Under Article 198(1) of the Criminal Code, the penalty is imprisonment for up to four years; under paragraph 2, concerning data of strategic significance, imprisonment for up to six years; and under paragraph 3, a legal person may also be held liable.
The finding that the data were not downloaded raises the question whether the elements of Article 198 of the Criminal Code were made out at all, since liability arises for the unlawful observation, interception, acquisition, storage, appropriation, dissemination, or other use of non-public electronic data.
The breach of the archived EPEKIS system of the Ministry of the Interior brings the suspects within the scope of criminal liability under Article 198 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania: unlawful interception and use of electronic data. The fact that the data were stored in a system that has not been used since 2018 does not reduce liability: it will be necessary to determine whether access to data of foreigners who applied for Lithuanian citizenship falls within the elements set out in Article 198(2) of the Criminal Code, i.e. whether these non-public electronic data were of strategic significance to national security or of major significance to public administration. The precise legal issue is twofold. First, which paragraph of Article 198 of the Criminal Code applies, because the excerpt provided does not establish what categories of data were kept in the EPEKIS archive. Second, whether the offender in fact intercepted the data at all: the report states that it has not been established that the data were downloaded, while Article 198(1) and (2) impose liability for unlawful observation, recording, interception, acquisition, storage, appropriation, dissemination, or other use. It is also material that Article 198(3) of the Criminal Code provides that a legal person may be held liable for the offences under this article; therefore, if the intrusion was organised by an entity, liability may also attach to that entity. The institutions involved in the incident are not the subjects of liability but reporting bodies: the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau and the State Data Protection Inspectorate were contacted, and the National Cyber Security Centre was informed.
The authority conducting the pre-trial investigation must establish the constituent elements of the offence under Article 198 of the Criminal Code, by reference to the elements of conduct listed in the dispositions of that article. The practical assessment will proceed as follows:
For the suspects, the real consequence is a criminal case, with the sentencing range depending on the classification: a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to four years under paragraph 1, or up to six years under paragraph 2. For the Ministry of the Interior and the Information Technology and Communications Department, the practical priority is not liability but compliance with data protection obligations: notifications to the State Data Protection Inspectorate and the National Cyber Security Centre have already been made, and the next step will be to cooperate with the Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau in the pre-trial investigation and provide technical details regarding the scope of the intrusion. If it later emerges that the data were in fact downloaded or disseminated, that would constitute an aggravating circumstance increasing the scope of the investigation and the potential penalty. Affected persons whose data were stored in the archive may expect to be informed through data protection procedures.
Correction. In the context of the interview statements, it was inaccurately stated that the new rules entered into force “in May of last year”: the legal act amending Articles 9 and 14 of the Law on Wildlife entered into force on 1 September 2025. The requirements have therefore been in force for slightly more than a year, while the correspondence that has lasted for two years began before their entry into force. It should also be clarified that the fines are imposed not for cruelty to animals, but under Article 346 of the Code of Administrative Offences, for breach of animal welfare requirements; the amount of the fines, EUR 30 to EUR 120 and EUR 120 to EUR 230 for repeated offences, is significantly lower than the investments amounting to hundreds of thousands of euros that are being required. Finally, the interview does not state that no currently applicable provision, in itself, establishes a mechanism for a “limited exemption”: this would require either a separate decision by the authorities or an amendment to the legislation, and no such provisions appear in the evidence provided.
The legal status of the seven lynxes and three brown bears kept by Agricultural Company “Aglaura” depends on whether the company’s permit to keep wild animals in captivity is revoked: if it is, within 30 calendar days the animals must be transferred to other persons entitled to keep them or euthanized. Under the rules currently in force, the exception requested by the company may be adopted through only one channel: the Ministry of Environment is empowered, under Article 7(1)(3) of the Law Amending the Law on Wildlife No. VIII-498, to establish “exceptions concerning the keeping of these wild animals in captivity and the methods of their use” in the Rules on the Use of Wild Animals. Accordingly, the Department and the Agency, acting under those Rules, have no competence to apply exceptions. The precise legal issue arising is whether the Ministry is obliged or entitled to initiate an amendment to the Rules granting a limited exception for the keeping of non-breeding animals until natural death, and whether, until then, fines imposed under Article 346 of the Code of Administrative Offences are proportionate.
The company’s obligations arise from a combination of several legal provisions:
The realistic scenarios are as follows:
Article 228(2) of the Criminal Code provides for a fine or imprisonment for up to six years for abuse of office committed for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary or other personal benefit, where there are no elements of bribery.
Article 199(2)(1) of the Criminal Code provides for a fine or imprisonment for up to seven years where the value of excise goods exceeds 250 MGL.
The detained junior specialist of the Kabeliai Border Guard Station will be held liable under Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania for abuse of office, while the pre-trial investigation, in which he has become the latest episode, is based overall on two offences: abuse of office and unlawful possession or handling of excise goods under Article 199(2) of the Criminal Code. The detention was carried out outside working hours, but this does not deprive him of his official status: Article 228 applies to a civil servant or equivalent person irrespective of whether the act was committed while on duty, since the relevant subject element is determined by the person’s official position, not by working time. The investigation is led by a prosecutor of the 3rd Criminal Prosecution Division of the Kaunas Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and the case already involves 12 suspects, six of whom are officials.
Article 228(1) of the Criminal Code establishes liability for abuse of official position or exceeding official powers where this causes substantial damage to the State, the EU, an international public organisation, a legal entity, or a natural person. The sanction is a fine, arrest, or imprisonment for up to four years. If the act is committed for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary or other personal benefit, without elements of bribery, paragraph 2 applies, carrying a stricter sanction: a fine or imprisonment for up to six years. In this investigation, which concerns excise goods, the version involving the pursuit of benefit is the most realistic classification. As regards unlawful possession or handling of excise goods, Article 199(2)(1) provides for a fine or imprisonment for up to seven years where the value of the goods exceeds 250 MGL. The Court of Appeal explained sentencing practice for these offences in detail in case No. 1A-93-626/2023: there, the convicted person, held liable under Articles 183(2) and 228(2), sought a more lenient sentence than that provided by law under Article 62 of the Criminal Code, but the court held that detention after the opening of the investigation could not be treated as voluntary appearance and notification, and therefore Article 62(1) could not be applied. The same case, No. 1A-93-626/2023, confirms that imposing a more lenient sentence under Article 62 is a right of the court, not an obligation, and that Article 62(2) requires at least two mitigating circumstances, at least partial compensation for pecuniary damage, and one of the alternative circumstances specified in points 1 to 6. In case No. 1A-40-307/2023, the court reiterated the same position, relying on cassation ruling No. 2K-7-287/2009. This means that avenues for mitigation will also be assessed strictly for the suspects in the current investigation, especially if the damage is not compensated.
In practical terms, the detained person faces the imposition of pre-trial measures on the basis of the suspicions and a possible indictment in the joined case, which already involves 11 other suspects. If the conduct is classified as pursuit of benefit under Article 228(2), the sentencing range extends to six years, and under Article 199(2), to seven years’ imprisonment. A legal person may also be held liable for offences under Article 228 (paragraph 3), so if the investigation reveals organised participation, the circle of liable subjects may expand. For the detained person seeking a more lenient sentence, the conditions under Article 62 of the Criminal Code are of practical importance: voluntary cooperation before detention is no longer possible here, leaving compensation for damage and other mitigating circumstances.
Article 58(1) of the Law on Courts provides that a person is appointed to judicial office until the age of 65 and that, upon reaching that age, his or her powers expire.
The position of the Judicial Council’s Committee for the Preparation and Assessment of Draft Legal Acts on the extension of powers to the age of 70 must be prepared by 15 October 2026.
The proposed amendment to the Law on Courts affects not only the age limit, but also the fundamental rule enshrined in Article 58 of the Law on Courts that a person is appointed to judicial office until the age of 65 and that, upon reaching that age, his or her powers expire. The legal position of judges has not yet changed: the law has not yet been adopted, and the current wording permits powers after the age of 65 to be extended only in the case provided for in Article 58(1), namely where the term of office expires during the hearing of a case. The essential legal question that the Seimas will have to resolve is whether, by extending the age limit for the exercise of judicial powers to 70, the legislature will infringe the guarantee recorded in Article 45(3) that the established term of office of an appointed judge may not be shortened, and the principle of judicial independence, the implementation of which Article 50 entrusts to the State. A second question also arises concerning the social guarantees regulated in Article 101, because the conditions mentioned in news sources, namely retirement at the age of 65 with a judges’ state pension, would alter the status of a judge upon leaving office.
In this procedure, the Judicial Council acts not as a decision-maker but as an advisory participant in the legislative process, and its competence derives from Article 119(1) of the Law on Courts: it is the executive body of judicial self-government ensuring the independence of courts and judges. Article 120 directly assigns to it the duty to provide reasoned advice to the President of the Republic on the appointment, promotion, transfer and dismissal of judges, which means that in the future it will likewise be the Council that provides reasoned opinions on the application of powers extended to the age of 70 in respect of individual judges. The support mechanism already operates under Article 58(2): the Judicial Council provides reasoned advice to the President of the Republic on the extension of a judge’s powers, while Article 121(5) provides that Council resolutions are adopted where they are approved by more than half of all members and are published within three days. The Council’s internal procedure described here complies with the law: preparation of the position has been assigned to a committee, since Article 120 permits the Council to form standing or ad hoc commissions. The substantive legal aspect should be assessed through two provisions: Article 45(2) provides that a person is appointed to judicial office for a fixed term, while Article 101(1) guarantees a judge dismissed from office upon reaching the statutory retirement age a severance payment equal to two months’ average salary; changing the age limit will also change the point at which that provision applies. From a legal perspective, the Council’s survey data, 277 in favour and 233 against, with only 121 of 510 respondents wishing to work until the age of 70, show that the proposed model with voluntary retirement from the age of 65 would affect not a uniform judicial corps, but would create two different trajectories for the expiry of powers and securing a pension. What the Council identifies as an impact on social guarantees and generational renewal is, in legal terms, the need to review the provisions of Articles 58 and 101 simultaneously as a systematically interconnected whole. Comparative practice in 29 European states, with the limit set at 65 in 8 states, 66-69 in 8 states, and 70 or above in 13 states, indicates that there is no constitutional threshold; however, the sources do not provide the texts of foreign legal acts, and therefore a specific analysis of the rules of other states is not possible here.
If the Seimas adopts the amendments without amending the related provisions, judges who reach the age of 65 during the transitional period will face a risk of uncertainty as to which version, the old or the new, applies to their case. The most practically important issue for judges is whether the possibility of retiring at the age of 65 with a judges’ state pension and the severance payment provided for in Article 101(1) will remain, because without such a guarantee the extension would become mandatory, which, in the logic of the principle of judicial consent enshrined in Article 45(5), would amount to a deterioration of status. The court system may experience a dual effect: longer service by experienced judges would increase the stability of panels hearing cases, but would delay the emergence of judicial vacancies and reduce the flow of appointments for younger candidates, whose selection is regulated by Articles 66 and 68. The Council’s initiative to survey 510 of the 715 judges currently in office represents more than two thirds of the judicial community, and its view will therefore become a factual argument both in the final position of the Judicial Council and in the Seimas deliberations.
Under Article 17-1(1) of the Law on Road Traffic Safety, an electric micromobility device may be ridden on the carriageway only by persons at least 16 years of age, while 14-year-olds may do so only after completing a training course and holding a certificate issued by the school.
Under Article 2(40) of the Law on Road Traffic Safety, an electric scooter is regarded as a motor-assisted bicycle only where its power does not exceed 1 kW and its maximum design speed does not exceed 25 km/h.
In the case of fourteen-year-old Dominyka, the legal position develops along two lines: whether riding the scooter was lawful at all, and who will compensate the damage arising from the severe head injury, and to what extent. Under Article 17-1(1) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Road Traffic Safety, an electric micromobility device may be ridden on the carriageway only by persons at least 16 years of age, while 14-year-olds may do so only after completing the training course prescribed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport and holding a certificate issued by the school. The precise legal issue is whether the girl had such a certificate, whether the scooter complied with the requirements laid down in Article 17-1(2) (proper brake, lights, helmet), and whether a device whose speed was set higher than is usually permitted for children was lawful to use at all. The latter question is assessed under Article 2(40) of the Law on Road Traffic Safety: an electric scooter is regarded as a motor-assisted bicycle only where its maximum net power does not exceed 1 kW and its maximum design speed does not exceed 25 km/h; if those thresholds are exceeded, the device falls into another, more strictly regulated category of vehicles.
If it were established that the scooter exceeded the limits of 1 kW or 25 km/h, it would not be regarded as a motor-assisted bicycle, and its use on the carriageway by a person under 16 years of age could reasonably be assessed as a breach of legal requirements relevant to a claim for damages. On the civil liability side, Article 6.275 of the Civil Code does not apply here, as it covers only damage caused by minors under the age of fourteen, whereas the injured party had already turned 14; accordingly, her own conduct must be assessed under the general rules. The injured party is entitled to compensation under Article 6.285 of the Civil Code: the responsible person must compensate expenses related to the impairment of health and non-pecuniary damage, and, after the age of fourteen, also damage related to the loss or reduction of earning capacity, taking into account the minor’s abilities and the financial position of the parties. If the damage had been caused by another supervised user of the device who was under 14 years of age, her parents or guardians would be liable under Article 6.275(1) of the Civil Code, unless they proved that the damage did not arise through their fault; where the minor is under the supervision of an institution, that institution is liable under paragraph 2 of the same article. Paragraph 219.4 of the Road Traffic Rules requires that, where a person is injured in a traffic accident, the police must be notified and the persons involved must remain at the scene. In this case, the police contacted the family themselves, and the circumstances of the accident were recorded in police documents. In the international context, the question of applicable law would be determined by Article 8 of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents, under which the applicable law governs the basis of liability, the nature of compensable injuries, and limitation rules.
The practical consequences depend on two facts to be established by the police and insurers’ investigation: whether the girl had a training course certificate, and whether the scooter’s technical parameters complied with the limits applicable to a motor-assisted bicycle. Realistic scenarios:
The regulation was prompted by requests from residents to amend the existing procedure. The draft seeks to ensure that a patient’s parents (adoptive parents) and adult children, who at present are often unable to obtain information about a close relative’s state of health because of disagreements with the patient’s spouse (cohabitant or partner), have the right to be informed of the patient’s condition where the patient has not authorised another person in writing. Such legal regulation was considered unfair to those closest to the patient, particularly in cases involving relatives who are in a coma or have been injured in an accident. The second document relates only to the implementation of the EU Consumer Rights Directive and is not relevant to this issue.
Correction. The news item’s statement concerning Belarusian citizens is incomplete: under the list approved by Order No. 1V-70 of the Minister of the Interior of 22 January 2024, applications for a temporary residence permit may indeed be submitted through an external service provider in Armenia. However, Georgia does not appear in the fragment of the list provided, Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, and therefore the statement concerning Georgia should be checked against the final text of the amendment to the order. As regards the reduction of fuel excise duties, the news item refers only to a political disagreement over “hundreds of millions in budgetary losses”; the evidence provided contains no specific excise rates or basis of calculation, so the amounts cannot be assessed on the basis of the available sources. [PRAKTINĖ_REIKSME] When the Government shapes the price-reduction model, the decisive issue will be the wording: a universal price label applicable to all passengers reduces the taxation risk, whereas a mechanism of individual concessions, for example for registered users, employees, or certain groups, creates a basis for applying Article 1(15) and imposes a tax administration burden on the supplier. To be monitored further: whether, in the draft Government resolution, the price reduction will be formalised as municipal
The amount of the fine is determined by reference to the midpoint between the minimum and maximum fines provided for in the sanction of the Special Part, and where only aggravating circumstances exist, a fine not lower than the midpoint is imposed (Article 34(2) CAO).
Property subject to confiscation is property that was the instrument, means, object, or result of the offence, and confiscation is carried out compulsorily by transferring the item and proceeds without compensation into state ownership (Articles 29 and 688 CAO).
For twelve individuals, including six border guards, suspected of unlawful possession of excise goods, the most realistic legal position is administrative liability under the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania (the “CAO”), the central consequence of which is not only a fine but also confiscation of property. The precise ranges of fines are determined by the sanction in the relevant article of the Special Part of the CAO, which sets minimum and maximum amounts (Article 25(3) CAO); the general range is from EUR 10 to EUR 6,000 (Article 25(2) CAO). Since officials are among the suspects, the cases will additionally raise the issue of assessing aggravating circumstances under Article 36 CAO, which may result in a fine higher than the midpoint of the sanction.
Article 23(1) CAO permits the imposition of three administrative penalties: a warning, a fine, and community service; community service may replace a fine or part of it (Article 23(2)).
In practical terms, the most important consequences for the twelve suspects are a monetary fine under the sanction of the Special Part and the uncompensated confiscation, for the benefit of the state, of the excise goods and any proceeds potentially obtained from the act. For the six officials, an additional practical risk is a higher fine due to aggravating circumstances and a separate disciplinary liability process, which is not regulated in the sources. If the fine is replaced by community service, its duration is calculated in hours (Article 26(1) CAO).
Upon accepting an application for examination, the Constitutional Court publishes a notice stating that, pursuant to Article 106 of the Constitution, the validity of the contested act is suspended from the date of publication of the notice in the Register of Legal Acts until the publication of the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
Upon receiving the resolution of a group of Members of the Seimas, the Constitutional Court conducts a preliminary examination of the material no later than within three days and, at an administrative hearing, decides whether to accept the application for examination (Article 26(1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court).
As a group of Members of the Seimas intends to apply in respect of a Government resolution concerning a bicycle street, the participants will face a constitutional review procedure, the outcome of which will determine the continued validity of the act. An application under Article 106 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania has a legal consequence: upon accepting the application for examination, the Constitutional Court suspends the validity of the contested Government act until the ruling is published. The precise legal issue is whether a Government act establishing the status of a bicycle street complies with the Constitution and laws, in particular with the allocation of powers between the Seimas and the Government enshrined in Article 5 of the Constitution and in the principle of separation of powers. Articles 106 and 107 of the Constitution and Articles 63, 64 and 65 of the Law on the Constitutional Court will be applied in resolving the matter.
An application concerning the compliance of a Government act with the Constitution and laws may be submitted by a group comprising not less than one fifth of all Members of the Seimas, by courts, and by the President of the Republic (Article 106 of the Constitution; Article 65(2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court).
The practical consequences depend on whether the application is accepted: