Under Article 350(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal is admitted by a selection panel, and at least one member of that panel must vote in favour of admission.
Under Article 345(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal in cassation may be filed within three months from the date on which the appellate ruling enters into force.
The Ministry of Justice, having lost on appeal, is now deciding whether to apply to the Supreme Court of Lithuania; however, cassation in this case is possible only on the grounds listed in Article 346(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure: a breach of legal norms of fundamental importance for uniform interpretation of the law, a departure from Supreme Court practice, or inconsistent Supreme Court practice. The principal legal issue is whether the appellate ruling requiring Lithuania to register a partnership without a statutory basis satisfies at least one of the review grounds established in Article 346 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Only persons participating in the case may lodge an appeal in cassation (Article 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In this case, those persons are the Ministry and the applicants, who, under Article 348(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, may join the Ministry’s appeal but may not put forward independent grounds for review. Under Article 347(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal in cassation must be drafted by an advocate, except where the appellant in cassation is a civil servant with a university degree in law, which is relevant to the Ministry. The appeal must contain detailed legal arguments confirming the existence of the grounds specified in Article 346 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and reliance on new evidence is prohibited (Article 347(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure). The explanatory memorandum to Draft Law No. XIIIP-709(2) notes that cassation is an exceptional form of legality review, available only in particularly complex questions of law requiring systematic knowledge of judicial practice. Favourable to the Ministry’s position is the fact that Supreme Court practice has not yet developed on the disputed issue: whether courts may order the State to register a partnership in the absence of a statutory registration procedure. Accordingly, the most realistic ground for cassation would be Article 346(2)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure: a breach of legal norms of fundamental importance for uniform interpretation of the law. The Ministry’s argument that recognition of the fact of partnership and registration of that partnership are distinct legal aspects, and that registration requires a statutory basis to be enacted by the Seimas, may be grounded precisely on this basis.
If the Ministry does not file an appeal in cassation within three months from the entry into force of the ruling, the appellate ruling will become final, and Lithuania’s obligation to register the applicants’ partnership will become enforceable. If an appeal is filed, the Supreme Court’s selection panel will decide on its admissibility by written procedure, and refusal to admit the appeal will terminate the cassation proceedings and leave the appellate ruling in force. If the appeal is admitted, the Supreme Court’s final assessment of the courts’ competence to register a partnership in the absence of a statutory procedure will become binding precedent for other similar cases, of which, according to the Ministry, there are already several. If the Seimas does not adopt legislation regulating partnership, this judicial practice will remain the only route for partnership registration, and the position of the Minister of Justice indicates that the outcome of this particular case will determine whether the Ministry appeals the other four decisions adopted to date.
Article 35 of the Law on Excise Duties sets a rate of LTL 1,002 per tonne for gas oils and provides a relief for agricultural entities (not exceeding 120 litres per hectare per year), meaning that the legislature already has a differentiated-rate mechanism that could be extended to carriers.
Article 8 of Directive (EU) 2020/262 permits, where rates are changed, the excise duty on stocks of goods already released for consumption to be increased or reduced “where appropriate” — this provides a legal basis for rapidly reflecting an excise duty reduction in prices.
In this situation, the legal position is shaped not through the liability of market participants, but through the sphere of state tax policy: the increase in fuel prices is putting pressure on policymakers to amend excise duty and biofuel regulation. The precise legal question is the extent to which Lithuania may independently reduce excise duty on diesel or amend the rules on the incorporation of bio-components in order to mitigate price increases without exceeding the limits established by Union law. The applicable framework will include the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Excise Duties (Article 1 provides that the law regulates the taxation of excisable goods and is harmonised with EU legal acts in accordance with Annex 4), as well as Council Directive (EU) 2020/262, Article 1 of which establishes the general arrangements for excise duty on energy products covered by Directive 2003/96/EC. The second issue — flexibility in the requirements for the incorporation of bio-components (DAEI) into diesel — is governed by the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Alternative Fuels No. XIV-196 (the definitions in Article 2, including DAEI and fuel and biofuel blend, and the obligations set out in the Annex).
