No. XI-242 protects the study and funding conditions of persons admitted before the law entered into force for the duration of their studies. The newsworthy fact is the change in the admission structure: 21,718 contracts, 12,849 state-funded places or places with study scholarships, a decline in IT fields, and a surge in natural sciences. The precise legal question is as follows: how, under Articles 59, 77, 76¹ and 76² of the Law on Higher Education and Research, applicants’ competitive results, higher education institutions’ criteria, and state budget funding must be reconciled.
Admission to first-cycle and integrated studies is conducted by competition under Article 59(1) of the Law on Higher Education and Research. This provision links admission to secondary education, at least one state maturity examination, learning outcomes, entrance examinations or other criteria set by the higher education institution. Higher education institutions cannot freely rewrite the rules of the game for the same admission cycle after the results are known. The allocation of state-funded places is not merely a consequence of the popularity of higher education institutions. Under Article 77(1) of the Law on Higher Education and Research, an applicant’s score in the competitive rankings is calculated on the basis of maturity examination results, learning outcomes, and other results demonstrating special abilities. Under Article 77(1¹), the second competitive ranking additionally includes persons who have completed short-cycle studies or have practical work experience, provided that the conditions set by the higher education institution are met. Institutional performance assessment, and not only applicant flows, is also relevant for funding planning.
Under the rule set out in the report on the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, foreigners who have obtained secondary education recognised in Lithuania have the right to apply to Lithuanian higher education institutions. Foreigners who hold a permanent residence permit in Lithuania, or citizens of a state in which Lithuanian citizens are not required to pay for studies, may apply for state-funded places.
The practical consequence for universities and colleges is the forthcoming adjustment of criteria, minimum scores and programme offerings if they wish to respond to changes in IT, natural sciences or pedagogy. However, for students who concluded contracts in 2026, the admission statistics themselves do not alter the contracts already concluded or their funding status. For the State, these statistics are relevant through funding and incentive funding channels. If demand for natural sciences is increasing while demand for IT places is declining, from a legal perspective the decision will have to be taken through competitive rankings announced in advance and the rules for allocating budgetary funds. It is additionally important for higher education and research institutions that, from 2026, the share of incentive funding amounts to 20 per cent under Article 76²(2) of the Law on Higher Education and Research.
The regulation was initiated by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport. The aim was to refine the system of science and studies, in particular the rules governing state-funded study places, school-leaving examinations, and funding arrangements for admission to studies. The principal argument was that not funding unfilled study places would save budgetary funds, which could then be redirected to cover shortages in state-funded places; no clear objections are apparent from the excerpts provided.
Correction. The article’s statement that salmon or sea trout may be retained from 1 January to 30 April is incomplete. More precisely, it should state that during that period fishing is permitted only in compliance with the conditions of limited fishing. The wording of the ministerial order cited prohibits fishing for salmon and sea trout at night: more than one hour after sunset or more than one hour before sunrise. The factual check also indicates a limit of one fish per fishing trip. Confiscation of a vehicle is likewise not an automatic consequence of any breach. Under the cited wording of Article 291 of the Code of Administrative Offences, it is possible only for offences provided for in paragraphs 4, 5, 9 and 10.
The use of prohibited gear or methods, except for electricity and ultrasound, under Article 291(4) of the Code of Administrative Offences entails a fine of EUR 600 to EUR 1,500.
Under Article 14(4) of the Law on Fisheries, permits are issued and revoked by an institution authorised by the Minister of Environment.
As of 1 September 2026, the risk for an angler who takes a salmon or sea trout consists of the permit regime, an administrative fine, and compensation for damage for each fish. The strictest regime begins even before the full prohibition: until 15 October, salmon and sea trout may be caught only subject to the obligation to release them. Inspections from 1 September to 20 November will be a form of enforcement, not an independent source of prohibitions. The precise legal question is whether the specific fishing activity falls within permitted recreational fishing, limited catch-and-release fishing, or constitutes an administrative offence under Article 291 of the Code of Administrative Offences. This question is determined under Article 3(1), (3) and (5), Article 12(1) and (3), and Article 11(1) and (5) of the Law on Recreational Fishing, Article 35 of the Law on Fisheries, and subparagraphs 9.1 and 20.1 of the Rules on Recreational Fishing in Inland Waters.
Article 3(1) of the Law on Recreational Fishing permits restrictions on fishing in spawning grounds, migration routes, and habitats of protected fish species. Accordingly, the autumn regime for salmon and sea trout is directly linked to migration and spawning, and not merely to the ordinary possession of a permit. Three practical obligations are relevant for an angler:
The price of the permit is also legally relevant, because Article 11(5) of the Law on Recreational Fishing establishes a EUR 15 daily permit for limited fishing of salmon and sea trout. Where fishing is carried out by releasing all salmon and sea trout caught, the same article establishes a EUR 5 daily permit. This means that the cheaper permit is linked to a stricter duty of conduct. The classification of infringements will vary depending on the nature of the conduct:
Subparagraph 9.1 of the Rules prohibits fishing using electricity, poisonous or explosive substances, firearms or pneumatic weapons, and other listed methods. The same subparagraph prohibits fishing in places or at times where fishing is prohibited, as well as fishing without having acquired the right to fish using specific gear and bait. The sale of fish caught by recreational fishing is separately prohibited by Article 12(2) of the Law on Recreational Fishing, and Article 291(6) of the Code provides for a fine of EUR 180 to EUR 580 for such conduct. For commercial fishing, this information is relevant in a different way: Article 14(3) of the Law on Fisheries requires the right to a quota, a quota, and a permit for commercial fishing in state inland waters. In the case of watercraft, Article 64 of the Law on Fisheries permits their detention and the initiation of an investigation where there is a reasonable suspicion of a breach of fisheries legislation.
The first scenario is lawful fishing: the angler has the required permit or card, fishes in a permitted location, and releases any salmon or sea trout caught. The second scenario is administrative liability for breach of the regime. If a condition of limited fishing is breached, Article 291(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences applies, with a fine of EUR 90 to EUR 170. If prohibited gear or methods are used, Article 291(4) of the Code applies, with a fine of EUR 600 to EUR 1,500, while repeat offending increases the range to EUR 1,400 to EUR 2,500. The third scenario concerns damage to fish stocks. For an unlawfully caught salmon or sea trout, the notice specifies a base damage rate of EUR 970, while a triple rate applies in reserves or ichthyological reserves. In practice, a single unlawfully taken fish may give rise to a separate fine and a separate claim for compensation for damage.