This report means that persons who participated in organised criminal groups or criminal associations face not only imprisonment under Article 249 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, but also confiscation of all property connected with the offence under Article 72 of the Criminal Code. The precise legal issue raised by the report is how criminal liability is allocated among members of an association where the offences are committed internationally and continue for many years, with the basis of liability determined by Article 25(5) and Article 24 of the Criminal Code. Persons connected to the group who acquired or disposed of property obtained by criminal means must also be assessed separately; Article 189 of the Criminal Code applies to them.
Under Article 25(5) of the Criminal Code, a criminal association is an association of three or more persons linked by stable mutual relations and a division of roles, formed to commit one or more less serious, serious or very serious crimes. It is precisely this feature that distinguishes a criminal association from the simpler form of an organised group under paragraph 4. The extent of a participant’s liability depends on their role and whether the association was armed:
The concept of an organiser is supplemented by Article 24(4) of the Criminal Code: an organiser is a person who formed the group, led it, or coordinated the activities of its members. For the group mentioned in the report, whose case was referred to court after eleven years, from 2015 to 2026, Article 39-1 of the Criminal Code is also relevant: a participant who confesses and actively assists in disclosing the association’s offences may be released from criminal liability, but this privilege does not apply to an organiser, a leader, or a person who participated in a murder.
Property consequences are determined under Article 72 of the Criminal Code: property of any form that constitutes the instrument, means or proceeds of the offence, including indirectly obtained property, is subject to confiscation. Confiscable property belonging to the offender is confiscated in all cases, while third-party property is confiscated if the third parties knew of its intended purpose, if the property was transferred under a sham transaction, to a family member, or through a legal person in which 50 percent or more of the shares are controlled by the offender or their close relatives.
Persons who merely acquired or disposed of property obtained by criminal means, without a link to the association, are subject to Article 189 of the Criminal Code: imprisonment of up to 4 years, or up to 6 years where the property is of high value. Legal persons are also liable. In cases with an international element, the territorial aspect of liability is governed by Article 8 of the Criminal Code: a person is liable for acts committed abroad only where the act is criminal under both the law of the foreign state and Lithuanian law, and the penalty may not exceed the maximum penalty applicable in the state where the act was committed. The temporal aspect is governed by Article 3(1) of the Criminal Code: the law in force at the time the act was committed applies, and a law that aggravates liability has no retroactive effect under paragraph 3. Accordingly, acts committed in 2015 must be assessed under the rules then in force.
In practical terms, members of the association face the following set of risks:
For a group member who is not an organiser, the most strategically important issue is the privilege under Article 39-1 of the Criminal Code: active cooperation may result in complete release from liability, making prosecutorial negotiations with participants a key tool against hierarchically organised networks. The security of property held by third parties, such as family members and intermediary companies, depends on whether it is proved that they knew of the purpose of the property or that there was a sham transaction under Article 72(4) of the Criminal Code. The point to monitor is that the case of the leader of the group mentioned in the report has already been referred to court, so the commencement of hearings and a judgment assessing the existence of the criminal association and the scope of property confiscation can be expected in the near future.
This draft amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared by the Administrative and Criminal Justice Department of the Ministry of Justice, and its initiating basis was the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 15 November 2013 concerning the constitutionality of provisions on amending the charge in court and convicting a person under a different provision of criminal law. The objective is to implement that ruling, to harmonise procedural provisions with civil and administrative procedure as regards public access to case materials, and to clarify the rules governing the use of remote questioning. The principal reason is that the existing regulation in the Code of Criminal Procedure had been found to be inconsistent with constitutional provisions, making it necessary to establish clear limits on the amendment of charges and conviction, ensuring the principle of the right to a defence.
Under Article 14 of the PRL, where statutory requirements or approved treatment methodologies are breached in the provision of services and those breaches cause death, the fault of the institution and its employees is deemed established.
The amount of non-pecuniary damage expressed in monetary terms generally may not exceed 50 minimum monthly wages, with the specific amount determined by the court in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Code.
The death of singer G. Mazonakis during replacement plasmapheresis at an unlicensed clinic raises two distinct legal issues: criminal liability and civil compensation for damage. In Greece, these will be determined under Greek law; however, in the Lithuanian context, a similar situation is comprehensively regulated by the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Patients’ Rights and Compensation for Damage to Health (hereinafter, the PRL). The reader’s question is who is liable for damage where a life-threatening procedure was performed without medical indications and allegedly without the appropriate licence. The key provisions are Articles 13, 14, 15, 16 and 26 of the PRL.
In the Greek case, such a breach would be the performance of the procedure without the relevant licence. Article 13(3) of the PRL would grant the deceased’s minor children, spouse, incapacitated parents and other actual dependants the right to compensation for non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of funeral expenses. An important protective line is the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 24 January 2024, by which Article 13 of the PRL was found to be contrary to Article 30(2) of the Constitution insofar as not all persons who suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of a patient’s death were entitled to compensation. If the patient contributed to the damage by his or her own actions, for example by choosing, on his or her own initiative, a procedure performed without indications, Article 15 of the PRL would allow the institution’s liability to be reduced in proportion to the patient’s fault; however, the patient’s fault is not taken into account in respect of damage related to deprivation of the life of a breadwinner and funeral expenses. Procedurally, where a person dies in a healthcare institution suddenly or unexpectedly, or following treatment procedures, Article 49 of the Law on Healthcare Institutions requires a post-mortem examination; where there is suspicion of violence or the cause of death cannot otherwise be established, a forensic medical examination is ordered.
The arrested doctors may face charges, and the clinic risks losing its ability to operate. From a civil-law perspective, dependants and the spouse may claim compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. If the institution is insured, any top-up to the amount of the actual damage under Article 26(2) of the PRL is covered by the institution itself, and in the event of its bankruptcy the difference may be paid from the reserve of the Compulsory Health Insurance Fund budget. The announced legal act of the Greek Ministry of Health prohibiting clinics from advertising longevity procedures would in future provide an additional basis for administrative measures. In practical terms, this is also relevant for Lithuanian patients: a procedure without clinical indications would breach treatment methodology requirements and open the way to compensation under Articles 13 and 14 of the PRL.
Under Article 251(2) of the Code, when setting mark-ups, the infrastructure manager must assess whether carriers are able to pay them on the basis of data submitted by the carriers.
State funds allocated to a railway undertaking for the provision of public services must be accounted for separately and may not be used for other activities, Article 12(5) of the Code.
The persons and undertakings referred to in this item — seven carriers active in the market, the public railway infrastructure manager, and RRT as the market regulator — fall within the scope not of litigation, but of regulatory review: the statement by the Chair of RRT means that the models for infrastructure charging and public-service financing may be revised, and each carrier’s costs depend directly on those models. The precise legal issue is whether the existing structures for charges for the use of public railway infrastructure, including mark-ups and discounts for the minimum access package, comply with the principles of efficiency, transparency, and non-discrimination under Article 251 of the Railway Transport Code, and whether state compensation for passenger transport, EUR 22.2 million over six months, is provided in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and Article 12 of the Code.
On the passenger side, a public-service model applies: under Article 12(1) of the Code, an institution authorised by the Government determines the need for public services and ensures their provision through contracts with carriers, while paragraph 4, in the version indicated in source [12], provides that the procedure for calculating compensation for losses incurred in providing public services is established by the Government in accordance with the rules in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007. This gives rise to two obligations relevant to the carrier LTG Link: state funds allocated for the provision of public services must be accounted for separately and may not be used for other activities, Article 12(5); and the carrier must ensure that services comply with quality requirements, including adherence to timetables, passenger information, and customer service, Article 12(2), Order No 3-314 of the Minister of Transport and Communications. On the freight side, pressure arises from infrastructure charges: under Article 251(2), when determining the segments to which mark-ups apply, the infrastructure manager must assess whether carriers are able to pay those mark-ups on the basis of data submitted by the carriers, while paragraph 3 additionally requires an assessment of at least the segment pairs “passenger and freight transport” and “domestic and international routes” — precisely the pairs that have now diverged in opposite directions, with international freight transport down 18.2%, transit down 15.6%, and passenger revenue up 9.3%. RRT, as the market regulator, under Article 71(1)(1), examines, on its own initiative or upon complaints, decisions of the infrastructure manager concerning the calculation of charges for the minimum access package, the application of discounts, and the content of the Network Statement. This means that any of the six freight carriers, including LTG Cargo, ORLEN Kolej, LDZ Cargo, and others, may initiate non-judicial review if, in their view, changes to the charging model breach the principle of non-discrimination. In the event of infringements, the regulator may impose a fine, the enforcement of which is governed by Article 73.
