Legal prism — 2026-10-03

Under Article 3(1) of the Law on State Pensions, a person entitled to receive several state pensions is paid only one of them, at that person’s choice, while the proposed amendment would allow a second-degree pension to be paid alongside other state pensions to approximately 400-600 residents, at an annual cost of approximately EUR 0.7-1.1 million.

Core issue

Article 3(1) of the currently applicable Republic of Lithuania Law on State Pensions establishes a principle of choice: a person entitled to receive several state pensions is paid only one of them, at that person’s choice, with an exception applying only to certain widows’ and orphans’ pensions. A draft amendment under consideration in the Seimas proposes that a second-degree state pension be paid irrespective of any other state pensions to which the person is entitled. The precise legal question to be decided by the Seimas is whether the principle of choice enshrined in Article 3 of the Law on State Pensions may be disapplied for all recipients of second-degree state pensions, regardless of what other state pension the person is entitled to. The decision will be made under Articles 3, 1 and 2 of the Law on State Pensions.

Legal assessment

Under Article 5(2) of the Law on State Pensions, second-degree state pensions are awarded to mothers or fathers of large families who have raised five or more children, honorary blood donors, and participants in freedom struggles. The current regime means that if such a person is also entitled to a statutory or other special pension, Article 3(1) requires that person to choose one benefit; an exception is possible only where the person is entitled to the specified widows’ or orphans’ pensions, in which case they are paid together with one other state pension. The draft has been submitted in broader form for a reason: an earlier proposal allowing multiple pensions only for honorary blood donors drew conclusions from the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas and the Committee on Legal Affairs that it would be contrary to the constitutional principle of equality, because all recipients of second-degree pensions are persons to whom pensions are paid for merit or as compensation, and there is no basis for singling out one group from the others. The current draft therefore applies a uniform solution to all recipients of second-degree state pensions, removing the constitutional objection. In assessing the substance, other provisions of the law must also be taken into account: under Article 6(1), a pension is not awarded to a mother or father of a large family in the prescribed cases, and under Article 20(1), pensions are not awarded to convicted persons until the conviction has expired or been expunged. A cap on the amount also applies: an amendment introduced in 1995 provides that the amount of the prescribed state pensions, together with the state social insurance pension, may not exceed one and a half times the average monthly wage for the month before last per person; this cap may limit the practical benefit of the new regime.

Consequences

If the Seimas adopts the amendment, the practical consequences would be as follows:

• approximately 400-600 residents entitled to a second-degree state pension and also to another state pension could receive both benefits without having to choose between them;
• according to the explanatory note, the required state budget funding would amount to approximately EUR 0.7-1.1 million per year; financing from state budget appropriations is provided for in Article 2(1) of the Law on State Pensions;
• the principle of choice in respect of second-degree pensions would be abolished for all recipients, not only honorary blood donors, thereby avoiding the previously identified equality issue;
• the award of the pension would nevertheless remain subject to the restrictions laid down in Articles 6 and 20, as well as to the cap on the amount.

Until the amendment is adopted, the current regime remains in force and persons must choose one pension.

Hooligan driving under Article 420(2) of the ANK carries a fine of EUR 450 to EUR 550 for drivers, and EUR 750 to EUR 1,000 for persons without the right to drive.

Where driving in breach of traffic rules results in a non-serious impairment of the victim’s health, Article 281(1) of the BK applies, carrying imprisonment for up to two years.

Core issue

The participants in the Panevėžys incident and those involved in the “scooter hunts” recorded on social media face different forms of liability, determined not by the name of the device but by its technical specifications. According to a police representative, the electric scooter used by the children is classified, by reference to its specifications, as a moped; it is therefore treated in law as a road vehicle. This raises the question of which provision applies to intentional riding past pedestrians and which applies to the traffic accident in which a minor child and an 80-year-old woman were injured. For intentional intimidation, Article 420(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania (ANK) is applicable; where injuries are caused, Article 281 of the Criminal Code (BK) applies; and for traffic-rule violations without consequences, Articles 417 and 428 of the ANK apply.

Legal assessment

Hooligan driving, namely a breach of the Road Traffic Rules motivated by hooligan intent and endangering traffic safety or personal safety, carries, under Article 420(2) of the ANK, a fine of EUR 450 to EUR 550 for drivers, and EUR 750 to EUR 1,000 for persons without the right to drive.

• An ordinary violation that creates a dangerous situation may, under Article 420(1) of the ANK, result in a fine of EUR 170 to EUR 230 for drivers.
• A breach of the Road Traffic Rules by drivers of electric micromobility devices that creates a dangerous situation carries, under Article 428(2) of the ANK, a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 50; a violation resulting in property damage carries a fine of EUR 40 to EUR 60 under paragraph 3. These more lenient provisions apply only where the device remains, in legal terms, a micromobility device and is not equated to a moped.
• Where driving in breach of traffic rules causes a traffic accident and results in a non-serious impairment of the victim’s health, Article 281(1) of the BK applies: a fine, community service, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to two years. If the victim’s health is seriously impaired, imprisonment for up to five years applies under paragraph 3.
• In the Panevėžys case, both persons who were driving were minors, so Articles 42 and 43 of the ANK are applicable: penalties are imposed under the general procedure, but taking into account age and personality, and the court may refrain from imposing a penalty and refer the matter for minimum or medium child supervision measures.
• If an adult involved minors in the offence, this constitutes an aggravating circumstance under Article 36(1)(5) of the ANK; the occurrence of serious consequences under Article 36(1)(3), and commission of the act against a young child under Article 36(1)(6), also aggravate liability.
• The issue of parental liability is assessed through the duties of the owner or holder of the device: Article 431(1) of the ANK provides for a fine of EUR 150 to EUR 300 for failure to comply with the requirements established in the Law on Road Traffic Safety, and, for a repeated offence, EUR 440 to EUR 600 under paragraph 2.
• The sources provided contain no case law, so it is not possible to identify a specific case determining the legal classification.
• At municipal level, the police will coordinate with the municipality on restricting scooters from arriving at events; Article 459(3) of the ANK provides for a fine of EUR 140 to EUR 300 for failure to coordinate the organisation of road events with the police.

Consequences

In the Panevėžys incident, the most likely classification is under Article 281 of the BK if medical evidence establishes a non-serious impairment of health; the case will be investigated by the pre-trial investigation authority, and the special provisions on minors’ liability will apply.

• In cases of intimidation spreading on social media without injuries, Article 420(2) of the ANK applies, carrying a fine of EUR 450 to EUR 550.
• Scooter owners who transfer devices to children or accounts to others face fines under Article 431 of the ANK, while the issue of transferring shared-service accounts is not yet expressly regulated in law.
• Event organisers and municipalities will shortly need to address bans on scooters arriving at events; the legal basis for such restrictions will be formulated in cooperation with the police, and failure to coordinate may result in a fine under Article 459(3) of the ANK.
• Follow-up point: presentation of the package of measures planned by the Ministry of Transport and Communications; its timing and content are not known from the sources provided.

Under Article 9(1) of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, an arbitral tribunal may apply to the Vilnius Regional Court for the performance of the acts specified in Articles 14, 16, 17, 25, 27, 36, and 38; such cases are heard under simplified procedure pursuant to Chapter XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the case file is not public (Article 9(2)).

The ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 9 April 2025, No. e3K-3-45-943/2025, confirmed that the procedure rules of the Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration constitute the basis on which an arbitral tribunal grounds its procedural acts.

Core issue

The issues discussed at Vilnius Arbitration Day — tribunal case management, arbitrator impartiality, and document production — are addressed in Lithuania through the principles enshrined in Article 8 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration of the Republic of Lithuania: the independence of the arbitral tribunal, equal procedural rights of the parties, confidentiality, and the principles of adversarial proceedings, cooperation, and expedition. The specific legal issue is the basis on which an arbitral tribunal may actively manage proceedings without infringing the parties’ equal rights to be heard or prejudging the matter. This issue is determined under Articles 8, 3, and 9 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration and, in international disputes, under the procedural rules chosen by the parties in the arbitration agreement.

Legal assessment

Under Article 8(2) of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, courts may not interfere in the activities of an arbitral tribunal except in the cases provided for by law. The parties’ obligations and rights are allocated as follows:

• the arbitral tribunal must ensure the parties’ equal procedural rights (Article 8(4)) and comply with the principles of adversarial proceedings and cooperation (Article 8(6));
• an appointed arbitrator may not be biased, which corresponds to the statutory principle of independence (Article 8(1));
• parties that have concluded an arbitration agreement (Article 3(5)) may choose the rules of a permanent arbitral institution (Article 3(6)).

