Legal prism — 2026-09-25

Core issue

Priest T. Švedavičius is facing charges in court under several articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, and the prosecutor’s call for additional persons to come forward means that the pre-trial investigation is not yet regarded as complete and that the scope of the charges may expand. The real legal issue is whether statements by additional persons who come forward will be classified under the same articles of the Criminal Code, and whether this will delay the hearing of the case and increase the defendant’s sentencing exposure. The following provisions will apply in determining liability:

• Article 150 of the Criminal Code — satisfaction of sexual desire in violation of a minor’s freedom of sexual self-determination; under paragraph 3, a person who abused trust, authority or influence faces imprisonment for up to six years, while under paragraph 4, where the victim is under the age of 16, the penalty is imprisonment from two to eight years;
• Article 151 of the Criminal Code — coercion of a minor to engage in sexual intercourse, punishable by imprisonment from two to eight years, and paragraph 3 of this article provides that liability for an act under paragraph 1 arises only upon the victim’s complaint, a statement by the victim’s legal representative, or a prosecutor’s request;
• Article 153 of the Criminal Code — sexual molestation of a person under the age of 16, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years;
• Article 162 of the Criminal Code — exploitation of a child for pornography, where the basic offence is punishable by imprisonment from two to eight years;
• as well as charges concerning involving a child in alcohol consumption and possession of pornographic material depicting a child.

Legal assessment

The participants in the proceedings have clear positions. The prosecutor is the de facto manager of the criminal prosecution: his call to contact the Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office means that new statements will be assessed either as grounds for separate pre-trial investigations or as additional episodes in the existing case. Article 151(3) of the Criminal Code is particularly significant: the offence of coercion to engage in sexual intercourse is an exception within public prosecution, since liability under this article cannot arise without the victim’s complaint or a statement by the victim’s legal representative; accordingly, each new statement directly opens the possibility of additionally qualifying the conduct. For offences under Article 150(3) of the Criminal Code, the qualifying element is abuse of trust, authority or influence; in this respect, the status of priest will be assessed as a source of authority and influence, increasing the sentencing range to imprisonment from two to eight years where the victim is under the age of 16. Victims have the right to bring civil claims in the criminal proceedings; six claims have already been filed, with amounts ranging from several hundred euros to more than EUR 200,000.

[REZULTATAI] The practical consequences differ for several groups of persons. For victims:

• upon filing a statement with the prosecutor’s office, they acquire victim status, with the right to participate in the proceedings and bring a civil claim;
• the amount of compensation depends on the substantiation of each victim’s claim. For the defendant:
• new episodes increase the risk of a higher final sentence, because several offences will be assessed as an aggregate of criminal acts;
• under Article 67(2) of the Criminal Code, penal measures may be imposed together with the sentence, including deprivation of the right to perform certain work or engage in certain activities, deprivation of public rights, and an obligation not to approach the victim;
• it should be noted that Articles 150, 151, 151-1, 153, 152-1 and 162 of the Criminal Code also provide for liability of a legal person; this is theoretically relevant if involvement of a church structure were established, but the sources contain no such information. A procedural risk is delay in the hearing of the case: where the prosecutor himself says that “the circle of victims may change,” it is likely that the court will decide whether to return the case to the prosecutor for additional investigation or adjourn the hearing in order to include new episodes.

[PASEKMĖS SEKIMO TAŠKAS] The next step is the assessment of new statements by the Vilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office and the court’s decision on the further course of the proceedings.

Core issue

The pig’s head brought into the courtyard of the Kaunas mosque and the alleged burning of the Quran in Vilnius are not matters of migration policy, but issues of criminal law and administrative liability to be addressed by the police and the prosecutor’s office, not politicians. For the accused persons, the real risk is criminal liability: incitement against a religious group or disturbance of public order, rather than a fine for breaching the rules governing a public assembly. The precise legal question is whether the protesters’ actions should be classified under Article 170 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (incitement against a religious group), under the less severe provision of Article 284 of the Criminal Code (disturbance of public order), or only under Article 481 of the Code of Administrative Offences (minor disturbance of public order). The answer depends on intent: Article 170(2) of the Criminal Code prohibits “publicly ridiculing, expressing contempt for, inciting hatred against, or inciting discrimination against” a group of persons on grounds of belief or religion, and carries a penalty of imprisonment for up to two years. In addition, the issue arises of the protection of religious communities under the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Religious Communities and Associations, namely the means by which the state protects such communities. Acts directed against Muslims also engage Article 3(2) of the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners, under which foreigners in Lithuania are equal before the law irrespective of belief or convictions.

Legal assessment

Bringing a pig’s head to a mosque during religious rites and making threats against representatives of the community may be classified as public contempt directed at a religious group. Such classification under Article 170 of the Criminal Code requires establishing that the conduct was directed against a group on account of its religion, not merely against individual persons. This corresponds to Mufti A. Beganskas’s argument that the action was directed against Muslims, not concerned with order in the park. If intent directed against a religious group is not established, less severe provisions may apply:

• Article 284 of the Criminal Code: insolent conduct, threats, or malicious ridicule in a public place that disturbed public peace (a fine or imprisonment for up to two years);
• Article 481(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences: offensive harassment and other intentional acts intended to breach public order (a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 140);
• Article 481(4) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for the possibility of prohibiting attendance at events held in public places for a period of six months to two years where the offence was committed at an event. The burned Quran may be assessed under Article 170(1) of the Criminal Code, which prohibits producing, possessing, or distributing items that ridicule or incite hatred against a group of persons on grounds of belief or religion (a fine or imprisonment for up to one year). If the conduct is classified under Article 170 of the Criminal Code, this would entail criminal, not administrative, liability, with all resulting consequences: pre-trial investigation, charges, and court proceedings.

Consequences

The specific form of liability will depend on the intent established during the pre-trial investigation. The possible practical consequences are as follows:

• If conduct falling within Article 170(2) of the Criminal Code is established, criminal liability applies, including possible imprisonment for up to two years.
• If Article 170 of the Criminal Code does not apply, the less severe liability under Article 284 of the Criminal Code or administrative liability under Article 481 of the Code of Administrative Offences may apply (a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 140).
• In addition, a prohibition on attending events held in public places may be imposed under Article 481(4) of the Code of Administrative Offences.

Under Article 481 of the ANK, obscene language in a public place is punishable by a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 140, and, in the event of a repeated offence, EUR 140 to EUR 240.

Under Article 481(4) of the ANK, such an offence committed at an event held in a public place may result in a prohibition on attending events for a period of six months to two years.

Core issue

The offensive chant by “Žalgiris” supporters at Švyturys Arena may constitute a minor breach of public order under Article 481 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania (ANK), which provides for a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 140 for obscene language in a public place and offensive harassment of persons. The specific persons exposed to such liability are those supporters whose conduct was aimed at breaching public order and disturbing public peace; the club “Žalgiris” is not subject to separate administrative liability on this basis, although under Article 494-1 of the ANK, liability for breaches of requirements applicable to sports event organisers may be imposed on the event organiser or its responsible persons. An additional individual consequence is the prohibition under Article 481(4) of the ANK on attending events held in public places for a period of six months to two years.

Legal assessment

For Article 481(1) of the ANK to apply, it will be necessary to establish that the content of the chant was intentional and directed at breaching public order and disturbing public peace in a public place, namely an arena where minors were also present as spectators. If the same person were to commit the offence repeatedly, Article 481(2) would apply, and under paragraph 3 an obligation to participate in violent behaviour modification or other prevention programmes may be imposed. Matches held at Švyturys Arena qualify as events taking place in a public place; accordingly, the prohibition on attending events for a period of six months to two years provided for in Article 481(4) is directly applicable to this situation. A similar conflict in the same arena has previously resulted in a pre-trial investigation for breach of public order, and where conduct reaches the level of insolent, malicious or vandalistic behaviour and disturbs public peace, Article 284 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania may also fall to be considered. In the case of a chant alone, however, an administrative-law assessment will usually suffice. The fact that last season the Klaipėda Police Commissariat opened a pre-trial investigation into breach of public order following fights between “Neptūnas” and “Žalgiris” supporters shows that, in such situations, the police do in practice assess both administrative and criminal-law concepts.

Consequences

Individual liability: supporters identified from video footage as having participated in the chant may be fined EUR 30 to EUR 140 under Article 481(1) of the ANK, and, in the event of a repeated offence, EUR 140 to EUR 240, together with an obligation to participate in prevention programmes.

• Restriction on event attendance: under Article 481(4), individual persons may be prohibited from attending events held in public places for a period of 6 months to 2 years.
• Club and league level: on the basis of LKL regulations, fines have already been imposed on clubs: EUR 1,000 on “Neptūnas” for security-related issues and EUR 1,200 on each club for supporter conduct. In the event of repeated incidents, stricter sanctions are envisaged, including matches played without spectators.
• Organiser liability: if it is established that appropriate management of spectator behaviour was not ensured in the arena, Article 494-1 of the ANK applies, providing for a warning or a fine of up to EUR 700 for an individual and up to EUR 870 for responsible persons.
• Monitoring point: the next step would be an assessment by the authorities as to whether to initiate proceedings under Article 481 of the ANK, and a possible LKL decision on new sanctions against the clubs.

Article 228(1) of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment of up to four years, while where the act is committed for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary or other personal benefit, paragraph 2 provides for imprisonment of up to six years.

If bribery is proven and the value of the bribe exceeds 250 MLS, Article 225(3) of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment from two to eight years.

Core issue

The suspected NPA officials, including Deputy Director Tomas Orlickas and suspended Director Fortunata Dirginčienė, may face charges under Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, namely abuse of office, as the report indicates precisely this line of conduct: the granting of unlawful advantages to persons participating in European Union projects. Since the harm may have been caused within the system for allocating EU funds, the scope of criminal liability broadens: Article 228(1) of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment of up to four years, while where the act is committed for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary or other personal benefit, without elements of bribery, paragraph 2 provides for imprisonment of up to six years. If the investigation establishes that the advantages were granted in exchange for a bribe, corruption-related offences may also apply: Article 225 of the Criminal Code (bribery, where under paragraph 3 a bribe exceeding 250 MLS entails imprisonment from two to eight years), Article 226 (trading in influence, up to five years), or Article 227 (graft). Article 228(3) of the Criminal Code provides that a legal person may also be held liable for these offences; however, under the wording of Article 20 of the Criminal Code, the State, as well as state institutions and agencies, are not liable. Accordingly, the NPA as an institution is not subject to criminal liability; liability attaches to specific natural persons.

Legal assessment

The formulation of the suspicion as “abuse of office for the purpose of granting unlawful advantages” corresponds to Article 228(1) of the Criminal Code, which requires substantial harm. Such harm may have been suffered by the European Union as the provider of funds for EU projects, or by other persons who were not granted the advantages. The investigation is being conducted jointly by the Financial Crime Investigation Service and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which, in cases involving this type of offence and harm to the EU’s financial interests, may act as the prosecuting authority. This means that the proceedings will be conducted under provisions of EU law falling within the competence of the EPPO, and not solely under national procedure. In classifying the conduct, the principle set out in Article 3(1) of the Criminal Code is important: criminality is determined by the law in force at the time the act was committed, while a mitigating law has retroactive effect under paragraph 2. In the context of corruption prevention, Article 2(3) of the Law on the Special Investigation Service and Article 2(2) of the Law on Prevention of Corruption list abuse of office, bribery, trading in influence, and graft among corruption-related offences. This means that such cases are classified as corruption-related and that their prevention and investigation fall within the competence of the relevant specialised authorities. The sources provided contain no case-law on this issue, so no specific case can be cited.

Consequences

The practical consequences for the suspects depend on which offence is ultimately proven.

• Under Article 228(1) of the Criminal Code: a fine, arrest, or imprisonment for up to four years; under paragraph 2, concerning personal benefit, imprisonment for up to six years.
• Suspension from office (Director Fortunatas Dirginčius) is a temporary organisational measure, independent of the presumption of innocence; the final consequences for the officials will depend on the court’s judgment.
• The NPA, as a state institution, is not subject to criminal liability under Article 20 of the Criminal Code; however, during the investigation its ability to independently adopt decisions concerning EU projects may be restricted. The investigation by the Financial Crime Investigation Service and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is ongoing; the expected prosecutorial step in respect of each suspect is the clarification of the wording of the suspicions or prosecution before a court.

Core issue

The persons mentioned in this account, namely members of the Kapčiamiestis community and local residents who publicly discussed the military training area, are, legally speaking, in a peaceful position: no part of the information presented indicates an administrative offence, proceedings, or an applicable sanction. The publication is a journalistic portrait and an exercise in archiving regional memory, not a report of an infringement; accordingly, no genuine legal issue arises here. The only areas in which discussions concerning the training area and fake social media accounts could potentially be subject to legal assessment would fall within administrative liability, but the cited sources, Articles 23-26, 29, and 34 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania, establish only general rules on penalties and measures of administrative impact; moreover, the Special Part of the Code does not establish an offence applicable to this situation.

Legal assessment

If the activities of the community members were assessed from an administrative-law perspective, the procedure would follow the model set out in Article 577 of the Code of Administrative Offences: the person subject to proceedings has the right to access the case file, participate in oral proceedings, submit documents, use the assistance of a lawyer, and appeal decisions. Upon completing the investigation, the official, pursuant to Article 608 of the Code, would draw up a protocol of administrative offence in the person’s presence, and the contents of that protocol, including the place, time, and substance of the offence, the legal act breached, and explanations, would be governed by Article 609 of the Code. The amount of the penalty would be determined under Article 34(2) of the Code, namely by reference to the average of the minimum and maximum fines provided for in the sanction, taking into account the form of guilt and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The sources provided contain no case law applicable to discussions concerning the training area or to public civic expression. It should only be noted that the purpose of the Code declared in Article 1, to protect rights and freedoms and ensure peaceful coexistence, indicates, on the contrary, that the public expression of a contested position does not in itself constitute any basis for liability.

Consequences

The cited sources give rise to no practical legal consequences for the persons mentioned. The real further context is social and civic in nature: discussions concerning the decision on the training area and the management of divisions within the community, rather than legal proceedings. The procedural point to follow is the continuation of the “Resilient Community - Safe Dzūkija” series referred to in the report and any further public developments concerning the training-area issue.

Under Article 12-2(2) of the Law on Food, placing unsafe food on the market is subject to a fine of EUR 144 to EUR 1,448, while failure to comply with an order to discontinue sale is subject to a fine of EUR 868 to EUR 4,344.

Under Article 12-5(5) of the Law on Food, SFVS rulings and decisions on market restriction measures must be published on the SFVS website.

Core issue

Companies selling organic food products in online stores whose activities are not certified face fines under Section 4-1 of the Law on Food of the Republic of Lithuania and, in the event of safety infringements, market restriction measures as well. In 2026, the SFVS carried out 64 inspections and identified 9 infringements, 89% of which related to uncertified distance-selling activities; this means that the principal risk is not product safety, but the legality of the activity and the accuracy of information concerning organic production. The precise legal issue, namely the procedure by which the SFVS may impose fines and restrict trade for unlawful organic claims and the supply of unsafe products, is determined under Articles 12-1, 12-2 and 12-5 of the Law on Food, as well as Article 11 of the Law on Food concerning official food control.

Legal assessment

Under Article 11(2) and (3) of the Law on Food, the SFVS verifies that food is safe, properly labelled and compliant with legal requirements; controls are carried out without prior notice, regularly under risk-based programmes or where infringements are suspected. Market restriction measures under Article 12-1 of the Law on Food apply where food is placed on the market in breach of the requirements of Article 7 or where there are grounds to believe that it may be unsafe for consumers’ health or life, as well as where counterfeit food is produced or supplied; Article 6(3) prohibits food counterfeiting and the placing of counterfeit food on the market. The amounts of fines are set out in Article 12-2 of the Law on Food:

• for placing unsafe food on the market, a fine of EUR 144 to EUR 1,448;
• for failure to comply with an order to discontinue the sale of unsafe food, EUR 868 to EUR 4,344;
• for failure to comply with SFVS requirements to remove unsafe food from the market or destroy it, EUR 1,448 to EUR 5,792. Cases under Article 12-5 are heard by the SFVS itself: inspectors draw up protocols, and the infringer has the right to participate in the hearing, access the case materials, provide explanations and appeal the decision. SFVS rulings and decisions on market restriction measures are published publicly on the website of the State Food and Veterinary Service. Infringements relating to the procedure for supplying agricultural products to the market may also give rise to liability under Article 347(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences: a warning or a fine for individuals ranging from EUR 20 to EUR 140, and for managers or responsible persons of legal entities ranging from EUR 140 to EUR 3,000. The practical consequence for consumers and the market is the RASFF system: upon receipt of a notification concerning an unsafe product (in 2026 Lithuania received three such notifications concerning organic products), the SFVS assesses whether the product was supplied to the Lithuanian market and takes measures to withdraw it from sale.

Consequences

For online stores selling organic products without certification or with improper labelling, the real risk is an SFVS ruling imposing a fine or applying market restriction measures, and such decisions will be made public. If an unsafe product is identified, the company will be required to discontinue its sale and remove it from the market; non-compliance or failure to fulfil the requirements increases the applicable fine ranges to EUR 4,344 or EUR 5,792. For consumers and other market participants, RASFF notifications mean rapid information about dangerous products and their withdrawal from sale. The SFVS is continuing its 2026 control programme under Article 11 of the Law on Food.

Correction. The article’s statement that until 2023 operators paid a 5 per cent tax and were required to allocate 8 per cent to sponsorship is inconsistent with the legal framework: Article 19 of the Law on Lotteries, which imposed the mandatory 8 per cent sponsorship obligation, was repealed with effect from 1 July 2022. The obligation therefore ended not in 2023 but in mid-2022. A more accurate formulation would be that, from 1 July 2022, the mandatory sponsorship component was abolished, while by a December 2021 decision the Seimas directed the entire 18 per cent rate to the budget from 2023. The article also does not state that the relevant draft amendments to Articles 173¹⁸, 184, 224 and 259¹ of the Code of Administrative Offences provided for liability, which may be significant when assessing the consequences of any breach of declaration duties.

Core issue

In this matter, the legal assessment of potentially undeclared lobbying activity will fall to the Chief Official Ethics Commission (VTEK), while the object of the political dispute, the draft amendment to the Law on Lottery and Gambling Tax, may be deferred or reconsidered if it emerges that legislative transparency requirements were breached. The precise issue is whether meetings between Minister of Finance T. Valys, Vice-Minister J. Kizenevičius, and representatives of the Lithuanian National Olympic Committee (LTOK) concerning changes to the tax model constituted lobbying activity under the Law on Lobbying Activities of the Republic of Lithuania, and whether LTOK’s conduct falls outside the exceptions in Article 7(6) (an opinion expressed by a natural person) or Article 7(7). Also relevant to the decision is the fact that LTOK has already entered into an agreement with UAB “Euloto” regarding the future allocation of support; this may indicate that LTOK acted as an interested beneficiary, rather than merely expressing an opinion.

Legal assessment

Under Article 10(1) of the Law on Lobbying Activities, a lobbyist must submit a declaration of transparent legislative processes in the SKAIDRIS system no later than seven days from the commencement of lobbying activity in relation to a specific draft legal act. In addition, Article 12(1)(3) provides that VTEK publicly discloses lobbying activity declared by vice-ministers as having been carried out in respect of them; accordingly, the obligation to declare also arises for the public official in respect of whom the activity was conducted. VTEK will have to determine whether the actions of LTOK representatives meet the definition of lobbying activity, namely actions intended to influence the amendment or adoption of legal acts in the interests of a client. The relevant exceptions are important: under Article 7(7), activities carried out in accordance with procedures established by other special laws or statutes and serving the public interest are not deemed lobbying activity. It is precisely this exception that M. Lingė’s request focuses on, asking whether LTOK’s agreement with “Euloto” concerning support indicates that LTOK’s role was more active than the mere expression of an opinion. A separate aspect of the assessment is whether the meetings should have been disclosed in the publicly available agendas of the Prime Minister and the leadership of the Ministry of Finance. Liability: if it is established that a lobbyist failed to submit a declaration within the prescribed time limit, Article 11(1)(2) provides grounds for VTEK to suspend lobbying activity for up to one month, while continuing such activity after suspension constitutes grounds for termination of lobbying activity under Article 11(3)(2). In parallel, the applicants have referred the matter to the Special Investigation Service (STT) for an anti-corruption assessment, indicating that the dispute may extend beyond VTEK.

Consequences

Practical outcomes:

• If VTEK finds that LTOK’s activity was lobbying activity and that no declaration was submitted in SKAIDRIS within seven days, lobbying activity may be suspended for up to one month, and continuation of that activity during the suspension may result in termination.
• If the exception under Article 7(7) is applied, the complaint will be dismissed and the legislative process will continue without additional restrictions.
• For politicians, the outcome is significant for the further progress of draft law XIP-4394, the amendment to the Law on Lottery and Gambling Tax: the budgetary loss would amount to approximately EUR 11.9 million annually, and the Democrats have already stated that they will not support the proposal; therefore, an ethics finding may provide grounds to reject or reconsider the draft.
• For interested parties, it is important whether the “support” scheme applied until 2023 is being revived. Under the previous model, 5 percent of the tax was paid into the budget and 8 percent of the nominal value of tickets was allocated to support, whereas in 2021 the Seimas decided to direct the entire 18 percent to the budget.

Monitoring point: await VTEK’s decision on M. Lingė’s request. The document is expected during the forthcoming VTEK meeting cycle, the date of which should be monitored on VTEK’s website, where, pursuant to Article 12, the declarations referred to in this case are also made public.