Excise policy in Lithuania operates through a clear normative chain that both limits and enables options for reduction:
The most realistic legal course is a draft law before the Seimas amending the rate under Article 35 of the Law on Excise Duties or introducing a relief for carriers, since excise duty rates may be changed only by law; an alternative would be a compensation procedure established by the Government under the existing relief mechanism. The annual-average model for bio-components would require amendments to the Annex to the Law on Alternative Fuels No. XIV-196 and to the related articles, which may conflict with the RRF plan commitments that the minister himself identified as the root of the problem. For carriers, the practical significance lies in whether the compensation is structured as an excise relief (a lower price at the time of purchase under Article 8) or as a separate payment, as this determines administration through the State Tax Inspectorate. From a budgetary perspective, each option reduces the state budget excise revenues provided for in Article 55.
Since the damage to the municipality has been established at EUR 16,700, the assessment will proceed under Article 300(3) of the Criminal Code, under which acts of forgery causing major damage are punishable by imprisonment for up to five years.
If the act is classified as abuse of official position for the purpose of obtaining material gain, Article 228(2) of the Criminal Code applies, carrying imprisonment for up to six years.
Alytus District Deputy Mayor Aurimas Trunca, who has been notified of suspicion in connection with alleged damage of EUR 16,700 caused to the municipality through allegedly falsified fuel documents, will be subject to liability under Article 300 of the Criminal Code (forgery of a document or possession/use of a forged document) and potentially Article 228 of the Criminal Code (abuse of office). As a municipal official serving on the basis of political confidence, the Deputy Mayor may additionally be liable under Article 228 of the Criminal Code if it is established that he abused his official position or exceeded his powers. The fact that the Special Investigation Service has notified a further 35 current and former council members of suspicion in analogous investigations indicates that this is not an isolated case, but a widespread practice to which the same forgery provisions apply.
The Special Investigation Service, which is conducting the pre-trial investigation, must establish three circumstances: whether the documents were in fact forged, whether they were used specifically by the suspect, and whether the damage to the municipality falls within the category of major damage under Article 300(3) of the Criminal Code. If only the use of documents is proven, without major damage, Article 300(1) would apply, carrying imprisonment for up to three years; if major damage is established, Article 300(3) applies, carrying imprisonment for up to five years. Coercive measures are also relevant in the proceedings: under Article 122(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detention may be ordered where there is evidence that the suspect may destroy, conceal or falsify items or documents relevant to the investigation. The sources provided do not include case law, and therefore I cannot identify a specific case.
The actual consequences for the Deputy Mayor will depend on the legal classification: from a fine under the less serious provisions to imprisonment for up to five years under Article 300(3) of the Criminal Code or up to six years under Article 228(2). The political consequence is separate from criminal liability: as an official serving on the basis of political confidence, the Deputy Mayor remains in office only so long as he retains the support of the politician who selected him, meaning the investigation may result in resignation regardless of the court’s decision. The municipality may also seek compensation for damage through civil proceedings. The same provisions apply to the other 35 council members notified of suspicion, and their cases may shape the practice for assessing the major damage criterion in similar fuel-document cases.
This regulation was initiated by the Ministry of Justice (Department of Administrative and Criminal Justice) with a view to transposing into national law the provisions of EU Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems. The draft clarifies the constituent elements of offences against electronic data and the security of information systems and increases liability where substantial damage is caused, multiple systems are affected, or another person’s personal data are used. It is additionally proposed to supplement the Criminal Code with an article establishing criminal liability for ship-source pollution, implementing Directive 2005/35/EC. The documents do not indicate any objections.
The persons who carried out the intrusion into the EPEKIS system administered by the Information Technology and Communications Department under the Ministry of the Interior may be held criminally liable under the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC) governing cybercrime, and the Prosecutor General’s Office, which has already opened an investigation, must determine which offence corresponds to the conduct in question. The key legal issue is whether the conduct should be classified under Article 198 CC (unlawful interception and use of electronic data), Article 196 CC (unlawful interference with electronic data), or Article 197 CC (unlawful interference with an information system), as the report indicates that the investigation is being conducted specifically under these articles. The classification depends not only on the nature of the conduct (intrusion, interception of data, or disruption of system operation), but also on the aggravating circumstance: if EPEKIS is recognised as a system of strategic importance to national security or of major importance to public administration, the offence is punishable by imprisonment for up to six years, rather than under the basic offences, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is two or four years.
The provisions cited in the sources make it possible to define the scope of liability under the potential classifications:
If the investigation establishes that data were downloaded from EPEKIS or otherwise used, the classification would tend towards Article 198 CC, and given the purpose of the system (an archive for citizenship procedures), paragraph 2 may apply, carrying imprisonment for up to six years.
The regulation was initiated by the Ministry of Justice (Department of Administrative and Criminal Justice) with a view to transposing into national law the provisions of EU Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against information systems. The aim was to clarify the constituent elements of offences against electronic data and the security of information systems, and to increase liability where substantial damage is caused, where the conduct concerns data in multiple systems, or where another person’s personal data are used. It was also proposed to criminalise unlawful access to part of an information system and to improve the framework of liability for unlawful possession of devices and passwords; following comments from the European Commission, it was further proposed to supplement the Criminal Code with an article concerning ship-source pollution.
Energy security measures are subject to a limit of up to 0.3% of GDP per year and an aggregate limit of up to 0.6% of GDP for 2027–2028, i.e. approximately EUR 270 million per year or up to EUR 540 million over two years.
Under Article 48(5) of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014, the amount of State aid may not exceed the difference between eligible costs and the operating profit of the investment.
For Lithuania, this development means an opportunity, through the expansion of the national fiscal escape clause, to borrow additionally for energy investments without breaching fiscal rules: up to 0.3% of GDP per year and up to an aggregate limit of 0.6% of GDP for 2027–2028, i.e. approximately EUR 270 million per year or up to EUR 540 million over two years, if GDP reaches approximately EUR 90 billion. The legal position will depend not only on the European Commission’s guidelines, but also on the fact that every such investment involving state funds remains State aid, which must be aligned with EU internal market rules. The precise issue to be addressed will be under what conditions additional deficit or debt for investments in energy security and the phase-out of fossil fuels will not be regarded as a breach of fiscal rules, and whether specific projects, such as grid expansion, ensuring island mode operation, and infrastructure protection, will comply with State aid law. The applicable framework will include the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 on State aid for energy infrastructure (Articles 48 and 56), the objectives set out in Article 3 of the Law on Electricity of the Republic of Lithuania, including point 8, “to create appropriate conditions for investment in the electricity sector”, and Article 74 on public service obligations, including the development of generation capacity that is strategically important for system security and energy independence.
The Ministry’s calculation is based on guidelines published by the European Commission, under which energy security measures are subject to a limit of up to 0.3% of GDP per year and an aggregate limit of up to 0.6% of GDP for 2027–2028; additional deficit or debt for such investments would not be considered a breach of fiscal rules, provided the prescribed limits are observed. To date, two Member States have made use of this option, and Commissioner D. Jorgensen has urged others to do so, indicating that the decision to apply the exception depends on the initiative of the Member State and compliance with the Commission’s guidelines. However, the fiscal exception does not disapply State aid control: in practice, the financing of energy infrastructure projects is assessed under Article 48 of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014, paragraph 5 of which requires the difference between eligible costs and the operating profit of the investment to be determined, while paragraph 2 requires the application of full tariff and access rules under internal market legislation. This is illustrated by the description of the financing conditions for the EU funds measure “Modernisation and Development of the Electricity Transmission System” (06.3.1-LVPA-V-103): financing there is classified as State aid under Article 48 of the Regulation, the maximum financing rate is 50% of eligible costs, and the applicant must contribute at least 50%. Similarly, under measure 04.4.1-LVPA-K-106, “Modernisation and Development of Electricity Distribution Networks”, the implementing authority verifies the project’s compliance with the requirements of Article 48 of Chapter III of the Regulation. Infrastructure assets are also subject to the requirements of Article 56 of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014: open, transparent and non-discriminatory access to infrastructure, pricing corresponding to market price, compliance of the aid amount with paragraph 6, and the prohibition on granting aid for dedicated infrastructure under paragraph 7. At national level, the legal basis for investments is supplemented by Article 74 of the Law on Electricity, under which the Government may define services meeting public interests, including the securing of reserves and the development of strategically important capacity, while Article 77 requires the transmission system operator to cooperate with operators of other states in ensuring system security and implementing strategic projects. This corresponds to the Minister’s stated regional cooperation with Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine; in the latter case, Article 11 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 on joint projects with third countries is also relevant.
If Lithuania makes use of the exception, additional borrowing in 2027–2028 of up to 0.6% of GDP, approximately EUR 540 million, will not be assessed as a breach of fiscal rules. However, each financed project will separately have to comply with State aid requirements; otherwise, there is a risk of recovery orders. For project promoters, including network operators and producers, this means that the share of State financing will be limited by the difference in operating profit, and the infrastructure will have to be opened to users on a non-discriminatory basis. The Government will need, under the procedure laid down in Article 74 of the Law on Electricity, to formalise which activities will be regarded as services meeting public interests, so that investments in island mode operation and infrastructure protection have a legal basis.
Breach of data protection requirements may give rise to administrative liability under Article 82 of the Code of Administrative Offences, namely a fine for individuals from EUR 150 to EUR 580, and, for a repeated offence, from EUR 550 to EUR 1,200.
Article 18(1) of the Law on the Legal Protection of Personal Data requires a written document setting out the purpose and scope of surveillance, the retention period, and the conditions for access and erasure of data.
For persons using dashboard cameras in Lithuania, the actual legal position is twofold: installation of a dashboard camera requires no registration or permit, but whether Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the General Data Protection Regulation, and related liability apply depends on whether the filming remains an exclusively personal activity. The precise issues to be addressed are determined by Article 2(2)(c) GDPR (the exemption for purely personal or household activity), Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest as a basis for processing), and Articles 16-18 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Legal Protection of Personal Data (conditions and requirements for video surveillance). If filming or publication goes beyond the field of data protection and concerns private life, criminal liability may arise under Article 167 of the Criminal Code (unlawful collection of information about a person’s private life, punishable by imprisonment for up to three years) or Article 168 (unlawful disclosure or use, also punishable by up to three years, but only upon a complaint by the victim, a statement by the victim’s representative, or a prosecutor’s request).
Article 2(2)(c) GDPR exempts processing from the Regulation only where it is carried out for purely personal or household activities; in its 2022 explanation, the State Data Protection Inspectorate linked this to the use of a dashboard camera solely for personal, non-business purposes.
For a private driver whose filming is limited to short loop recording and recording the circumstances of a traffic accident, the greatest practical risk is minimal; parking mode that continuously recorded a neighbour’s door, windows, and visitors may be regarded as excessive surveillance, with fines under Article 82 of the Code of Administrative Offences.
The requirement first to apply to the civil registry office before seising the court was found to be inconsistent with the applicable regulatory framework and the Constitutional Court’s interpretations; this is consistent with Article 2.19 of the Civil Code, which does not assign the procedure for registering partnerships to the law governing the registration of civil status acts.
Point to monitor: within three months from the adoption of the ruling, the Ministry of Justice may lodge an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Lithuania; if no appeal is lodged, the ruling will become final and enforceable.
The partnership of two women has been recognised in Lithuania by court order, and the State, represented by the Ministry of Justice, has been placed under an obligation to register it; on Tuesday, the Klaipėda Regional Court dismissed the Ministry’s appeal. This position arises not from a specific partnership law, which the Seimas has still not adopted, but from the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 17 April 2025, which held that the provision of the Civil Code allowing partnership only between a man and a woman was contrary to the Constitution. The more precise legal question raised by this ruling is whether partnership registration, in the absence of statutory regulation, may be effected through judicial proceedings, and under which provisions it is to be determined: Article 2.19 of the Civil Code, which excludes partnership from the registration procedure for civil status acts established by law, and Article 3.2 of the Civil Code, under which family relations are governed by the Constitution, the Civil Code and other laws.
The Regional Court assessed the factual substance of the applicants’ relationship, rather than their sex or the fact of their marriage in a foreign state.
As a practical matter, the key point is that registration of the partnership will become an enforceable obligation of the State if the court of cassation does not quash the ruling.
The documents contain no information regarding a court decision on the registration of a partnership between two women or an appeal by the Ministry of Justice. The explanatory notes provided concern draft legislation on the legal regulation of partnership (unregistered partnership), which seeks to distinguish the institution of partnership from marriage and not to treat it as an act of civil status, as well as the simplification of civil status registration. These documents are not materially related to the topic. [SKIP]