The Council’s power to dismiss the head is enshrined in Article 11(1)(9) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Lithuanian National Radio and Television, under which the Council appoints and dismisses the LRT Director General by way of public competition.
The Council found an ordinary, not gross, breach, meaning that dismissal is possible only upon a second similar breach within one year.
LRT Director General Monika Garbačiauskaitė-Budrienė remained in office: the Council classified her conduct as an ordinary, rather than gross, breach of employment duties, meaning that dismissal is now possible only if a breach in a similar area is repeated within one year. The precise legal question before the Council was whether the failure to disclose data concerning persons from whom the institution purchased services constituted a gross breach of duties under the new dismissal procedure, or merely an ordinary breach to be assessed together with the provisions of the Labour Code governing liability for breaches of duties. The situation is further shaped by the decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office this summer that LRT must individually assess each case in which suppliers’ names and surnames are not disclosed in procurement reports, rather than automatically refusing to publish them on the basis of data protection requirements.
The Council’s competence to assess the Director General’s conduct derives from Article 11(1) of the LRT Law: the Council supervises the implementation of LRT’s objectives and compliance with statutory requirements, and appoints and dismisses the Director General. The basis for the Director General’s responsibility is confirmed by Article 13 of the Law, in its 2020 wording: the head of LRT is responsible for LRT’s activities, the programmes prepared and broadcast, and the implementation of Council resolutions. In the present situation, three facts are decisive:
The practical consequences are as follows:
Under Article 52 of the Law on Nuclear Energy, representatives authorized by VATESI must participate in the preparation of agreements relating to nuclear safety and physical security, while persons authorized by the Ministry of Energy must participate in respect of the use of nuclear energy.
Under Article 14 of the Law on Nuclear Safety, the State Nuclear Power Safety Inspectorate is the contact institution for the exchange of information with foreign authorities regulating nuclear safety.
The agreement between Lithuania and the United States on the development of small modular reactors currently has legal significance only as a stage in negotiations: until a decision of the Seimas in the first half of 2028, no specific legal status concerning the construction of a nuclear energy facility or the selection of a supplier can yet be established. Meanwhile, the long-term LNG agreement already signed between Ignitis and EQT is a private-law transaction, with the parties’ relationship additionally governed by the treaty between the Government of the Republic of Lithuania and the Government of the United States on the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments. The precise legal issue is how international cooperation and the conclusion of agreements with U.S. suppliers in the field of nuclear energy are to be organized; this is determined under Article 14 of the Law on Nuclear Safety of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 52 of the Law on Nuclear Energy of the Republic of Lithuania.
Under Article 14 of the Law on Nuclear Safety, institutions whose activities relate to nuclear safety cooperate with interested states by exchanging information, providing assistance in professional development, and holding meetings, while the State Nuclear Power Safety Inspectorate (VATESI) serves as the contact institution with foreign authorities regulating nuclear safety. The preparation of international agreements with U.S. suppliers under Article 52 of the Law on Nuclear Energy is carried out in accordance with principles of international law and Lithuanian laws governing the conclusion of treaties, with mandatory participation differentiated as follows: persons authorized by the Ministry of Energy participate in the preparation of agreements concerning the use of nuclear energy, while representatives authorized by VATESI participate in agreements concerning nuclear, radiation and physical security, as well as nuclear material accounting and control. The competence of the Government is defined by Article 9 of the Law on Nuclear Safety. Under the regulations approved by Government Resolution No. 86 of 11 February 2009, the Ministry of Energy organizes the development of nuclear energy infrastructure and bilateral international cooperation. In the future, the selected facility will be governed by the areas set out in Article 4 of the Law on Nuclear Safety: site evaluation, design, construction, commissioning, physical security and emergency preparedness; physical security requirements under Articles 34 and 35 of the Law on Nuclear Energy will be established by the Government or an institution authorized by it. The position of U.S. investors in disputes is additionally protected by the investment protection treaty, the scope of which covers intellectual property, know-how and any right or licence granted by contract.
Once the Seimas adopts a decision on the development of small modular reactors in the first half of 2028, a specific regulatory stage will begin: site evaluation, licensing and VATESI supervision under Article 4 of the Law on Nuclear Safety. Agreements signed by Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant with U.S. and European technology developers will become the basis for contractual relations only insofar as implemented through the competence of the Government and the Ministry. Performance of the Ignitis and EQT agreement will mean that each annual LNG cargo is treated as economic activity covered by the investment protection treaty, and any change in Lithuanian regulation affecting that activity may provide a U.S. investor with grounds to invoke that treaty. For Lithuania’s Presidency of the Council of the EU beginning on 1 January 2027, the energy agenda will mean that part of the results of this bilateral partnership will be transferred to the EU legislative level.
