Legal prism — 2026-09-12

Article 34 of the Law on Environmental Protection establishes civil liability for economic operators, irrespective of fault, for any environmental damage or imminent threat of environmental damage arising from economic activity.

Under Article 4.72 of the Civil Code, a person may be the subject of ownership legal relations; accordingly, within this scheme, a forest or a lake is not an owner or co-owner.

Core issue

Under the Lithuanian legal provisions provided, a lake or a forest would not today itself become a claimant before a court. The current framework protects the environment through relationships of responsibility involving persons, organisations, institutions and economic operators, rather than through the independent legal personality of an ecosystem. The precise legal issue is this: can a natural object be a subject of civil rights where Article 1.97 of the Civil Code classifies things, property and other values as objects of civil rights, while Article 11 of the Law on Environmental Protection defines natural resources as objects of use. If the European citizens’ initiative were later to become a legal act, the core of the dispute would not be merely “rights for nature”, but also the model of representation. It would be necessary to determine who may bring claims on behalf of the ecosystem, what rights it has, and what remedies apply to it under Article 1.138 of the Civil Code.

Legal assessment

The existing legal regime already allows responses to environmental harm, but the claimant or applicant is not the natural object itself. Under Article 7 of the Law on Environmental Protection, one or more natural or legal persons, and the public concerned, have the following rights:

• to obtain environmental information;
• to participate in environmental impact assessment procedures and submit proposals;
• to require the cessation of harmful effects of economic activity on the environment;
• to lodge a complaint or request concerning the prevention or reduction of harm, or the restoration of the initial condition of the environment. These rights mean that, under Lithuanian law, the environmental interest may be protected through the public concerned and through persons. However, this is not yet legal capacity of the ecosystem, since Article 1.138 of the Civil Code concerns the protection of civil rights in accordance with the procedure established by law and within the limits of the court’s competence. The risk for economic operators is already strict. Under Article 1.138 of the Civil Code, a court may apply remedies for the protection of civil rights that are relevant to environmental disputes:
• restoration of the situation that existed before the infringement;
• prevention of acts infringing a right;
• prohibition of acts giving rise to a reasonable threat of damage;
• an order to perform an obligation in kind;
• recovery of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. If, in the future, an ecosystem were granted a legal regime approximating legal personality, these remedies could become the basis for claims brought in its name. Nevertheless, on the sources currently provided, such a conclusion would be possible only after a clear legislative amendment, because Article 1.97 of the Civil Code permits a natural object to be regarded as an object of civil rights, not as a subject. Article 1.137 of the Civil Code prohibits abuse of rights, and a court may refuse to protect a subjective right where it is exercised contrary to its purpose.

Consequences

The practical consequence for current polluters or forest users is not that the forest itself will sue them. The more realistic risk is claims brought by the public concerned, legal or natural persons, and the no-fault liability of an economic operator under Article 34 of the Law on Environmental Protection. If legislation were not to change, disputes concerning a river, lake or forest would be brought through the existing instruments. If new EU or national regulation were adopted, the practical turning point would be the emergence of a representative. A community, institution or other structure specified by law could then act not in its own name, but on behalf of the ecosystem. This would matter for three groups:

• communities, because they could obtain a clearer procedural role;
• economic operators, because preventive and restorative claims could be brought more directly;
• courts, because they would need to assess the boundaries of the ecosystem, the right of representation, and the remedy chosen.

Article 494(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides, for breach of the requirements for organising other events held in public places, a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 150.

Article 494(3) of the Code of Administrative Offences also permits the imposition of a prohibition on attending events held in public places for a period of one month to eighteen months.

Core issue

For the biker participants and potential organisers, the most immediate practical risk is administrative liability for breach of the requirements governing the organisation of events. A deeper risk arises from the fact that the noise, the pig’s head and the shouting near the mosque may be assessed not merely as an incident of public disorder. The police have already initiated administrative proceedings concerning a breach of the requirements for organising assemblies and other events. The precise issue will be whether the gathering near the place of worship falls within the regime applicable to a public event or assembly under Article 1(1) of the Law on Assemblies, and whether Article 494(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences applies. A further issue is criminal in nature: whether the conduct near the mosque during prayers crossed the administrative threshold and satisfied the elements of Article 170(2), Article 171 or Article 284 of the Criminal Code. Under Article 2(4) of the Criminal Code, criminal liability is possible only where the act corresponds to the constituent elements of an offence provided for in criminal law.

Legal assessment

On the basis of the sources provided, several possible legal classifications should be considered:

• Article 494(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences applies to breaches of the Law on Assemblies of the Republic of Lithuania and provides for a fine of EUR 140 to EUR 600.
• Article 494(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences applies to breaches of the requirements for organising other public events and provides for a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 150.
• Article 488(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences applies to noise-generating acts in public places where the peace, rest or work of persons is disturbed.
• Article 48(3) of the Code of Administrative Offences applies to non-compliance with rules approved by municipal councils on noise prevention in public places. As regards religious rites, Article 1(2)(4) of the Law on Assemblies provides that the law does not regulate religious rites of state-recognised religious communities conducted in places of worship. This means that the prayers themselves are not assessed as the bikers’ event, but the gathering near the place of worship may be assessed separately. In the criminal-law context, the police’s reference to clarification of the circumstances under Article 170 of the Criminal Code does not yet amount to a pre-trial investigation. Article 170(2) of the Criminal Code covers public ridicule, contempt, incitement to hatred or incitement to discriminate against a group of persons on grounds of religion or beliefs. If it were established that the display of the pig’s head and the shouting were directed against Muslims as a religious group, the legal assessment could shift towards Article 170(2) of the Criminal Code. The penalties provided for this offence are community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest or imprisonment for up to two years. A separate route is Article 171 of the Criminal Code, as it protects the services or other rites of a state-recognised religious community from disruption. This provision applies where services are disrupted by obscene language, insolent acts, threats, mockery or other indecent acts. Another threshold is Article 284 of the Criminal Code, which covers insolent conduct, threats, malicious mockery or acts of vandalism in a public place. This provision requires that such acts demonstrate disrespect for those present or for the surroundings and disturb public peace or order.

Consequences

In practical terms, the case may split into administrative and criminal tracks. On the administrative track, the most likely outcome, according to the police position provided, is a fine under Article 494(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences ranging from EUR 30 to EUR 150. If the authorities were to treat the conduct as a breach of the Law on Assemblies, the sanction range would be higher under Article 494(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences: EUR 140 to EUR 600. In both cases under Article 494 of the Code of Administrative Offences, the court or authority may impose a prohibition on attending events held in public places for a period of one month to eighteen months. The noise episode may have independent significance if the revving of engines, music or shouting is assessed as having disturbed peace in a public place. In that case, Article 488(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for a fine for individuals of EUR 80 to EUR 200, and, in the event of repeat offending, Article 488(2) provides for a fine of EUR 200 to EUR 300. The criminal track will depend on whether, during the clarification process, evidence is gathered of contempt for a religious group, incitement to hatred or disruption of religious services. If sufficient evidence is obtained, there may be grounds to initiate a pre-trial investigation under Article 170, Article 171 or Article 284 of the Criminal Code. The practical significance of this matter is greatest for the event organisers, the most active participants and the Muslim community.

Under Article 6.73(2) of the Civil Code, the court may reduce clearly excessive contractual penalties or penalties where the obligation has been performed in part.

This is supplemented by 8% annual interest from 5 March 2021 until full enforcement of the judgment.

Core issue

Following the Supreme Court of Lithuania’s refusal to admit the cassation appeal, Novaturas’ payment obligation remains based on the final and binding ruling of the Court of Appeal. The focus of the dispute shifts from the determination of liability to the enforcement of the outstanding amount, interest, and procedural sums. The factual position in the case is that EUR 4.5 million in contractual penalties and 8% annual interest from 5 March 2021 until full enforcement of the judgment were awarded in favour of GetJet Airlines. The precise legal issue concerns the consequences of contractual civil liability for termination of a long-term services agreement under Articles 6.245(3), 6.71, 6.73, and 6.258 of the Civil Code.

Legal assessment

Under Article 6.245(3) of the Civil Code, contractual civil liability arises from non-performance or improper performance of a contract. Article 6.71(1) of the Civil Code defines contractual penalties as a monetary amount payable in the event of non-performance or improper performance of an obligation. In this case, this means that the EUR 4.5 million is not additional remuneration for services. It is the monetary consequence of contractual liability for an established breach of obligation. The commentary to the VAT Law also states that contractual penalties are a form of contractual civil liability, not consideration for goods or services. The regime applicable to contractual penalties in this situation is subject to several limitations:

• under Article 6.73(1) of the Civil Code, the creditor generally may not claim both contractual penalties and specific performance of the obligation;
• under Article 6.258(3) of the Civil Code, reduced contractual penalties may not be lower than the losses incurred;
• under the same provisions, contractual penalties are not reduced once they have already been paid. On 9 September 2026, Novaturas’ cassation appeal was refused admission because no grounds for cassation under Article 346 of the Code of Civil Procedure were established. This left in force the Court of Appeal’s conclusion regarding contractual penalties and interest. Under paragraph 17 of Business Accounting Standard 11, “Expenses”, fines and default interest are recognised as expenses when the obligation to pay them arises and it is probable that they will have to be paid. Under paragraph 17 of Business Accounting Standard 10, “Revenue”, such amounts are recognised as revenue by the recipient when the money is received or there is evidence that it will be received.

Consequences

The immediate practical consequence for Novaturas is the discharge of the final and binding monetary obligation. Of the awarded EUR 4.5 million, EUR 1.15 million had already been paid, leaving an additional stated amount of EUR 3.35 million, excluding interest and litigation costs. For GetJet Airlines, this position practically means an enhanced creditor position. For Novaturas, it means an issue of cash flow, expenses, and enforcement risk. The further course will depend on enforcement of the judgment:

• if the remaining amounts are agreed and paid, the dispute will effectively end at the enforcement level;
• if any amount remains unpaid, the creditor would rely on the final and binding court judgment;
• if payment is already nearly complete, the key monitoring point will be confirmation of full settlement. The next monitoring point after 12 September 2026 is a document or notice confirming full enforcement of the Court of Appeal’s ruling.