On document production, Lithuanian regulation is close to the civil-law tradition: the law contains no broad equivalent of common-law “discovery”, and assistance in taking evidence falls within the competence of the state court. Under Article 9(1) of the Law on Commercial Arbitration, an arbitral tribunal may apply to the Vilnius Regional Court for the performance of the acts specified in Articles 14, 16, 17, 25, 27, 36, and 38, while the case file is not public (Article 9(2)); this preserves the confidentiality of arbitration (Article 8(3)). The ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania of 9 April 2025 in civil case No. e3K-3-45-943/2025 held that the arbitration procedure rules approved by the Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration on 17 November 2022 constitute the basis on which an arbitral tribunal grounds its procedural acts. The ruling of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania of 20 December 2016, No. e3K-3-471-916/2016, relying on the Supreme Court of Lithuania’s ruling of 26 April 2013, No. 2A-2283/2013, explained that a reference in an arbitration clause to the Vilnius International and National Commercial Arbitration Rules means the possibility of choosing both sets of rules according to the nature of the dispute.

Consequences

Parties entering into arbitration agreements with counterparties from common-law jurisdictions should specify the scope of document production and procedural case-management guidelines in the arbitration agreement itself or in the chosen rules; otherwise, the tribunal will decide by reference to the principles of expedition and economy enshrined in Article 8(6) of the Law on Commercial Arbitration. Under Article 41, an arbitral award becomes final from the moment it is made and constitutes an enforceable instrument; if the award is not complied with, a writ of execution is issued, at a party’s request and in written proceedings, by the district court of the seat of the arbitral tribunal.

Under Article 80(6) of the Law on Insolvency, a settlement agreement enters into force only after the court ruling terminating the bankruptcy proceedings becomes final, and the administrator must submit the request for approval within five working days of its conclusion.

Article 99(4) of the ABTĮ provides that unperformed court-approved settlement agreements are enforced in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, while Article 6.215 of the Civil Code permits the imposition of a fine for each day of delay.

Core issue

A court judgment requiring the demolition of the Moscow House, unenforced for four years, may be implemented not through compulsory enforcement but by way of a settlement agreement: the VTPSI assumes responsibility for organising the demolition, while that responsibility is now being assumed, through the settlement agreement, by the liquidated public institution administered by a bankruptcy administrator. The principal legal issue is whether the court will approve such an agreement, since Article 51(1) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Administrative Proceedings (ABTĮ) permits proceedings to be terminated by a settlement agreement only where it does not contravene mandatory legal norms or the public interest and does not infringe the rights of third parties, and where the subject matter of the agreement is of the same nature as the original claims. The agreement’s entry into force depends on a court ruling: under Article 80(6) of the Law on Insolvency, a settlement agreement enters into force only after the court ruling terminating the bankruptcy proceedings becomes final, while under Article 51(2) of the ABTĮ the court must specify in its ruling the terms of the agreement being approved.

Legal assessment

The parties and their obligations are allocated as follows:

• The VTPSI, as a public administration entity authorised in 2022 to organise the demolition, may transfer actual performance to a business entity by settlement agreement; however, judicial control over the public interest remains with the court, which must not approve an agreement that would extinguish the obligation itself to demolish the structure.
• “Šatrijos biuras”, as bankruptcy administrator, must sign the agreement under Article 80(3) of the Law on Insolvency after obtaining the approval of the institution’s participants.
• The companies that will undertake the demolition at their own expense will conclude a separate works contract with the administrator; under Article 6.256(4) of the Civil Code, such an undertaking is liable unless it proves force majeure, while under Article 6.215 of the Civil Code, in the event of non-compliance with a court judgment requiring specific performance, the court may impose a fine for each day of delay.
• Article 99(4) of the ABTĮ expressly provides that unperformed court-approved settlement agreements are enforced in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, meaning that an approved agreement becomes an enforceable instrument.
• The form provided for in the Description of the Procedure for Organising the Enforcement of Mandatory Instructions and Court Judgments, which records the details of the court judgment or settlement agreement approved by court ruling, the obligated person, and the particulars of the demolition works contract, shows that an administrative procedure exists for organising enforcement through a contractor. In assessing the reasonableness of the agreement, the court will be guided by a criterion similar to that in point 10 of the Rules on Settlement Agreements of the Tax Administrator: whether the person will realistically be able to perform the obligations assumed, and by the principle that a settlement agreement must enable insolvency to be avoided. Since the institution is in bankruptcy proceedings, the agreement cannot, by leaving residual obligations, deprive creditors of the possibility of satisfaction if the demolition is delayed. An obligation arising on the basis of a settlement agreement is deemed indivisible under Article 6.983(2) of the Civil Code, meaning that the parties will not be able to demand partial performance or alter its subject matter.

Consequences

The realistic scenarios are as follows:

• If the court approves the agreement, the bankruptcy proceedings will be terminated under Article 80(1) of the Law on Insolvency; if the agreement is not performed, it will be enforceable through a bailiff under the Code of Civil Procedure, together with a possible fine under Article 6.215 of the Civil Code for each day of delay.
• If the court refuses approval, for example by finding a conflict with the public interest under Article 51(3) of the ABTĮ, the ruling may be appealed by way of a separate appeal under Article 51(3), and the VTPSI would return to compulsory enforcement.
• The complaints lodged by tender participants “Regina ir Co” and “Vilniaus BDT” have already been dismissed, so the conclusion of a works contract with a new company no longer gives rise to a risk of tender-related disputes.
• The public-service demolition model proposed by Vilnius Municipality is legally possible only through a separate agreement with the administrator; the municipality itself cannot implement a court judgment addressed to the VTPSI. Monitoring point: in the near future, the Vilnius City District Court is expected to examine the bankruptcy administrator’s request to approve the settlement agreement and terminate the bankruptcy proceedings. This ruling should be awaited, since the agreement will enter into force only once that ruling becomes final.

An offence of driving while intoxicated under Article 424(6) of the Lithuanian Code of Administrative Offences carries a fine of EUR 1,100 to EUR 1,500, while paragraph 7 provides for mandatory disqualification from driving for 1 year to 1 year and 6 months.

For repeated driving while intoxicated under Article 427(1) of the Lithuanian Code of Administrative Offences, the fine ranges from EUR 1,000 to EUR 2,000, and under paragraph 2 mandatory...

Core issue

The information concerning electric vehicle battery prices and APVA support is not legal information on administrative liability; however, the sources provided are provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania (the Code) relating to traffic and the use of vehicles. The legal position is that the provisions cited define the administrative liability applicable to persons using vehicles, including electric vehicles, in public traffic. The precise legal issue is the administrative liability established for breaches of vehicle operation and traffic rules where the vehicles concerned are subject to compulsory insurance, cargo documentation requirements, intoxication rules, or disqualification from driving. The relevant provisions of the Code are Articles 415, 417, 423, 424, 427, 428, 450, 682, and Article 1.

Legal assessment

Article 1(1) of the Code provides that the purpose of the Code is to protect, by legal means, human rights and freedoms and the interests of society and the State against administrative offences. Article 1(2) provides that the Code defines which acts prohibited by law constitute administrative offences, establishes administrative penalties and administrative-impact measures, the grounds and conditions for administrative liability, and proceedings in administrative-offence cases. Article 1(3) states that the Code implements the European Union legal acts listed in the annex to the Code. Article 415(1) of the Code provides that driving vehicles not covered by compulsory civil liability insurance for vehicle users and/or failure to fulfil the obligation to insure vehicles is punishable by a fine:

• for drivers: EUR 50 to EUR 100;
• for natural persons responsible for concluding the insurance contract: EUR 60 to EUR 120;
• for managers of legal persons or other responsible persons: EUR 120 to EUR 240.

Article 417(1) of the Code establishes a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 90 for drivers for failure to comply with road signs or road markings, failure to fulfil drivers’ duties towards pedestrians, driving on a pavement, lawn or pedestrian/cycle path, breach of the rules on the use of warning signals, making a U-turn at pedestrian crossings, in tunnels, on bridges, overpasses and viaducts and under them, failure to switch from main-beam to dipped-beam headlights in the dark when less than 150 metres from an oncoming vehicle, failure to comply with the requirement to drive as close as possible to the right-hand edge, breach of traffic rules on motorways and expressways, and breach of the rules on the carriage of persons. Article 417(2) provides for a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 90 for stopping and parking in prohibited places or in breach of sign requirements, and for breaches of driving rules in residential zones and courtyards. Article 417(2¹) establishes a fine of EUR 60 to EUR 180 for stopping and parking, without entitlement, in places reserved for vehicles marked with the “Disabled person” distinguishing sign or a parking card for persons with disabilities. Article 423(1) of the Code establishes a fine of EUR 300 to EUR 560 for a breach of the Road Traffic Rules committed by persons without the right to drive, where the breach resulted in damage to vehicles, cargo, roads, road installations or other equipment, or other property belonging to other persons. Article 423(2) provides for a fine of EUR 150 to EUR 300 for drivers for a breach of the Road Traffic Rules causing minor impairment of another person’s health, and EUR 600 to EUR 850 for persons without the right to drive. Article 423(3) establishes a fine of EUR 1,200 to EUR 1,500 where such a breach is committed by a person who is intoxicated (not less than 0.41 per mille but not more than 1.5 per mille) or under the influence. Article 424(6) of the Code establishes a fine of EUR 1,100 to EUR 1,500 for the acts referred to in paragraphs 3 or 4 where committed by a person who is intoxicated (not less than 0.41 per mille but not more than 1.5 per mille) or under the influence, or who avoided a test for intoxication. Article 424(7) provides for mandatory disqualification from driving: for an offence under paragraph 3 or 4, from 6 months to 1 year; for an offence under paragraph 5, from 1 year and 6 months to 2 years; and for an offence under paragraph 6, from 1 year to 1 year and 6 months. Article 424(8) provides that confiscation of the vehicle may be imposed for offences under paragraphs 5 and 6. Article 427(1) of the Code establishes a fine of EUR 1,000 to EUR 1,500 for drivers, and EUR 1,200 to EUR 2,000 for persons without the right to drive, for repeated driving while intoxicated (not less than 0.41 per mille but not more than 1.5 per mille) or under the influence, or for avoiding a test for intoxication, where one year has not elapsed from the date of enforcement of the imposed penalty or administrative-impact measure, or where the person has an unexpunged or effective conviction for a criminal offence committed while driving a vehicle in a state of intoxication. Article 427(2) provides for mandatory disqualification from driving for 3 to 5 years. Article 428(1) of the Code establishes a fine of EUR 20 to EUR 40 for breaches of the Road Traffic Rules committed by pedestrians, cyclists, riders of motorised bicycles or electric micromobility devices, or animal-drawn vehicle drivers. Article 428(2) provides for a fine of EUR 30 to EUR 50 where such a breach caused a dangerous situation, and Article 428(3) provides for a fine of EUR 40 to EUR 60 where property was damaged as a result of the breach. Article 450(1) of the Code establishes a fine of EUR 50 to EUR 100 for drivers, and EUR 100 to EUR 200 for managers of legal persons or other responsible persons, for transporting cargo with an incomplete cargo transport document or a document lacking all mandatory information. Article 450(2) provides for a fine of EUR 100 to EUR 200 for drivers, and EUR 500 to EUR 700 for managers of legal persons or other responsible persons, for transporting cargo without a cargo transport document or by presenting a document inconsistent with the factual circumstances. Article 450(3) establishes a fine of EUR 100 to EUR 200 for drivers, and EUR 500 to EUR 700 for managers of legal persons or other responsible persons, for transporting cargo in breach of the requirements applicable to carriage of goods on one’s own account. Article 682 of the Code provides that disqualification from driving is enforced by entering data concerning the disqualification in the Register of Administrative Offences. The regulation “On Approval of the List of Infringements for Which a Carrier, Carrier’s Manager and/or Transport Manager Who Has Been Penalised Loses or May Lose Good Repute” provides that, pursuant to Article 6(1), third subparagraph, point (a), of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009, Article 424(1) of the Lithuanian Code of Administrative Offences applies where a vehicle is handed over to be driven in the course of professional road transport activities, and that infringement may result in the loss of good repute by the carrier, the carrier’s manager, or the transport manager. Paragraph 47 of the regulation “On Approval of the Description of the Procedure for Drawing Up Administrative-Offence Protocols and Examining Administrative-Offence Cases at the State Food and Veterinary Service” establishes when the imposition of an administrative penalty is associated with a fine exceeding EUR 1,500, a repeated offence, intoxication, minor impairment of health, mandatory confiscation of property, or exercise of a special right without holding that right; in such circumstances, cases are examined by courts rather than by officials.

Consequences

The practical consequences for persons using electric vehicles or other vehicles in public traffic are as follows:

• absence of compulsory insurance: a fine under Article 415(1), from EUR 50 to EUR 240;
• breaches of traffic rules: fines under Article 417, from EUR 30 to EUR 180, or Article 428, from EUR 20 to EUR 60;
• driving while intoxicated: a fine under Article 424(6), from EUR 1,100 to EUR 1,500, and mandatory disqualification from driving under paragraph 7, from 1 year to 1 year and 6 months, as well as possible confiscation of the vehicle under paragraph 8;
• repeated driving while intoxicated: a fine under Article 427(1), from EUR 1,000 to EUR 2,000, and mandatory disqualification from driving for 3 to 5 years under paragraph 2;
• breaches relating to cargo transport documents: fines under Article 450, from EUR 50 to EUR 700.

For entities engaged in professional transport activities, an additional risk is the loss of good repute under the regulation “On Approval of the List of Infringements for Which a Carrier, Carrier’s Manager and/or Transport Manager Who Has Been Penalised Loses or May Lose Good Repute”, where the infringement relates to Article 424(1) of the Lithuanian Code of Administrative Offences in the course of professional road transport activities.

If, within a twelve-month period, at least two violations of legislation governing noise prevention were established in connection with the use of real property, the institution that established the second violation would inform the landlord, who would be required within 30 calendar days to assess the sufficiency of the measures.

Under Article 488(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, noise generated in residential premises during evening and night hours is punishable by a fine of EUR 80 to EUR 200, and, in the event of a repeated offence, by a fine of EUR 200 to EUR 300.

Core issue

The Seimas Committee on Health Affairs is considering amendments that would, for the first time, expressly assign the duty of noise prevention not only to the person generating the noise, but also to the person making real property available, namely a landlord or the owner of a short-term use property. The rules currently in force focus liability on the direct offender: under Article 488(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania, noise generated in residential premises during evening hours (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and night hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) that disturbs the peace of persons is punishable by a fine of EUR 80 to EUR 200, and, in the event of a repeated offence, by a fine of EUR 200 to EUR 300. The precise legal issue to be resolved by the legislature is whether, and under what conditions, the person making the property available has a preventive duty and liability for the actions of other persons in the property made available. The assessment is based on Article 1(2) and Article 27 of the Law on Noise Management, as well as Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences as the basis for sanctions.

Legal assessment

The current system operates as follows:

• The police may hold the person making the noise liable under Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences; however, the practical difficulty is that the noise level in decibels is not measured on site, so in most cases the response is limited to a warning.
• Article 32(1) of the Law on Noise Management provides that persons who violate the requirements of the law are liable in accordance with the procedure established by law, while paragraph 2 establishes the civil duty of the manager of a noise source to compensate damage.
• Article 27(2) of the Law on Noise Management gives municipal institutions, together with the Ministry of Health, the right, where limit values are exceeded, to restrict the operation of stationary noise sources, apply other noise reduction measures or, in coordination with the Ministry of Transport and Communications, restrict traffic.
• Article 23 of the Law on Noise Management prohibits celebrations, weddings, fireworks and the use of noise-generating devices during prohibited times of day in quiet zones designated by municipalities. The proposed model of amendments is as follows:
• The landlord would be required, no later than within 30 calendar days of receiving the notice, to assess the sufficiency and effectiveness of the measures being applied.
• If the measures were insufficient or ineffective, the landlord would be required to take additional reasonable and proportionate measures.
• In selecting the measures, account would be taken of the person’s objective ability to influence the conditions of use of the property; this would distinguish the landlord’s preventive duty from liability for the actions of users. In assessing the level of liability, the applicable fines under Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences serve as a reference point: EUR 80 to EUR 200 for natural persons, EUR 200 to EUR 300 for managers of legal persons, and, in the event of a repeated offence, EUR 200 to EUR 300 and EUR 300 to EUR 400 respectively; violations committed at an event may also be accompanied by a prohibition on attending events for a period from one month to one year (Article 488(3)). The sources do not include case law, so the matter cannot be assessed on the basis of precedent.

Consequences

Until the amendments are adopted, residents’ recourse remains through the police and Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences, the effectiveness of which is limited by the ability to measure noise on site. If the amendments were adopted, landlords and owners of short-term use properties would acquire a new procedural duty to respond within 30 calendar days to an institution’s notice of repeated violations; otherwise, there would be grounds for applying liability under the new offence. Nothing would change for users who generate noise: they would continue to be liable under Article 488 of the Code of Administrative Offences within the specified fine ranges. Municipalities and the Ministry of Health would remain the institutions empowered to apply the restrictive measures provided for in Article 27(2) of the Law on Noise Management. It is proposed that the amendments enter into force on 1 January 2027.

Under Article 228(2) of the Criminal Code, a person who abuses official position for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary or other benefit is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to six years; the fines imposed fall within the sentencing range provided in that paragraph.

Article 235(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides fines for breaches of environmental protection requirements ranging from EUR 60 to EUR 140 for individuals; this would be incompatible with the EUR 55 million damage and the gravity of the consequences.

Core issue

Four former officials of the Šilutė District Municipality and the director of a municipality-controlled company are now finally convicted persons. The practical position is as follows: monetary fines ranging from more than EUR 18,000 to almost EUR 30,000, and a three-year deprivation of the right to be elected or appointed to positions in state, municipal, or non-governmental organisations. The legal core of the case is abuse of office under Article 228 of the Criminal Code and breach of environmental protection supervision rules under Article 270 of the Criminal Code, where substantial harm was caused to elements of the environment. The precise issue resolved by this ruling is whether the removal, organised by municipal officials, of hazardous waste to an area not designated for that purpose, causing more than EUR 55 million in pecuniary damage, warranted sanctions specifically under those provisions rather than the lesser administrative liability under Article 235 of the Code of Administrative Offences, where fines amount to only a few hundred euros.

Legal assessment

The court found that, in October-November 2017, the convicted persons, acting as a group of accomplices and using their official positions, unlawfully removed more than 5,300 tonnes of soil contaminated with petroleum products to a former garage site in Šilutė in order to avoid investigation and remediation costs. Article 270(1) of the Criminal Code establishes liability for breach of environmental protection rules where substantial harm could have been caused to land, soil, or other environmental elements; in this case, almost 8,000 sq. m of territory was contaminated and part of it became unsuitable for agriculture, recreation, forestry use, or residential activity. The type of penalties is confirmed by Article 42(1) of the Criminal Code, under which a fine is one of the penalties that may be imposed for a criminal offence, while Article 42(3) provides that only one penalty may be imposed for a single criminal offence. The additional measure, namely deprivation for three years of the right to hold elected or appointed office, is consistent with the system of penal sanctions established in Article 67 of the Criminal Code, which provides for prohibition on exercising a special right and deprivation of public rights. That the conduct was to be assessed under criminal rather than administrative law is demonstrated by the scale of the harm: Article 235(1) of the Code of Administrative Offences provides fines for breaches of environmental protection requirements ranging from EUR 60 to EUR 140 for individuals and up to EUR 300 for heads of legal persons, which would be incompatible with the EUR 55 million damage and the gravity of the consequences. The basis for liability is also confirmed by Article 2(4) of the Criminal Code: only a person whose conduct corresponds to the constituent elements of a criminal offence is liable under criminal law, while Article 2(1) requires that the act be prohibited by the law in force at the time of its commission; the acts took place in 2017, and therefore the versions in force at that time apply. The pre-trial investigation was organised by a prosecutor of the Organised Crime and Corruption Investigation Division of the Klaipėda Regional Prosecutor’s Office, and the investigation was conducted by the Special Investigation Service, reflecting the assessment of the conduct as corruption-related criminal activity. Under points 4 and 5 of Article 6 of the Law on State Environmental Protection Control, the state environmental protection supervision authority assesses environmental damage, takes measures to ensure that the offender compensates it, and transmits materials to law enforcement authorities; it was precisely this route that led to the criminal prosecution.

Consequences

The legal position of the convicted persons is now final. The practical consequences for the convicted persons are:

• enforcement of fines: almost EUR 26,000 against A. Bekeris, almost EUR 30,000 against S. Šeputis, and more than EUR 18,000 each against R. Rimkus and A. Stonkus;
• three years without the right to be elected or appointed to positions in state, municipal, or non-governmental organisations;
• a criminal record, which affects reliability checks and eligibility for future positions.

For the state and the municipality, the important point is that the environmental damage, exceeding EUR 55 million, is being compensated in separate civil proceedings, because the criminal case determines guilt and punishment, not the award of the amount of damages. The case also reveals an EU funds risk: almost EUR 188,000 in funds for remediation of the territory was obtained on an unlawfully concluded basis, of which 95% was to be financed from EU funds, making the issue of recovery of funds likely.