Under Article 13 of the LRT Law, the Director General is appointed to office and dismissed from office by the Council, and where a gross breach of employment duties is established, dismissal requires the votes of not less than two thirds of all Council members.
The new dismissal procedure, which entered into force on 13 June 2026, allows the Director General to be dismissed before the expiry of the term of office if he or she has committed a gross breach of employment duties or no longer meets the requirements of impeccable reputation.
LRT Director General Monika Garbačiauskaitė-Budrienė currently faces not dismissal, but only a warning; however, the fate of her office over the next twelve months will depend on whether the Council establishes a repeated breach of the same kind. The legal position is determined under the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Lithuanian National Radio and Television (the “LRT Law”), Article 13 of which provides that the Director General is appointed to office for a five-year term, and dismissed from office, by the Council following a public competition. The precise legal question arising is whether the established breach may be classified as a gross breach of employment duties, on the basis of which dismissal before the expiry of the term of office would be possible, and by what voting majority such a decision is adopted. The position of the Chair of the Council is clear: the breach should not be regarded as gross, and therefore there is currently no basis for dismissing the Director General. The temporal dimension is also important: according to the note in the Register of Legal Acts to the LRT Law, the new dismissal procedure took effect immediately on 13 June 2026, when the legal act was signed, while the remaining provisions of the amendments will enter into force in several years.
If a gross breach of employment duties or non-compliance with impeccable reputation requirements is established, the Director General may be dismissed only by a majority of not less than two thirds of all members of the Council; this is provided for in the new dismissal procedure, which is already in force. Specifically, this means that in every vote on dismissal, what matters is not only the proportion of votes cast in favour of finding a breach, but also the absolute number of members who did not participate in the vote. The case referred to in the news report illustrates this: of 16 Council members, 12 voted in favour of the resolution (11 attended in person, and one submitted an advance vote), while 4 members did not participate because they considered the wording of the resolution to be contrary to the LRT Law and the Labour Code. The basis for the Director General’s responsibility is also addressed through the allocation of functions: Article 13(1) of the LRT Law provides that the Director General is responsible for LRT’s activities, the programmes prepared and broadcast, and the implementation of Council resolutions, and, at the Council’s request, must provide information on the performance of the functions provided for by law and the implementation of Council resolutions. The Council’s supervisory competence follows from Article 10 of the Law Amending the LRT Law, which entrusts the Council with supervising how LRT’s objectives are implemented and how compliance is ensured with the requirements imposed on broadcasters by legal acts. The key argument in the Director General’s position is the inconsistency of the Council’s positions: in a letter sent to the Seimas in April, the Chair of the Council endorsed the position that suppliers’ surnames did not need to be disclosed, although in June the Prosecutor General’s Office identified breaches, and in early July the Council unanimously instructed the administration to remedy them and provide an explanation of the reasons. The legality of the resolution establishing the breach is disputed on several grounds: the Director refers to missed deadlines and the failure to allow her lawyer to participate in the meeting, meaning that both the procedure and the substance are being questioned.
The most immediate risk for the Director General is that the same breach may be established again within the next 12 months, which could become grounds for terminating the employment contract. Dismissal would require the support of not less than two thirds of all Council members; therefore, in practical terms, what is decisive is not only the majority, but also the conduct of members who do not participate in the vote, as demonstrated by the refusal of 4 members to participate. It may be difficult to defend in court a decision that established a breach but did not classify it as gross; the Director herself acknowledged that a decision of this kind would be difficult to challenge before a court, and for the time being she has not declared any intention to bring proceedings. The LRT administration remains subject to the Council’s July instruction to remedy the breaches identified by the Prosecutor’s Office and to provide an explanation, although, according to the Director, the July resolution also instructed the administration to refrain from preparing any procedures, even though the Prosecutor’s Office recommended having a procedure for the disclosure of authors.
The regulation was initiated by members of the Seimas who, relying on complaints from non-governmental organisations and citizens, argued that LRT restricts freedom of expression and fails to comply with the principles of impartiality. The initiators’ objective was to strengthen oversight by the LRT Council and ensure that the national broadcaster reflects a range of political views. However, objections arose: the RRT opposed the proposals, regarding them as excessive, as imposing a significant administrative burden, and as requiring additional budgetary funds, contrary to what was stated in the explanatory memorandum.
Article 12(4): the Director General may be dismissed before the expiry of the term of office due to a vote of no confidence expressed by the Council only if at least two thirds of all Council members vote in favour.
LRT Director General Monika Garbačiauskaitė-Budrienė has not, for the time being, been removed from office: the Council’s resolution is an act at the level of a warning, accompanied by a recommendation, but it creates a basis for the future. The report states that dismissal may become an operative measure if another similar breach of duties is established within 12 months. The real legal issue is twofold: whether the Council adopted such a resolution within its competence and in accordance with the proper procedure, since four Council members contest its wording as contrary to legal acts, while the Director General’s defenders argue that it was adopted in breach of employment law procedure. The assessment will be based on the provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Lithuanian National Radio and Television concerning the Council’s functions (Article 11), the status of the Director General (Article 12), and the Director General’s accountability (Article 13).
Under Article 12(1) of the LRT Law, the Director General is responsible for LRT’s activities and for implementing Council resolutions, while Article 13(1) requires the Director General, at the Council’s request, to inform the Council about the performance of functions and implementation of resolutions. It is precisely this chain of accountability that was activated after the Prosecutor’s Office found that LRT’s operating principles had been breached by the failure to disclose 2025 data on service providers. Article 11(1)(2) expressly assigns to the Council supervision of compliance with LRT’s operating principles, among which Article 3(1) identifies accountability and transparency. Accordingly, the focus of the assessment on procurement transparency falls within the very subject matter of supervision established by law for the Council. Once the breach has been classified, the following limits apply:
The procedural risk to the resolution lies in the manner of its preparation and adoption: the drafter of the draft resolution was initially “anonymous”; four members refused to vote because of objections that the wording conflicted with legal acts; and counsel stated that the Director General had not been afforded an opportunity for legal defence, as counsel was not allowed to attend the meeting in person, and that under employment law a breach of duties may be established within one month from the date on which it becomes known. The sources do not contain case law confirming the merits of these arguments, so no specific case is cited. However, the dispute over both wording and procedure means that the legality of the resolution may be examined by a court.
For the Director General, the practical consequence is a formalised warning and a 12-month risk period: if a similar breach is again established, it would open the way to dismissal under the no-confidence procedure, requiring the votes of two thirds of all Council members. For the Council, the adverse publicity surrounding the voting results and the disputed wording of the resolution create a risk to the resolution’s legality, which, according to the Director General’s counsel, is already being considered as a possible court challenge, although the Director General herself acknowledges that such an appeal would be “rather complicated”. For LRT as an institution, this means intensified supervision in the area of procurement, directly controlled through committees established by the Council (Article 11(1)(3): the Procurement and Investment Policy Committee). Point to monitor: whether the Director General will shortly decide whether to challenge the resolution in court, and whether the Council will again consider the classification of a similar breach within the next 12 months.
Under Article 125(2) of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens, where an alien holds a valid document issued by another EU Member State granting the right to stay or reside there, the alien is obliged to leave Lithuania.
Article 3 of the Agreement on the readmission of persons residing unlawfully provides that the Party through whose external border the person subject to return entered shall readmit that person without any formalities.
A Tunisian citizen detained on the Riga-Vilnius train with a Latvian asylum-seeker certificate faces not an asylum procedure in Lithuania, but return to Latvia under the trilateral readmission agreement, and precisely such action by the SBGS complies with the applicable rules. Under the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Legal Status of Aliens, a Latvian asylum-seeker certificate does not confer the right to enter or stay in Lithuania, and entry without a passport, visa, or residence permit is deemed unlawful under Article 10 if the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 (Schengen Borders Code) are breached. The precise legal question is whether the detainee must be admitted to Lithuania’s asylum procedure or returned to the neighbouring state; it is resolved under Article 125(2) of that Law and Article 3 of the Agreement between the Governments of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia on the readmission of persons residing unlawfully.
Under Article 125(2) of the Law on the Legal Status of Aliens, where grounds for return exist but the alien holds a valid document issued by another EU Member State granting the right to stay or reside there, the alien is obliged to leave Lithuania; here, the Latvian asylum-seeker certificate operates as such a document. Article 3 of the Agreement on the readmission of persons residing unlawfully provides that the Party through whose external border the third-country national subject to return entered shall readmit that person without any formalities, where it is proved or reasonably presumed that the person entered the territory of the requesting Party from the territory of that Party. The detainee satisfies this criterion: he was detained in Latvia, received an asylum-seeker certificate on 2 August, and later unlawfully left the accommodation centre; it is therefore reasonable to presume that he entered Lithuania from Latvia. The rights of an asylum seeker under Article 71 do not arise for him in Lithuania, because he is not seeking asylum in Lithuania, while the right to remain in the territory established in Article 140-9(1) applies only until enforcement of the return decision.
For the Tunisian citizen, return to Latvia means that there he continues to be treated as an asylum seeker who left the accommodation centre on his own initiative, and Latvia may decide on the examination of his application or on detention in accordance with its national rules. On the Lithuanian side, the procedure is concluded without examination of asylum, because there was neither an application in Lithuania nor any basis to admit him under the 48-hour mechanism in Article 140-8(2). This practice is practically important for carriers and operators of international routes: passengers holding asylum certificates issued by another state cannot travel to Lithuania, and detention on a train means delays and official procedures. For another asylum seeker choosing a similar route, the consequence would be identical: transfer to Latvian border guards under the same agreement.
Correction. The stronger argument at present is directed not against the carrier, but against the regulatory framework. Passengers who complain about a refusal to grant the concession risk an adverse outcome in a discrimination investigation, because the Ombudsperson will terminate individual cases by reference to the statutory provision. It is therefore ineffective to pursue claims against Smiltynės perkėla in practical terms: the company is merely applying the statutory condition, and by the end of the first half of 2026 the State’s debt to the company for compensation had already reached EUR 1.8 million, representing 98.2 per cent of all lost revenue. Any expansion of concessions therefore depends on budgetary decisions.
Under Article 2(4) of the Law on Equal Opportunities, linking the concession solely to the status of the vehicle’s owner or operator may be assessed as indirect discrimination on grounds of disability, because a formally neutral condition in practice restricts the exercise of rights.
The Ombudsperson has no mandate to assess laws adopted by the Seimas; therefore, having identified a legal gap, she terminated the investigation and chose the route of recommendations: proposals to the ministries and the Seimas.
Complaints by families transporting children with disabilities in vehicles not registered in their own names legally divide into two parts: assessment of the company’s conduct and assessment of the legal framework governing the concession itself. The Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson terminated the discrimination investigation because she has no mandate to assess laws adopted by the Seimas, but acknowledged that the current regime may give rise to discrimination and addressed the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, and the Seimas, proposing amendments to the regulation. The precise legal issue is whether linking the concession solely to the status of the vehicle’s owner or operator, as provided in the Law on the Financing of the Road Maintenance and Development Programme and the Inland Waterway Transport Code, constitutes indirect discrimination on grounds of disability under Article 2(4) of the Law on Equal Opportunities and whether the obligations established in Article 8 of that Law in the field of consumer protection are breached. The definition in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is also relevant, under which discrimination on the basis of disability includes “denial of reasonable accommodation”.
Article 8 of the Law on Equal Opportunities requires a seller, producer, or service provider, irrespective of disability, to ensure equal conditions for all consumers to receive the same services and to apply equal payment terms. However, Smiltynės perkėla’s position is based on the fact that compensation is provided by the State, not by the company itself, and that the current regime grants compensation for transporting a vehicle only where the person with a disability is the owner or operator of that vehicle. This condition is formally neutral, but under Article 2(4) it may be assessed as indirect discrimination, because its implementation in practice restricts the exercise of rights on grounds of disability, particularly for minors who, due to their age and legal status, generally cannot be vehicle owners or drivers. Under paragraphs 9.1-9.9 of the Regulations of the Office, the Ombudsperson’s Office investigates complaints, conducts investigations on its own initiative, and submits proposals to state institutions regarding the improvement of legislation. The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania of 26 June 2015 in administrative case No. e3A-858/2015 confirms that the principle prohibiting discrimination in Lithuanian administrative law also applies on grounds of disability, and that a breach of equal opportunities includes the failure to perform, or improper performance of, statutory duties and non-compliance with prohibitions. An important procedural limit applies: the Ombudsperson cannot annul or amend statutory provisions; therefore, having identified a legal gap, she terminated the investigation and chose the route of recommendations.
In practical terms, two avenues are available to families: to await regulatory amendment or to defend their rights in court under Article 12, where the issue of discrimination would be decided independently of the limits of the Ombudsperson’s mandate. Smiltynės perkėla does not currently face sanctions: the Ombudsperson terminated the investigation and did not characterise the company’s conduct as an infringement, while payment of compensation remains a state subsidy rather than a company-funded benefit. The proposal submitted to the ministries and the Seimas to assess the regulation means that any actual change in the legal position will depend on legislative amendment; until such amendment is adopted, the concession applies only where the person with a disability is the owner or operator of the vehicle. Attention should also be paid to the financial context: at the end of the first half of 2026, the State’s debt to the company for compensation amounted to EUR 1.8 million, i.e. 98.2% of all lost revenue, which may affect decisions on improving the concession system.
Under Article 94(1)(2) of the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners, persons entitled to temporary protection reside free of charge for no longer than 6 months in State and municipal accommodation facilities, including property managed by municipalities under loan for use.
Article 14 of the Law on the Management, Use and Disposal of State and Municipal Property permits municipal property to be transferred free of charge on the basis of loan for use only to a closed list of entities, which municipal act No. T-135 supplements with the purpose of social integration of foreigners.
The Linkaučiai building complex in Panevėžys District is, in legal terms, not municipal property for sale, but a potential accommodation site for foreigners under temporary protection, with the burden of its maintenance shifted to the State through a cooperation agreement with the Reception and Integration Agency. This arrangement is possible only because the legislature permits municipalities to transfer property free of charge specifically to entities pursuing social purposes, while also establishing State-funded residence and integration rights for foreigners granted temporary protection. The precise legal question is this: on what legal basis may municipal immovable property be temporarily transferred for use, free of charge, for the accommodation of foreigners under temporary protection, and who bears the cost of maintaining it when the facility stands empty in a “standby” state. This question is governed by Article 14 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Management, Use and Disposal of State and Municipal Property, Panevėžys District Municipal Council procedure descriptions No. T-134 and No. T-135, and Articles 94 and 108 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Legal Status of Foreigners.
Article 14(1) of the Law on the Management, Use and Disposal of State and Municipal Property permits municipal property to be transferred on the basis of loan for use for temporary, free-of-charge management and use only to a closed list of entities: budgetary institutions, public institutions, associations and charity and support foundations for specified operational purposes, regional development councils, and other entities named in the list. Panevėžys District Municipality’s procedure description No. T-135 of 25 June 2026 particularises this list and, in point 4, includes as a separate ground the operational purpose of associations and foundations “to ensure the social integration of foreigners” (subpoint 4.3), thereby creating a legal bridge between municipal property and the refugee accommodation function. If property is transferred not by way of loan for use but under the right of trust, procedure description No. T-134 applies: subpoint 4.3 provides that property may be transferred to other legal persons only where they have been entrusted by law with implementing municipal functions, and the decision is adopted by the Municipal Council, which sets the term of the agreement, not exceeding 20 years. The accommodation function itself is governed by Article 94 of the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners: Article 94(1)(2) provides that persons entitled to temporary protection reside free of charge, for no longer than 6 months from the date of registration of the application for a residence permit, in accommodation facilities of State and municipal institutions, including State immovable property managed by municipalities under loan for use. After that period expires, the right of residence remains if accommodation is paid for in accordance with the procedure established by the managers of the institution, meaning that persons accommodated for a longer stay at the Linkaučiai facility would have to pay themselves. Persons already granted temporary protection are subject to Article 108, under paragraph 1 of which State funds allocated for integration are used to pay a monthly food allowance, a one-off settlement allowance in the territory of a municipality, a monthly allowance for essential needs, including housing rent and utilities, and compensation to an education provider for a child’s education and maintenance. The sources contain no case law; accordingly, the assessment is based solely on the normative framework.
If the Municipal Council approves the extension of the agreement with the Reception and Integration Agency for another year, the Linkaučiai complex remains a reserved accommodation site whose operating costs are covered under the agreement by the State, not the municipal budget. In practical terms, this means that by forgoing the option of sale, the municipality assumes an obligation to keep the facility in usable condition, but receives remuneration for doing so from State funds; the building remains unavailable to the buyer market. If persons granted temporary protection were to arrive in the district, they would reside free of charge for the first 6 months and thereafter would pay in accordance with the procedure established by the institution; upon moving to a place of residence within the municipality, they would receive the benefits provided for in Article 108, including housing rent compensation, to which, under the amended Article 94(3)(5), the requirement concerning the term of the housing lease agreement does not apply.