The most realistic scenarios are as follows: RRT or an institution authorised by the Government initiates a review of the infrastructure charging model, in which case the infrastructure manager must reassess the segments and the justification for mark-ups under Article 251, while carriers will submit data on productivity and ability to pay under paragraph 2. A review of the passenger transport financing model would entail changes to the content of public-service contracts or to the compensation calculation procedure under Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 and Article 12 of the Code; compensation for ticket prices, the 50% share, may be formalised as part of the public-service element. If freight carriers consider the new charging arrangements discriminatory, they may apply to RRT under Article 71; failing agreement, the regulator’s decision may be reviewed by a court, and, if a fine is imposed, the enforcement rules under Article 73 would apply. In practical terms, this is most important for LTG Cargo and other freight carriers whose revenue per net tonne-kilometre is increasing, by approximately 12% per year, as this indicator may become the basis for increasing mark-ups. Monitoring point: await an initiative by RRT or the Minister of Transport and Communications concerning the review of charging and financing models.
Correction. The news headline creates a misleading link: a twelve-euro fine under Article 428 of the ANK cannot be imposed on the driver, because that provision is directed at pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-drivers, whereas the provisions applicable to the driver are Article 423(2) of the ANK (150-300 euros) or Article 281(1) of the BK. A more accurate formulation would be: “a twelve-euro fine may be imposed on the cyclist himself if it emerges that he breached the Road Traffic Rules, while the driver faces a fine of at least 150 euros and, in the event of non-serious impairment of health, criminal liability.” The range of fines for leaving the scene has also been presented incompletely: 600-1,100 euros applies only where the damage does not exceed fifteen basic penalty amounts; if that threshold is exceeded, the fine under Article 426(2) of the ANK is between 1,100 and 2,000 euros.
If the health impairment is classified as minor and the driver remained at the scene, Article 281(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania applies: community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to two years.
Where a driver leaves the scene of a traffic accident and the damage exceeds fifteen basic penalty units, Article 426(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for a fine for drivers of EUR 1,100 to EUR 2,000.
The legal position of the driver of the Volvo who struck a cyclist in Zarasai District will depend on two matters: the established severity of the injury to the victim’s health and whether the driver left the scene of the traffic accident. If serious health impairment is established, Article 281(3) of the Criminal Code applies, carrying imprisonment for up to five years; where intoxication is present, Article 281(4) applies, carrying imprisonment for up to six years. The precise legal issue is how the combination of the collision and possible departure from the scene is to be classified: in the event of departure, Article 426 of the Code of Administrative Offences applies additionally.
Criminal liability under Article 281 of the Criminal Code is constructed through three cumulative elements: a breach of road traffic rules, a traffic accident caused by that breach, and the degree of health impairment, as determined by expert examination. If the driver was intoxicated, Article 281(2) applies: a fine, arrest, or imprisonment for up to three years. Departure from the scene must be assessed separately under Article 426 of the Code of Administrative Offences:
The civil liability aspect is determined under Article 11 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Third Party Liability Insurance. The injured cyclist may claim an insurance indemnity on the basis of an insured event as defined in Article 2 of the same law, since an insured event includes damage to the health of an injured third party. The sources contain no case law, so no specific case determining the legal classification can be identified.
The most likely scenario is a pre-trial investigation under Article 281 of the Criminal Code, the outcome of which will depend on the medical determination of the severity of the health impairment; this will determine whether the case ends with a penal order, a penalty, or imprisonment of up to two years for minor impairment or up to five years for serious impairment. A driver who left the scene faces, alongside the criminal classification, the risk of a separate administrative offence under Article 426 of the Code of Administrative Offences, with a fine of up to EUR 2,000 depending on the amount of damage. In practical terms, the most important issue for the victim is the insurer’s process: submitting a claim opens the way to an insurance indemnity and compensation for damage, including non-pecuniary damage. If a breach of traffic rules by the cyclist were established, the cyclist would face administrative liability under Article 428 of the Code of Administrative Offences rather than criminal liability; however, this would not relieve the driver of assessment of his own breach. The key point to monitor is the decision of the police and pre-trial investigation authorities on classification following the medical assessment.
The Code of Administrative Offences provides for a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 140 for a minor breach of public order, while under Article 2(4) of the Criminal Code, liability arises only where the conduct satisfies the elements of a specific offence.
The legal turning point in this matter is that the pre-trial investigation, opened in respect of a breach of public order, ended in its termination, while liability now appears to be shifting between two individuals: the passenger, who faces administrative liability, and the bus driver, whose testimony will have to be assessed separately for its veracity. Since the video recording did not confirm any blow, violent-offence classifications under Article 140 or Article 138 of the Criminal Code can no longer be applied to the passenger, because under Article 2(4) of the Criminal Code, liability arises only where the conduct satisfies the elements of a specific offence. The central issue is now twofold: whether the passenger’s conduct constitutes an administrative offence, and whether the driver’s testimony may give rise to liability under the Criminal Code provision concerning false testimony.
The pre-trial investigation was opened in relation to the breach of public order defined in Article 284 of the Criminal Code. The analysis of the video recordings showed that the passenger did not strike the driver, but at most attempted to intimidate him by raising his arm; accordingly, the violent-offence elements under the Criminal Code were not established. This assessment follows from Article 2(1) of the Criminal Code, under which a person is liable only for conduct prohibited by law and only where that person is at fault. As regards the passenger, the decision will now be taken by the police within administrative proceedings: it was found that, during the conflict, he obstructed the driver’s ability to drive, which is classified as a minor breach of public order. The assessment concerning the driver is more complex, because, as the victim, he gave testimony about being struck in the face, which was not confirmed by the video recording. If a pre-trial investigation is opened for false testimony, the court will have to prove that he knowingly gave false evidence, rather than being mistaken in his perception of a rapidly unfolding conflict. The passenger himself denied striking the driver and stated that he had been sober, explaining the conflict by reference to the driver’s refusal to allow a woman with children and bicycles to board. This testimony must also be assessed as evidence; however, under Article 2(3) of the Criminal Code, a person is liable only where lawful conduct could have been required of him. An additional practical context is provided by municipal rules on passenger boarding and alighting: for example, clause 25.5 of the Kaunas District rules on school buses provides that passengers may alight only after the bus has stopped, while clause 15 of the Panevėžys District rules states that passengers are liable for breaches of the rules in accordance with applicable legal acts. This confirms that the passenger could not demand to be let out while the bus was in motion.
The most realistic consequence for the passenger is an administrative offence report and a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 140, if the police establish a minor breach of public order. Two scenarios are possible for the driver:
The termination of the pre-trial investigation into the breach of public order means that the passenger will be regarded as not having incurred criminal liability, unless new circumstances are later established.
This regulation was initiated by the authors of the draft law with a view to mitigating criminal liability for persons who sincerely confess to having committed a criminal offence, show remorse or assist in its detection, and to taking into account the impact of the victim’s provocative or risky conduct on the commission of the act. Provision was also made for the court to impose, with reasons, a more lenient penalty where the penalty prescribed in the sanction would be contrary to the principle of justice, while Article 230 of the Criminal Code clarified the concept of persons equated to civil servants so as to align it with the requirements of the OECD concerning the non-application of “effective remorse” to foreign officials. The principal rationale is the humanisation of the penalty system and the implementation of international obligations; no apparent objections are evident in the document.
Correction. The statement quoted in the news report that the minor son “cannot obtain AM category rights for half a year”, if understood as a general rule, is inconsistent with the source: under provision No. XIVP-3742, no administrative penalties or administrative measures, including deprivation of the right to drive, may be imposed on drivers of mopeds and light quadricycles who were under 16 at the time of the infringement. More precisely, deprivation of the right to drive is possible only in respect of offenders who have reached the age of 16, while other measures apply to younger persons, such as parental liability or preventive measures, rather than deprivation of AM category rights.
Failure to wear a helmet is punishable under Article 427(1) of the CAO by a fine of between EUR 20 and EUR 40, while the creation of a dangerous situation increases the fine to EUR 30-50 (Article 427(2)).
The amount of the fine is determined by reference to the average of the minimum and maximum fines provided for in the sanction, taking into account the nature of the offence, guilt, and mitigating circumstances (Article 34(2) of the CAO).
Klaipėda scooter riders, similarly to the minor described in the report, may face administrative liability under the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania (the “CAO”). The most common type of infringement, failure to wear a helmet, is punishable under Article 427(1) of the CAO by a fine of between EUR 20 and EUR 40. A more serious situation arises where, by virtue of its technical characteristics, an electric micromobility device is classified as a motor vehicle: in that case, a person driving without the right to drive violates Article 13(1) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Road Traffic Safety, which prohibits persons who do not hold that right from driving a motor vehicle. In such circumstances, liability is determined not under Article 427 but under the special provision, Article 428 of the CAO, while the amount of the fine and any additional consequences, including deprivation of a special right, are determined in accordance with Article 34 of the CAO. It is precisely the assessment of the technical characteristics, namely whether the device has been modified and to which category it should be assigned, that determines the provision under which the offence will be classified.
The helmet requirement currently applies to all drivers of electric micromobility devices, regardless of age, and non-compliance is punishable under Article 427(1) of the CAO by a fine of EUR 20 to EUR 40. If the infringement creates a dangerous situation requiring other road users to change speed or direction abruptly, the fine increases to EUR 30-50 (Article 427(2)); where property is damaged, it increases to EUR 40-60 (Article 427(3)). Driving an electrically powered device while intoxicated at a level of 0.41-1.5 per mille is punishable under Article 428(7) of the CAO by a fine of EUR 80 to EUR 150, while intoxication of at least 1.51 per mille or narcotic intoxication is punishable by a fine of EUR 150 to EUR 200 (Article 428(8)). Persons prohibited from driving because they do not hold the right to drive are subject to the prohibition established in Article 13(1) of the Law on Road Traffic Safety; the sanction for breach of that prohibition under Article 428 of the CAO may reach EUR 90-140 where the infringement causes minor impairment to another person’s health (Article 428(4)). This explains why the minor, in respect of whom the court identified mitigating circumstances, was fined EUR 150, i.e. in the lower half of the applicable sanction, rather than the maximum amount. In cases involving intoxication, the distinction between categories remains material: fines for cyclists and scooter riders under Article 428(7)-(8) are significantly lower than those imposed on drivers of motor vehicles, but this does not mean that an intoxicated scooter rider bears no liability; the legal basis for liability is simply different.
The practical consequences for the offender are not limited to a fine: when hearing a case concerning driving without the right to drive, the court may impose an administrative measure, namely deprivation of a special right, which is why the son of the person described in the report will be unable to obtain an AM-category driving licence for six months. In such cases, the vehicle is also likely to be detained for expert examination in order to determine whether the device is not restricted to the relevant category or whether its speed was increased by modifying its construction. The expert conclusion directly determines whether the conduct is classified under Article 427 or Article 428. In the case of a minor driving unlawfully, officers record explanations and refer the case to court, while the amount of the penalty is assessed in accordance with the average-fine rule laid down in Article 34(2) of the CAO. As the police continue enforcement and respond to reports from residents, the most important practical step for drivers before purchasing a device is to verify its technical characteristics, since these determine the category to which it belongs and the statutory requirements applicable to the person driving it.
Under Article 284 of the Criminal Code, a person who demonstrated disrespect through acts of vandalism faces imprisonment of up to two years, while under Article 170(2) of the Criminal Code the same sentencing range applies to a person who publicly denigrated a religious group.
Dissemination of the video online may constitute a separate offence under Article 170(1) of the Criminal Code, namely dissemination of items in which a religious group is denigrated.
Following the burning of a Quran on Etmonų Street in Vilnius on the night of 13 September, a pre-trial investigation was opened for disturbance of public order; however, the final legal classification may shift toward incitement against a religious group. The principal legal issue is whether the conduct satisfies the elements of “acts of vandalism demonstrating disrespect for others” under Article 284 of the Criminal Code, or whether it constitutes “public contempt” directed at a religious group under Article 170(2) of the Criminal Code. The distinction in classification determines the sentencing framework: Article 284 carries a custodial sentence of up to two years, and Article 170(2) likewise carries up to two years, but the latter provision entails recognition that the person has committed a hate crime, with the corresponding legal consequences. Since the act was committed on 13 September, the law in force at the time of the act applies pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Criminal Code.
The police opened the investigation under Article 284 of the Criminal Code; the prosecutor may amend the classification if the evidence, in particular the video recording and its public dissemination on Instagram, confirms an intent to denigrate a religious group.
The most likely scenario is that the investigation will continue under Article 284 of the Criminal Code, while the prosecutor’s assessment of the content of the recording and the circumstances of its dissemination may lead to reclassification under Article 170 of the Criminal Code. A convicted person faces community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to two years under the sanctions provided in both provisions. Persons who disseminated the video risk separate liability under Article 170(1) of the Criminal Code (dissemination). The key point to monitor is the decision of the police and prosecution regarding classification and the identification of suspects.