Under Article 21(2) of the Law on Public Procurement, the contracting authority must require persons connected with the procurement, before participating, to sign a confidentiality undertaking and declare their private interests, and, where they find themselves in a conflict-of-interest situation, to recuse themselves or be removed from the decision-making process.
Article 3(1) of the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests prohibits declarants from using official duties for personal gain and requires them to avoid conflicts of interest.
At the centre of Alytus District Municipality’s road maintenance procurements is not the contract price, but a conflict of interest: a deputy mayor generating subcontracting work for his own company, and a municipal specialist who had worked for the same company. Such concentration gives rise to a reasonable doubt as to whether the procurements were conducted in compliance with the principles of transparency and equal treatment under Article 17 of the Law on Public Procurement of the Republic of Lithuania, rather than through an artificial restriction of competition. The precise question — whether the persons who made the procurement decisions were required to recuse themselves and whether the procurement breached the law — will be assessed under Article 21 of the Law on Public Procurement and Article 3(1) of the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests. Since a pre-trial investigation is already being conducted by the Kaunas Board of the Special Investigation Service, under the supervision of prosecutors from the Organised Crime and Corruption Investigation Division of the Kaunas Regional Prosecutor’s Office, a criminal-law assessment for corruption-related offences is also possible.
This obligation directly concerns three persons identified in the report:
The most realistic directions for further developments are:
Under Article 6(2) of the Law on Assemblies, organisers whose event will be attended by more than 15 people must submit a written notification to the mayor no later than 4 working days in advance.
Under Article 9(1), the police may terminate an assembly where participants are armed, masked, dressed in military uniform, or use the assembly to breach public order.
The protest “Against Mass Immigration” and the counter-protest “Demonstration Against Racism,” scheduled to take place on Saturday in Vincas Kudirka Square, are legally equivalent assemblies, the organisers and participants of which both fall within the scope of the Law on Assemblies of the Republic of Lithuania. The critical issue raised by the events is the procedure for coordinating two assemblies in the same location and the boundaries of prohibited conduct, particularly in cases involving posters bearing Nazi symbols or incitement. Articles 6, 7, 5, 9 and 17 of the Law on Assemblies will apply in resolving these issues. The idea mentioned by V. Sinica of tightening deportations for foreign nationals who have committed criminal offences remains a matter for legislation; however, Article 7 of the Criminal Code provides that persons are liable for offences covered by international treaties irrespective of citizenship.
Since two events are planned for Saturday in the same area of Vincas Kudirka Square, Article 7(5) applies: priority is given to the organiser who submitted the notification first, while the mayor coordinates another possible place or time with the others. Police officers must participate in the coordination of the notification and take additional measures if they have information about threats to public order, which is consistent with reports of reinforced police presence. During an assembly, Article 5 prohibits manifest incitement to violate the Constitution or laws, as well as the display of the flag or coat of arms of Nazi Germany, the Nazi swastika, or images of leaders responsible for repression. Accordingly, a poster glorifying A. Hitler would not merely make the participant someone to be “asked to leave” by the organisers, as L. Tomelaitis suggests, but would also constitute a violation in respect of which the police may act independently. The organisers’ rights in this respect are defined in Article 10(2): they may admonish a participant, require the offender to leave, or ask the police to remove that person. This corresponds to the “asking to leave” practice announced by V. Sinica, but does not exempt the offender from liability provided for by law. The sources provided contain no case law on comparable situations, so precedent cannot be assessed.
The most realistic course of events is that both actions proceed in separate parts of the square in accordance with coordinated notifications, while the police monitor that the assemblies remain peaceful, unarmed gatherings within the meaning of Article 2. If Nazi symbols or inciting slogans were to appear at either action, three parallel consequences are possible: a demand by the organiser that the person leave under Article 10(2), termination of the assembly under Article 9 or Article 17, and liability for breach of the Law on Assemblies, which Article 1(1) directly requires to be established. The issue publicly raised by L. Tomelaitis concerning an overly lenient approach to persons disseminating Nazi content may become a source of pressure on the police and the prosecutor’s office to assess whether such conduct constitutes a criminal offence under the Criminal Code. The sources provided contain no provision establishing liability for glorification of Nazi ideology, apart from Article 250(1) of the Criminal Code on incitement to terrorism, which applies only where manifestations characteristic of terrorism are present.
Under Article 198(1) of the Criminal Code, unlawful misappropriation or dissemination of non-public electronic data is punishable by imprisonment for up to four years, while under Article 198-1(1), unlawful access to an information system is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years.
Under Article 49(1), the State Data Protection Inspectorate may impose a fine of up to 0.5 per cent of annual income, but not exceeding EUR 30,000, and in more serious cases under paragraph 2, up to 1 per cent of income, but not more than EUR 60,000.
The theft of customer data from the Holiday Inn hotel chain, affecting more than 500 customers, gives rise in Lithuania to two lines of liability: criminal liability for the persons who misappropriated the data, and administrative liability for the company itself as data controller if security deficiencies are established. The reported fact that a pre-trial investigation is under way means that the institution that opened the investigation will have to determine whether the conduct prohibited under Article 198 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania was committed. The key legal question is whether non-public electronic data were unlawfully intercepted, stored, misappropriated or disseminated under Article 198 of the Criminal Code, and whether there may have been unlawful access to a system under Article 198-1. The factual application will be assessed under Article 198(1) of the Criminal Code (imprisonment for up to four years) and Article 198-1(1) (imprisonment for up to two years), and, if it is established that the data had strategic or significant economic importance, under paragraph 2 of those articles, carrying terms of imprisonment of six and three years respectively.
Pre-trial investigation officers will have to establish the method of the offence: the report states that it is still unknown how the data were misappropriated, while the expert lists phishing, unlawful logins, active user sessions, or third-party systems. Certain aspects of the assessment are as follows:
The company’s risk is administrative: under Article 49(1) of the law applicable to infringements of the special Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data, the State Data Protection Inspectorate may impose a fine of up to 0.5 per cent of annual income, but not exceeding EUR 30,000, if Articles 17-33 of that law are infringed; and, in the event of infringement of Articles 3-15 or 34-38, or failure to comply with measures imposed by the Inspectorate, up to 1 per cent of income, but not more than EUR 60,000, under paragraph 2 of the same article. By comparison, an infringement relating to the processing of data in state information systems under Article 552 of the Code of Administrative Offences carries only a fine of EUR 90-170, or EUR 170-350 for a repeat offence. The attackers face criminal liability under Articles 198, 198-1 or 198-2 of the Criminal Code, and, pursuant to Article 72(2) of the Criminal Code, the proceeds of the criminal offence, for example any ransom received if payment is established, are confiscated into state ownership. During the pre-trial investigation, the fate of items relevant to the investigation is decided by the prosecutor or the pre-trial investigation judge under Article 94(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For customers whose document data were leaked, it is practically important to monitor whether the data are further disclosed, because, according to the expert, this may occur regardless of whether the company pays the attackers. The next procedural step will be decisions by the authorities supervising the pre-trial investigation and by the State Data Protection Inspectorate on criminal prosecution and administrative liability.
Under Article 9(2) of the Law on Legal Status, a decision on recognition of status must be adopted no later than six months from the submission of the application and documents, and an unfavourable decision may be appealed to an administrative court within 30 days.
Article 11(1) of the Law on State Pensions grants entitlement to state pensions for affected persons only to those individuals whose corresponding status has been recognised under the Law on Legal Status.
The persons in this account — Jonas Paulauskas and his brother Valerijonas, members of the LLA who were arrested and interrogated in 1946, as well as their family members — are assessed under the contemporary legal system through the legal status regime for persons who suffered as a result of the 1939–1990 occupations, rather than through criminal justice. Jonas Paulauskas died on 21 September 1946 in Mažeikiai prison while attempting to escape, and on 23 September 1946 the head of the MGB Mažeikiai County office signed a resolution terminating the criminal prosecution. This means that the fact of repressive persecution is documented in archival records (LYA, f. K-1, ap. 58, b. 1186/3). The precise legal issue raised by this history is whether J. Paulauskas, and his family members, may be recognised as persons who suffered as a result of the occupations and receive the state pension for affected persons provided for in Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on State Pensions. Two groups of legal provisions are applicable: Article 8 of the Law on the Legal Status of Persons Who Suffered as a Result of the 1939–1990 Occupations, which sets out the criteria and exceptions for recognition of status, and Article 11 of the above-mentioned Law on State Pensions, which sets out the conditions for granting the pension.
