The sexual molestation count is subject to the sanction in Article 153(1) of the Criminal Code, under which the maximum penalty for a single act is five years’ imprisonment; accordingly, three episodes, combined under the rule of characteristic similarity, could have produced a higher starting sentence, which after reduction fell to two and a half years.
In addition, pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Criminal Code, the court could have imposed penal measures which, under Article 73 of the Criminal Code, are enforced separately from the sentence and are not aggregated with it.
The convicted person in this case may be required to serve a custodial sentence, but his legal position is not yet final. A person previously convicted of similar offences generally cannot rely on a favourable assessment of recidivism, and the most serious risk is not only enforcement of the sentence but also the imposition of additional penal measures under Article 67 of the Criminal Code. The precise legal issue in this case is whether the imposed sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment, after mitigation, falls within the sanction prescribed by Article 153(1) of the Criminal Code (imprisonment for up to five years) for the sexual molestation of a person under the age of sixteen, and how the one-third reduction applied was reconciled with liability under Article 309(2) of the Criminal Code for pornographic material depicting a child (imprisonment for up to four years).
The judge stated that the full confession and remorse resulted in a one-third reduction of the sentence to two years and six months, which is consistent with the general principles of sentencing where a confession is treated as a mitigating circumstance. The man had previously been sentenced to imprisonment for sexual offences against minor girls, i.e. he is a recidivist, which entails stricter sentencing. The awarded compensation to the victims reflects the principle of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In addition, pursuant to Article 67(2) of the Criminal Code, the court could have imposed penal measures, such as deprivation of the right to perform certain work, an obligation to live separately from the victims and/or not to approach them under Article 67(2)(8), a contribution to the Fund for Victims of Crime, or extended confiscation of property. Under Article 73 of the Criminal Code, such measures are imposed separately from the sentence and are not aggregated with it. Since the convicted person is an adult, the special rules on juvenile liability in Articles 82, 90, 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code do not apply to him. The sources provided contain no case law or precedents, and therefore I cannot analyse them.
The practical consequences for the convicted person and the victims are as follows:
Correction. The article’s assumption that a creditor may freely challenge transactions harmful to it entered into by the debtor (actio Pauliana) is inaccurate or incomplete. Under Article 6.65 of the Civil Code, a creditor has the right to challenge transactions concluded by the debtor, which the debtor was not obliged to conclude, only where those transactions infringe the creditor’s rights and the debtor knew or ought to have known this. Accordingly, any statement concerning a challenge to transactions must be supplemented by this subjective element: without fault on the part of the debtor, namely knowledge or constructive knowledge, such a challenge cannot succeed in practice. It is also appropriate to distinguish that a challenge to transactions under Article 6.65 of the Civil Code is a separate remedy, independent of the location of the bankruptcy proceedings or any recognition procedure, although its effectiveness depends on whether the transaction was concluded with knowledge of harm to creditors.
Under Article 94 of the Lithuanian Law on Insolvency of Legal Entities, secured creditors are satisfied first from the encumbered assets, while unsecured new or interim financing is granted first-rank priority — the U.S. DIP model may elevate new lenders above existing secured creditors.
Section 364(d) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code permits new financing to be granted priority over existing security interests only where the company cannot obtain credit otherwise and where existing secured creditors are afforded adequate protection.
For Lithuanian creditors, the airBaltic case presents a concrete risk: decisions determining the ranking and amount of their claims will be made in New York under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, rather than under EU insolvency law, and the recognition of such U.S. decisions in Lithuania remains an unresolved legal gap. The essence of the matter is not the airline restructuring itself, but the mechanism of forum shopping: when a company chooses a foreign court, what creditors recover, and in what order, changes. This is governed by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings, under which main proceedings are opened in the Member State of the debtor’s COMI, by §§ 109(a) and 364(d) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and by Article 15 of the Lithuanian Law on Insolvency of Legal Entities, which ties the jurisdiction of Lithuanian courts to the centre of main interests under that Regulation.
Under Regulation (EU) 2015/848, the airBaltic proceedings should take place in Latvia, because its COMI is in Riga; a transfer of the registered office less than three months before the opening of proceedings would not assist. A U.S. court does not apply that Regulation, and under § 109(a) any property in the United States is sufficient, so the jurisdictional “gap” is real. The position of existing creditors in the decision is determined by § 364(d): the court may grant new DIP financing priority over existing security interests only where credit cannot otherwise be obtained and where the secured creditors are afforded adequate protection; where creditors had already approved an alternative, proving those conditions raises doubts. In Lithuanian case law, the principle of lex fori concursus — that proceedings are governed by the law of the state hearing the case — was confirmed by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 14 October 2025 in civil case No. e3K-3-113-381/2025; in the same decision, the Court held that cases outside the EU Regulation system are recognised under national law. In practice, this means that New York orders could take effect in Lithuania only after recognition by the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, which would examine whether the decision is final, whether the case falls within Lithuania’s exclusive jurisdiction, whether creditors were afforded an opportunity to defend themselves, and whether public policy has been breached — an exception interpreted narrowly. An example showing that such non-EU proceedings are recognised is the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania of 9 January 2025, No. e2T-4-798/2025, recognising a United Kingdom order concerning the bankruptcy of a natural person; this suggests that a Chapter 11 order would also likely be recognised in Lithuania without review on the merits. Compared with the Lithuanian system, the difference is fundamental: under Article 94 of the Law on Insolvency of Legal Entities, secured creditors are satisfied first from the encumbered assets, while unsecured new or interim financing is granted first-rank priority; the U.S. In Lithuania, the protection of dissenting creditor groups in a restructuring plan is governed by Article 111-1 of the Law on Insolvency of Legal Entities: confirmation of a plan without the approval of an entire group is possible only if the dissenting creditors’ claims are satisfied in accordance with the ranking under Article 94 and no group receives more than the amount of its admitted claims; under U.S. Chapter 11, such safeguards are different, meaning that the creditor waterfall can be “rewritten”.
For airBaltic bondholders, the practical consequence is already apparent: their EUR 380 million secured claims may be subordinated to EUR 350 million in DIP financing, priced at approximately 12% annual interest and three 5% fees, amounting to up to EUR 52.5 million immediately and up to EUR 84 million over nine months. For Lithuanian creditors facing a similar strategy by Lithuanian companies, the consequences would be twofold: participation in proceedings in New York would often cost a small supplier more than the amount recovered, while formally available enforcement against assets in Lithuania, or the opening of secondary proceedings here, could expose parties with U.S. connections to sanctions by the U.S. court. Protective measures before proceedings are contractual: clearly specify the forum and governing law for disputes, treat the commencement of proceedings in a non-EU state as a breach of contract, and limit the priority of new lenders.
Under Article 228(2) of the Criminal Code, abuse of office for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary gain is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to six years, and under Article 182(2) of the Criminal Code, the fraudulent acquisition of high-value property belonging to another is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to six years.
Under Article 62 of the Criminal Code, as interpreted in ruling No. 1A-93-626/2023 of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, a sentence more lenient than that prescribed by law may be imposed only where the full set of circumstances established in paragraph 1 of that article exists, for example voluntary surrender or reporting one’s own criminal conduct.
A. Vaicekauskas has already been convicted; the judgment will become final only after appellate review. For now, he faces not only a EUR 7,500 fine, but also a specifically imposed three-year deprivation of the right to be elected or appointed to state and municipal office, which would in practice end his tenure as mayor if the decision remains in force. The key legal issue is whether the appellate court will uphold the sentence imposed, which is more lenient than the statutory sanctions might suggest, and whether the measure depriving him of the right to hold office will be enforced. This will be determined under Articles 228 (abuse of office), 182 (fraud), 300 (forgery of documents), and 62 (imposition of a more lenient sentence) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Since the amount obtained in 2019-2023, EUR 1,100, exceeds the threshold for low-value property, the fraud is classified under Article 182(2) of the Criminal Code as involving high-value property, punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to six years.
The court found that the mayor submitted 17 falsified advance reports to the accounting department, together with receipts paid using other persons’ cards. This corresponds to abuse of office for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary gain under Article 228(2) of the Criminal Code, which provides for a fine or imprisonment for up to six years; the same paragraph establishes liability even in the absence of bribery elements.
If the judgment becomes final, the three-year deprivation of the right to hold office will in practice mean that the mayor will be unable to continue performing his duties or to be elected to the municipal council during that period.
Under Article 68-1(1) of the Criminal Code, deprivation of public rights means deprivation of the right to be elected or appointed to positions elected or appointed by state or municipal institutions, while under paragraph 2 it is imposed where the criminal offence was committed by abusing public rights.
Prienai Mayor Alvydas Vaicekauskas was sentenced not only to a EUR 7,500 fine, but also to a three-year deprivation of public rights, which in practical terms means that, once the judgment becomes final, he will lose the right to be elected or appointed to municipal office and will have to step down as mayor. This measure is based on Article 68-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania: paragraph 1 defines deprivation of public rights as the deprivation of the right to be elected or appointed to positions elected or appointed by state or municipal institutions, while paragraph 2 provides that it is imposed where the criminal offence was committed by abusing public rights. The more precise legal issue to be determined on appeal is whether the classification of the conduct as abuse of office under Article 228 of the Criminal Code, and the extent of the measure imposed, comply with the law, since Article 228(2) provides for a fine or imprisonment for up to six years for a person who abused official position for material gain, in the absence of elements of bribery.
The court found that, between 2019 and 2023, the mayor submitted 17 falsified advance expense reports to the accounting department and, by abusing his position, acquired EUR 1,100 of municipal funds, i.e. the conduct met the elements set out in Article 228(2) of the Criminal Code: abuse of official position for material gain. The duration of the deprivation of public rights, three years, falls within the range established in Article 68-1(4) of the Criminal Code: generally from one to five years, and, for less serious and serious offences under Chapter XXXIII concerning offences against public service, from three to seven years. The procedural mechanism for enforcement of the measure is clear from Article 342(4)(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: in cases involving deprivation of public rights, the court informs the Probation Service and the Central Electoral Commission, which enforces the measure insofar as it concerns deprivation of the right to be elected. Article 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure further provides that, after the judgment becomes final, the court publishes information on the deprivation of public rights on a dedicated website. As to the severity of the sentence, case law indicates that a more lenient sentence than that prescribed by law under Article 62 of the Criminal Code may be imposed only where the statutory set of circumstances is present. In case No. 1A-93-626/2023, the Lithuanian Court of Appeal, examining abuse of office under Article 228(2), held that, in the absence of voluntary surrender or reporting of the offence, and in the absence of two or more mitigating circumstances, a more lenient sentence cannot be imposed; in the present case, the convicted person denies guilt, so such preconditions do not appear to be present. In Vilnius Regional Court case No. 1-52-806/2025, a person convicted under Article 228(1) of the Criminal Code received a more lenient sentence on the basis of a confession and positive personal character evidence. This indicates that, on appeal, the assessment of grounds for mitigation in Vaicekauskas’s case will be careful.
The practical consequences for the convicted person operate on several levels:
For the municipality, this means termination of the mayor’s term of office and procedures for appointing a new head.
Torrent technology simultaneously entails two acts: downloading the work (reproduction) and distributing it to other users (seeding), thereby infringing both exclusive rights under Article 15(1) of the ATGTĮ.
A first offence entails a fine of EUR 280 to EUR 600 (typically, half of the minimum, EUR 140, is proposed), while a repeated offence entails a fine of EUR 600 to EUR 850 under Article 122 of the ANK.
Sanctioned individuals face a real risk of administrative liability under Article 122 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania (ANK), enforced by the Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania (LRTK) on the basis of Article 87 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (ATGTĮ), which provides that administrative liability for copyright infringements is established by the ANK. The issue is when the unlawful downloading and distribution of a work through a Torrent network constitutes an infringement and within what ranges a penalty is imposed; this is determined under Articles 15 and 73 of the ATGTĮ.
Under Article 15(1) of the ATGTĮ, the author has the exclusive right to distribute copies of the work and to communicate the work to the public, including making it publicly available via computer networks (the internet); Article 15(2) provides that any use of a work without the author’s authorisation is unlawful, except in cases provided by law. The LRTK procedure follows the logic of establishing culpability, reflected in the principle set out in Article 2(4) of the Criminal Code:
In practical terms, the principal consequence for the sanctioned person is financial: payment of EUR 140 under an administrative order closes the case; if the order is not complied with, the LRTK imposes the full fine of up to EUR 600, while a repeated offence costs EUR 600-850. Subscribers should note that the contract holder is not automatically culpable; providing explanations may result in no penalty being imposed, but silence does not halt the proceedings. For rights holders, the statistics (201 natural persons sanctioned since the beginning of 2026, more than 40 for a single film) indicate an effective LRTK monitoring model, which operates only upon application by the rights holder. Procedurally, the same scheme will continue: recording new IP addresses, requesting explanations from subscribers, and LRTK decisions on penalties.
Correction. The news report’s statement that “negligent homicide is punishable by imprisonment for up to one year” is contrary to the law: Article 132(1) of the Criminal Code provides for arrest or imprisonment for up to FOUR years. A more accurate formulation would be: “negligent homicide under Article 132(1) of the Criminal Code is punishable by arrest or imprisonment for up to four years, while if a breach of special rules of safe conduct is established under Article 132(3), the penalty is imprisonment for up to seven years and liability of a legal person may arise.” The report also fails to assess that the serious injury to the son should be classified separately under Article 137 of the Criminal Code; given the two victims, there is a real risk that the act will be assessed under qualified offences rather than under the ordinary paragraph 1 offence.
Under Article 132(3) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, negligent deprivation of life committed in breach of special safety rules of conduct laid down by legal acts is punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years.
Under Article 55 of the Criminal Code, where a person is being tried for the first time for a negligent offence, the court ordinarily imposes penalties not involving arrest or fixed-term imprisonment, and the imposition of such penalties must be reasoned.
In this matter, the legal situation concerns Aivaras Remeika, who is subject to a pre-trial investigation by Kaunas criminal police officers under Article 132(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, namely negligent deprivation of life. The practical question distinguishing this case from ordinary cases is which paragraph of that article will be applied: under Article 132(1) of the Criminal Code, the penalty is arrest or imprisonment for up to four years, whereas if it is established that the act was committed in breach of special safety rules of conduct laid down by legal acts, Article 132(3) applies, carrying imprisonment for up to seven years. The news wording “a penalty of up to one year” does not correspond to the cited version of the Code, and the statutory text should be used for the legal assessment. An additional issue may arise in relation to the seriously injured 27-year-old son: if the head injury is classified as grievous bodily harm caused by negligence, Article 137 of the Criminal Code would apply: up to three years, or up to four years where there are two or more victims, and up to five years where special safety rules were breached.
The driver’s obligation is to allow the investigation to establish whether an unfinished manoeuvre in a deceleration zone and loss of control of the vehicle amount to negligence, and also to determine whether event safety rules were breached. The investigative authority has the right to accept evidence submitted by any person: under Article 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, a suspect, victim, and any natural or legal person may, on their own initiative, submit objects and documents relevant to the investigation of a criminal offence. This provides a direct basis for residents and owners of video recordings to contact the Kaunas County Police Headquarters. With respect to the injured son, the distinction under Article 139(3) of the Criminal Code is important: minor bodily harm caused by negligence is essentially a private-prosecution offence, for which liability arises only upon a complaint by the victim, an application by the lawful representative, or a prosecutor’s request. However, in the case of grievous bodily harm, Article 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for public prosecution. As a person being tried for the first time for a negligent offence, Remeika would, under Article 55 of the Criminal Code, ordinarily receive penalties not involving arrest or imprisonment; the imposition of arrest or imprisonment requires specific reasoning by the court. A separate line of assessment concerns the organiser’s liability: Article 132(4) of the Criminal Code provides that a legal person is also liable for the act provided for in paragraph 3. Therefore, if the investigation establishes that spectators were present behind barriers whose function, according to the Director of the Lithuanian Sports Centre, is to protect the racing driver rather than the spectator, and that this resulted from a breach of special safety rules, criminal liability may also be brought against the event organiser as a legal person. The sources provided contain no case law in similar circumstances, so no specific case can be cited.
The most realistic liability for Remeika is under Article 132(1) of the Criminal Code: arrest or imprisonment for up to 4 years. If the aggravated offence under paragraph 3 is established, the penalty is up to 7 years; however, under Article 55 of the Criminal Code, a non-custodial penalty is likely if he is being tried for the first time.
Correction. The news item states that termination at the employer’s will will apply to all employers. That is inaccurate: the wording of Article 58 does not grant this right to budgetary institutions, state and municipal enterprises, public institutions established by the state or a municipality, or the Bank of Lithuania. The second material inaccuracy concerns deferral of final settlement: the news item states that any amount exceeding one month’s average remuneration will be paid “no later than within three months”, whereas the new wording of Article 146 of the Labour Code permits agreement on deferral only for a period not exceeding ten working days. The transitional provision is also omitted: termination procedures commenced by 31 October 2026, and the related settlements, are to be governed by the previous versions of Articles 60 and 146, while default interest on amounts payable by that date is calculated under the previous rules of Article 147(1).
When terminating an employment contract at the employer’s will under Article 59 of the Labour Code, the obligation remains to give the employee three working days’ notice and to pay severance of not less than six times the employee’s average salary.
If the amount payable upon termination of the employment relationship exceeds one month’s average salary, the remaining part may, by agreement of the parties, be paid later, but no later than within three months from the end of the employment relationship.
Employment relationships in which no termination, dispute or probationary procedure has been commenced by 31 October 2026 will, from 1 November 2026, be subject to substantially different rules: termination at the employer’s will be permitted only for a justified reason, and the parties may agree to defer part of the final settlement amount for up to three months. Processes commenced by 31 October 2026, including probationary periods and initiated employment disputes, will remain subject to the previous provisions of the Labour Code. An additional risk threshold is the abolition of the requirement for a list of reasons under Article 57(1) of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which changes the logic for substantiating termination at the employer’s will. The following rules are directly applicable to this matter:
From 1 November, the employer’s obligations are formulated as follows:
In practical terms, this means: