The temporary storage of bulky non-hazardous waste in breach of waste management rules entails, under Article 247(25) of the ANK, a fine of EUR 1,400 to EUR 3,000.
Noise disturbing persons’ peace between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. entails, under Article 488(1) of the ANK, a fine for individuals of EUR 80 to EUR 200, and, in the event of a repeated offence, EUR 200 to EUR 300.
The conflict between the residents of Putinų Street and E. Vervečka should be addressed not as a personal dispute, but through three distinct lines of legal liability: land-use designation, waste management, and public peace. The General Plan of Alytus City classifies the Putinų Street area as a low-intensity residential development zone, dominated by single-family and two-family residential development, while commercial activity is provided for only in separate commercial-use (K) zones. The specific legal questions — whether firewood production and the storage of heavy vehicles in a residential zone constitute a violation, and which authorities may verify this — are governed by Alytus City Municipal Council Decision No. T-262 of 27 August 2020 (amendment of the General Plan), Article 247 of the Code of Administrative Offences (ANK) (violations relating to waste storage), and Article 488 of the ANK (disturbance of public peace).
The annex specifying the solutions of the General Plan (28 May 2020, Annex No. T-169-1) provides that activities on existing land plots are to be carried out in accordance with the established purpose of those plots, and that planned activities must not adversely affect neighbouring residential areas or human health. It follows that:
In practical terms, what matters most for the residents is that each line of potential violation has a different addressee: issues of land-use designation would be investigated by municipal land control, waste storage by environmental protection authorities under Article 247 of the ANK, noise by the police under Article 488 of the ANK, and fire safety by the fire and rescue service. For the business operator, the real risk is not a one-off fine, but a repeated administrative offence, which under Article 488(2) of the ANK already entails higher fines, as well as the inclusion of the plot in the list of unused land plots, with tax consequences. For the municipality, this matter is significant because of the management of the state-owned land plot and because the Administration Director’s refusal to comment may be assessed in the public sphere; however, the sources provided do not directly give rise to legal consequences for him. The next step will be a renewed approach by the residents to the municipality and the fire and rescue service, as well as possible administrative offence reports if inspections confirm violations.
In the situation of Member of Parliament Lucia Plavaková, there are no legal consequences in Slovakia: her marriage was concluded in Austria under Austrian law, and Prime Minister R. Fico’s statement about an “act contrary to the constitution” has only political, not legal, content. The more precise question raised by this story is different: how such a same-sex marriage concluded abroad would be assessed in neighboring Lithuania, where marriage is likewise defined only as a union between a man and a woman. This issue is governed by Article 1.25 and Article 3.12 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Article 2.12 of the Civil Code, which establishes habitual residence as the connecting factor.
Under Article 1.25(1) of the Civil Code, matrimonial capacity and other conditions for entering into marriage are determined by the law of the Republic of Lithuania, while paragraph 3 permits the application of foreign law only where the marriage concluded will be recognized in the state of habitual residence of at least one of the persons entering into the marriage. Lithuania’s position would become relevant if such a couple came to live there: in that case, under Article 1.25(4) of the Civil Code, a marriage lawfully concluded in a foreign state is recognized in Lithuania, except where both spouses, whose habitual residence is in Lithuania, concluded the marriage in a foreign state for the purpose of avoiding the marriage being declared invalid under Lithuanian law. Article 3.12 of the Civil Code prohibits same-sex marriage in Lithuania, so a newly married couple could not be registered there. This is also connected with the 2014 constitutional amendment in Slovakia, which the report identifies as the reason why the marriage was concluded specifically in a neighboring state. If the marriage were concluded under the canonical procedure of any religious organization registered in Lithuania, it could be recognized only if all conditions, including the condition concerning sex, were met; otherwise, it would not produce the consequences provided for in the Civil Code (see also paragraph 373 of the report on the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women).
In practical terms, the marriage concluded in Austria creates all spousal rights for the MP and her partner within the Austrian legal system, but those rights are not recognized in Slovakia, because after the 2014 amendment the country’s constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Slovak Prime Minister’s public assessment is not a legal act, and the statement by the Progressive Slovakia party that the MP “violated neither the law nor the constitution” is legally consistent with the fact that the conditions for entering into marriage are determined by Austrian, not Slovak, law. If the married couple were to move to Lithuania in the future, their status would be assessed under Article 1.25(4) of the Civil Code: Lithuania would recognize the foreign marriage only if no intention to circumvent the requirements of Lithuanian law were established. For Lithuanian citizens living abroad, an analogous procedure is provided for in Article 14(2) of the Law on the Registration of Civil Status Acts, which allows marriages to be registered at consular institutions, but only under the conditions laid down by Lithuanian law. Point to monitor: Brussels has already initiated legal proceedings against Slovakia over the constitutional provision that the country’s sovereignty in cultural and ethical matters takes precedence over EU law. A judgment of the Court of Justice or another document in that process may change which rights Slovakia will be required to recognize in respect of marriages concluded in EU Member States.
Article 152(2) of the Criminal Code establishes a private-prosecution condition: a person is liable only where there is a complaint by the victim, a statement by the victim’s legal representative, or a prosecutor’s request.
Article 95(1)(1)(a) of the Criminal Code: the limitation period for rendering a judgment of conviction for a criminal misdemeanour is three years from the commission of the act.
In this matter, the holder of a doctoral degree faces potential criminal liability under Article 152 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (sexual harassment of a person dependent by virtue of service). This is a criminal misdemeanour punishable only by community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, or arrest; however, liability arises only upon a complaint by the victim, which has been filed here. The pre-trial investigation was opened not on the prosecutor’s own initiative, but following a sequence of court proceedings: the Vilnius District Court ordered the prosecutor’s office to reconsider the opening of an investigation, and that order was upheld by the Vilnius Regional Court. The precise legal issue is whether the acts described in the complaint (touching the genitals of a sleeping subordinate, compelled nudity in a hot tub, and indecent conversations) satisfy the elements of Article 152(1) of the Criminal Code: harassment “by vulgar or similar acts” for the purpose of sexual gratification against a person “dependent by virtue of service or otherwise.”
Here, the complaint has been filed, and the prosecutor’s office has granted the complainant the relevant status. The procedure complies with Article 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: a pre-trial investigation is opened upon receipt of a complaint, and the complainant is notified of the investigation’s commencement, which is what occurred. Since the act is classified as a criminal misdemeanour, the following provisions apply:
Realistic scenarios:
Since two separate criminal offences were committed, the final sentence will be imposed pursuant to Article 63 of the Criminal Code, with its upper limit determined by Article 50(2) and Article 64(4): an aggregate sentence may not exceed twenty-five years’ imprisonment unless life imprisonment is imposed.
The knife used to commit the criminal offence, as an instrument of the offence under Article 72(2) of the Criminal Code and property belonging to the offender, must be confiscated (Article 72(3)).
B. Mikutavičius, who is accused of murdering two girls, faces sentencing under Article 129 of the Criminal Code; because there were two victims and the second episode was particularly cruel, the offence may be classified under Article 129(2), which carries a penalty of imprisonment for a term of eight to twenty years or life imprisonment. The fact that the victim was his close relative (a cousin) additionally falls within the qualifying element under Article 129(2)(3). The prosecutor has already warned in advance that the law permits seeking a sentence “even up to life imprisonment”. The more precise legal issue to be determined by the Kaunas Regional Court is twofold: first, whether both episodes satisfy the qualifying elements under Article 129(2) (point 5: two or more persons; point 6: by torture or otherwise with particular cruelty; point 3: a close relative), and second, what final aggregate sentence will be justified under Article 61 of the Criminal Code. The conclusion of the psychiatric assessment that there are no grounds to apply compulsory medical measures means that the accused will be held liable under the ordinary procedure.
The current procedural position is as follows: the pre-trial investigation has been completed, the indictment has been drawn up, and the case has been referred to the Kaunas Regional Court; accordingly, the trial stage is commencing, during which the accused will, for the first time, set out his position in detail. To date, he has admitted guilt only in part, while the prosecution considers the motives given to be incomplete. The sentencing mechanism under the cited provisions is as follows:
The practical consequences for the accused are as follows: the judgment may impose a sentence of between 8 and 20 years’ imprisonment for each episode, with a final aggregate sentence of up to 25 years or life imprisonment; the instrument of the crime, the knife, must be confiscated. The relatives of the victims will participate in the proceedings as injured parties and will be able to bring civil claims. The disciplinary sanction imposed on the police officer concludes the internal-service inquiry, unless the officer himself appeals it.
The CJEU held that a finding of control in the absence of the ownership criterion must be based on objective and sufficiently robust evidence, and that the autocratic nature of the Russian regime is not, in itself, such evidence.
Under Article 13-1 of the Law on International Sanctions, a failure to freeze funds belonging to an entity subject to sanctions also constitutes a sanctions breach, while Article 29 of the Code of Administrative Offences permits the confiscation of property that was the subject matter of the offence or the result of the prohibited conduct.
The dispute concerning the freezing of the shares and assets of AB “Inter RAO Lietuva” is now returning to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, whose decision on whether I. Sechin or V. Putin exercises factual control over the company will determine whether the freezing remains lawful. In September 2026, the CJEU established the evidentiary standard: a finding of control in the absence of an ownership criterion requires objective and sufficiently robust evidence, and the autocratic nature of the Russian regime is not, in itself, such evidence. The precise legal issue is whether a sanctioned person who has no direct ownership may, through managerial control, “transmit” sanctions to a subsidiary, and this will be assessed under the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning owned or controlled entities and Article 4 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on International Sanctions, which requires all legal persons to ensure compliance with sanctions. A secondary issue concerns liability: if the company or its counterparties breach the freezing regime, Article 13-1 of the Law on International Sanctions applies, under which a failure to freeze funds belonging to an entity subject to sanctions also constitutes a breach of international sanctions.
Under Article 2(4) of the Law on International Sanctions, an entity subject to sanctions may also be a legal person to which sanctions apply by reason of links with listed persons; this was precisely the basis on which the Financial Crime Investigation Service froze the assets of AB “Inter RAO Lietuva”. The ownership criterion is clear: direct or indirect ownership of 50 per cent or more, including the combined holding of several sanctioned persons, for example 30 per cent plus 25 per cent, gives rise to a presumption of control. The control criterion is broader: the right to appoint a majority of the members of management bodies, a majority of voting rights, or dominant influence; similar rules presuming decisive influence, namely a majority of capital, votes, or the right to appoint more than half of the members of a body, are also codified in Article 4(3) of the Law on European Works Councils. In AB “Inter RAO Lietuva” v Financial Crime Investigation Service, the CJEU held that each link in the chain of control must be separately substantiated by objective data demonstrating the reality and effectiveness of control, including informal control, having regard to all information available and capable of being obtained. Procedurally, the authority hearing the dispute must comply with Article 16 of the Law on International Sanctions: the person must be afforded the right to access the case materials, submit evidence, and use the services of a representative, and the decision must be reasoned and based only on evidence with which the person had an opportunity to familiarise itself. Having resumed the case following the CJEU’s preliminary ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania will have to verify whether the Financial Crime Investigation Service had such objective data, rather than merely general assumptions concerning the nature of the Russian regime.
If the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania finds that there is sufficient objective evidence of control, the shares and assets of AB “Inter RAO Lietuva” will remain frozen under the regime for the freezing of funds and economic resources defined in Article 2(1) and 2(2) of the Law on International Sanctions; if the evidence is insufficient, the freeze may be lifted.
This regulation is being developed as part of an initiative to improve the legal framework governing international sanctions: it is proposed to amend Article 13 of the Law by expressly providing that an infringement of international sanctions constitutes unlawful conduct committed intentionally or negligently, and by establishing liability for both natural and legal persons. The aim is to close a gap whereby infringements committed by legal persons that do not give rise to criminal liability under other laws would otherwise remain without legal assessment, thereby strengthening the effectiveness of sanctions enforcement. The Committee approved the draft, emphasising that liability under this Law applies only where criminal liability is not applicable under the laws in force, thus avoiding duplication between types of liability.