Under Article 8(2) of the Law on Legal Status, status is recognised for persons who suffered at the hands of the repressive regimes of the USSR, provided that they are currently citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, irrespective of their citizenship at the time of repression. However, Article 8(3)(2) excludes from recognition agents and informants of repressive structures, as well as members of organisations that acted against Lithuanian independence. This provision is relevant here not to J. Paulauskas, but to the informant “Pugovicin” appearing in his case file and to detainee D., who was recruited on 18 June 1946 and provided information. An important exception is contained in Article 8(4), which provides that the exclusion from recognition does not apply to persons who at the relevant time cooperated with resistance organisations and carried out their special assignments. During interrogation, J. Paulauskas stated that in October 1945 he had sworn an oath to the LLA, received the pseudonym “Perkūnas” and later “Žygis”, and printed and distributed anti-Soviet leaflets; his activity therefore corresponds to the profile of a participant in the resistance. Status is recognised, pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 9(2) of the Law on Legal Status, by the Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania. As regards pensions, Article 11(1) of the Law on State Pensions grants entitlement to pensions for affected persons to individuals whose status has been recognised under the Law on Legal Status; Article 9 provides for state widows’ and orphans’ pensions for the widows and children of deceased recipients of state pensions; and Article 23(1) provides that, upon loss of Lithuanian citizenship, payment of the pension is terminated from the first day of the month following the loss of citizenship. The case history also reveals a procedural violation recorded on 27 July 1946 by the Military Tribunal of the LSSR MGB troops itself: 17 accused persons stated before the court that their testimony during the investigation had been obtained through physical coercion, and several had not been allowed to acquaint themselves with the case file, as a result of which the case was remitted for supplementary investigation. This is an archival argument confirming the repressive nature of the persecution.
The practical consequences are as follows:
Correction. The article’s statement that destruction of property “carries community service or a fine, or restriction of liberty, or imprisonment for up to two years” is incomplete, because it reflects only Article 187(1) of the Criminal Code. More serious circumstances, namely a generally dangerous method or property of high value under paragraph 2, provide for imprisonment for up to five years, while property of low value under paragraph 3 is classified as a misdemeanour subject to the additional condition of a victim’s complaint. The article’s statement that the minors “will have to compensate the damage caused” is also incomplete, because under Article 6.276(2) of the Civil Code the part of the damage not covered by the minor’s property or earnings falls to the parents or guardian; and if the minors are under 14 years of age, under Article 6.275(1) of the Civil Code the damage is compensated solely by the parents or guardians, unless they prove that the damage did not arise through their fault. More precisely: the extent of criminal liability will depend on the value of the damaged property and the legal classification of the manner of acting, while civil liability will be allocated between the minor and his or her parents under Articles 6.275-6.276 of the Civil Code.
Under Article 90(3) of the Criminal Code, a minor may not be assigned more than 240 hours of community service, while a fine of 5–50 MSLs may be imposed only on a minor who is employed or owns property.
If a minor aged between fourteen and eighteen has no property or earnings, the relevant portion of the damage must be compensated by his or her parents, unless they prove that the damage did not arise through their fault (Article 6.276(2) of the Civil Code).
Two minors from Gargždai who, on the night of 5 September, smashed windows and mirrors on seven cars face liability under Article 187(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania for destruction of or damage to another person’s property, which provides for community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, or imprisonment for up to two years. The heaviest practical burden in this case is not the punishment, but compensation for damage: the claims of the seven vehicle owners will be determined under Article 6.276 of the Civil Code, and, if the teenagers are under fourteen, under Article 6.275 of the Civil Code, under which the parents are liable for the full damage.
The criminal liability aspect is subject to material limitations in respect of minors:
A procedural nuance: under Article 187(4) of the Criminal Code, a person is liable for acts under paragraphs 1 and 3 only upon a complaint by the victim, an application by the victim’s legal representative, or a prosecutor’s request; thus, the vehicle owners’ statements form part of the basis for liability here. The civil aspect depends on age: from the age of fourteen, a minor is liable for damage on general grounds, but if the minor has no property or earnings, the relevant portion must be compensated by the parents unless they prove that the damage did not arise through their fault (Article 6.276(2) of the Civil Code); the parents’ obligation ends when the child reaches majority or acquires sufficient property (Article 6.276(3) of the Civil Code). If the teenagers are under fourteen, criminal liability is not constructed on the basis of the cited sources, while the damage is compensated by the parents or guardians (Article 6.275(1) of the Civil Code). In criminal proceedings, compensation for damage may be imposed on a minor only where the minor has funds at his or her independent disposal or can remedy the damage through his or her own work, within a period not exceeding two years (Article 84(1)–(2) of the Criminal Code); this is the legal basis for expecting “substantial financial assistance from the parents.”
The most likely course is that the pre-trial investigation concerning an offence under Article 187(1) of the Criminal Code will be completed by prosecutorial acts and the case will proceed to court, where the authority hearing juvenile cases will decide on the punishment and compensation for damage. The injured vehicle owners may claim damages in civil proceedings, and if the teenagers have no property, liability will fall on the parents under Article 6.276 of the Civil Code. The most favourable scenario for the teenagers is community service of up to 240 hours or remedying the damage through their own work within a court-set period not exceeding two years under Article 84 of the Criminal Code.
The regulation was initiated by the authors of the draft laws with a view to narrowing the excessively broad understanding of the institution of recidivism in the Criminal Code. The objectives are to ensure that, when establishing recidivism, convictions for offences committed as a minor are not taken into account; to allow reconciliation with a recidivist and release from criminal liability; and to amend the rules on sentencing recidivists. The principal argument is that the current definition of recidivism also covers incidental, unrelated, or privileged offences and therefore does not reflect the person’s actual dangerousness. Moreover, taking juvenile convictions into account is inconsistent with Article 27(4) of the Criminal Code, under which, when declaring a person a dangerous recidivist, the court does not take such convictions into account.
Under Article 149(3) of the Criminal Code, rape of a minor is punishable by imprisonment for four to ten years, while Article 149(6) provides that a legal person is also liable for such acts.
Under Article 74 of the Criminal Code, a person who evades compliance with an imposed penal measure is liable under Article 243 or Article 244 of the Criminal Code.
In this matter, the legal position has already been largely resolved by the courts: K. Sinica was convicted of rape, while the second episode, violence against a minor boy, ended in an acquittal. The essence of the news is therefore not the imposition of punishment, but the public reassessment of the scope of liability of persons already convicted. The precise legal issue is twofold: first, whether the acquittal by the Utena judge on the charge under Article 140 of the Criminal Code (causing physical pain to a minor) complies with the statutory requirement that “actual physical pain” be caused; second, whether the amusement park, as a legal person, may be held liable together with its employees. Both issues are governed by the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania: Article 140(3), Article 149(3), and Article 149(6) and Article 151(5), which provide for the liability of a legal person for offences against minors. The risk of acquittal in Article 140 cases lies in the wording of the provision itself: liability arises only where beating or other violence caused physical pain or minor bodily harm, while the judge found that the causing of pain had not been proven “beyond doubt”.
K. Sinica’s principal episode is classified under Article 149(3) of the Criminal Code, rape of a minor, which carries a custodial sentence of four to ten years; this is significantly more severe than the maximum three-year custodial sentence provided under Article 140 for causing physical pain to a young child or by torturing the victim. As regards the second episode, the following provisions of Article 140 apply:
D. Eimontas’s case reflects a different model of liability: restriction of liberty for one year is consistent with the system of penalties set out in Article 42(1) of the Criminal Code, while the behavioural correction programme and EUR 2,000 compensation for non-pecuniary damage are penal measures of the type provided for in Article 67(2) of the Criminal Code. As to the park’s liability, Article 149(6) and Article 151(5) of the Criminal Code expressly provide that a legal person is also liable for the acts specified in those articles; accordingly, Labirintų parkas may be subject to the penalties for legal persons provided in Article 43 of the Criminal Code. The Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union’s refusal to disclose membership is based on personal data legislation and, in this analysis, is treated not as an issue of criminal liability but as a matter of data protection limitations.
The most realistic next scenario is pressure in the public sphere to reopen the assessment of the acquitted episode: the victim or his representative retains the possibility of challenging the acquittal through procedural means. The key practical implications are: