Under Article 2(5) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Professional Performing Arts, a creative employee is an employee of a professional performing arts institution who works under an employment contract and carries out creative activities.
If the Seimas approved the amendment and established a 30-year period of creative work service for mime ensemble artists, their position would be equated with the groups specified in Article 14(2)(4).
Mime ensemble artists do not currently acquire an automatic right to a compensatory allowance merely because they perform creative stage work. The decisive issue is not the creative nature of the position, but whether it falls within the closed list of beneficiaries set out in the law. The report concerning a proposal to apply a 30-year length-of-service requirement to mime ensemble artists indicates an attempt to move their status from the level of a ministerial order to a statutory guarantee. The precise legal question is whether a mime ensemble artist may be regarded, under Article 14(1) and (2) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Professional Performing Arts, as a person entitled to a compensatory allowance equal to 13 BSI. Under Article 2(5) of that Law, a creative employee is an employee of a professional performing arts institution who works under an employment contract and carries out creative activities. However, Article 14(1) links the allowance only to the employees specified in Article 14(2), and therefore the general definition is not sufficient.
Article 14(2) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Professional Performing Arts lists four groups of employees and establishes different periods of creative work service. It expressly refers to ballet artists, dancers, circus act performers, solo vocalists, musicians playing wind instruments, other musicians, conductors, choir artists, and actors.
Mime ensemble artists are not mentioned in this list, although they are included among performers in the list of positions approved by the Minister of Culture. That order identifies the mime ensemble artist separately alongside the actor, and therefore does not, in itself, expand the concept of “actors” in Article 14(2)(4). The conditions for granting the allowance are cumulative. Under Article 14(1), the employee must be unable to carry out creative activities due to the specific nature of the profession, the employment contract must have been terminated on that basis, and the conditions set out in Article 14(4) to (9) must also be satisfied. Under paragraph 3 of the Description of the Procedure for Granting and Paying Compensatory Allowances, persons entitled under Article 14(1) and (2) of the Law apply to the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Lithuania for the allowance. This is where the main significance of the draft amendment arises: the list of positions approved by the Minister may confirm that a position is that of a creative employee, but it cannot create a new category of allowance beneficiaries. Such a category can be created only by amending Article 14(2) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Professional Performing Arts.
The practical allowance would then amount to 13 BSI per month, provided that the other conditions of Article 14(1) are also satisfied. If the draft is not considered or is not adopted, the current wording will leave mime ensemble artists outside the circle of expressly listed beneficiaries. In that case, the title included in the list of positions will help substantiate the creative nature of the work, but not the final entitlement to the allowance. In practical terms, this is important for three groups:
Under Article 6.665(1) of the Civil Code, the client may demand that the defects be remedied, that the price be reduced, or that the costs of remedying the defects be reimbursed.
Under Article 6.221(2) of the Civil Code, termination does not extinguish the right to claim damages and contractual penalties.
The former contractor’s financial position will depend on the extent to which the municipality recognises the works as actually completed and fit for use. The bailiff’s recording of the situation is the basis for future settlement and a possible damages claim, because the dispute concerns the quality of the works, not merely the deadline. The report states that Alytus City Municipality terminated the contract with UAB Gigas, and that a new contractor is to complete the stadium. The precise legal question is whether defects in the works justify non-payment of the full EUR 70,000, a price reduction, or a claim for damages. This question is to be assessed under Articles 6.665, 6.671, 6.695 and 6.221 of the Civil Code.
Under Article 6.695(1) of the Civil Code, the contractor is liable for deviations from mandatory construction documents and from the specifications set out in the contract. If the drainage has not been installed in a manner that allows the turf to be laid, this is directly connected to the fitness of the facility for use. Under Article 6.665(3) of the Civil Code, the contract may be terminated where the defects are not remedied within a reasonable period or are material and irremediable. The parties’ position after termination is as follows:
The contractor was required to warn the client immediately and suspend the works if obstacles threatened the suitability of the works. Under Article 6.659(2) of the Civil Code, a contractor that failed to give such warning may not rely on those circumstances and remains liable for defects. In the public procurement context, Government Resolution No. 483 of 2015 provides that a procurement contract may be terminated under Article 6.217 of the Civil Code where improper performance constitutes a material breach.
In practical terms, the first dispute will concern the EUR 70,000 in work acceptance acts: the municipality may pay part of the amount, refuse payment, or set off a damages claim. If the cost of remedying the defects exceeds the value of the properly completed works, the municipality’s damages claim will become more realistic. The contractor, in turn, may rely on Article 6.671 of the Civil Code and claim remuneration for the part of the works actually performed. Three practical scenarios are then important:
Paragraph 148 of the Rules on the Supply and Use of Electricity provides that, in the event of an unjustified interruption or restriction of electricity transmission or supply, the operator and the supplier are liable in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The maximum compensation of EUR 220 announced by ESO applies to customers for whom restoration of electricity supply takes more than 72 hours.
Consumers left without electricity primarily have a right to restoration, clear information, and individual assessment of losses. The simplified compensation of EUR 220 announced by ESO does not exhaust consumers’ rights, because legislation preserves the route for disputes concerning higher or different losses. The reported fact is legally significant insofar as the outage affecting 30,000 consumers is linked to network damage, generators, and a nationwide emergency situation. The precise issue is whether the interruption of electricity transmission and the duration of restoration should be regarded as justified and, if not, who is liable to the consumer. This issue is to be assessed under Articles 49 and 51 of the Law on Electricity of the Republic of Lithuania, Articles 33 and 34 of the Law on Energy, and paragraph 148 of the Rules on the Supply and Use of Electricity. Article 49(1) of the Law on Electricity establishes the State’s obligation to ensure consumers’ right to the availability and adequacy of electricity.
In this situation, ESO’s central obligation as the distribution network operator is to restore transmission and substantiate the restoration process. The substance of consumer rights is not merely financial, since Article 51(1) of the Law on Electricity grants the right to receive clear information about rights, prices, tariffs, and service conditions. The obligations and rights in this situation are allocated as follows:
In practical terms, three avenues are relevant for consumers: restoration of electricity, simplified compensation, and an individual dispute regarding losses. The following further scenarios are possible: