The sanction of Article 144 CC provides for community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to two years; thus, the doctor faces not only a fine but also imprisonment.
Under Article 3 of Article 2 CC, a person is liable only where lawful conduct could have been demanded of them at the time the act was committed.
The most realistic legal risk currently facing Dr. L. Slušnys and the other medical practitioners who declined to consult with the patient in a non-state language is a pre-trial investigation under Article 144 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania — failure to provide assistance where a person's life is in danger. The sanction of this provision provides for community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to two years. The legal question that arises is whether the doctor's inability (or refusal) to consult with the child in Russian constitutes the elements of Article 144: whether there was a duty of care towards the victim, whether life was in danger, and whether the doctor had the ability to provide assistance. The answer will be determined by applying Article 144 CC in conjunction with Article 3 of Article 2 CC, under which a person is liable only where lawful conduct could have been demanded of them at the time the act was committed. On the patient's side, Article 3 of Article 5 of the Law on the Rights of Patients and Compensation for Damage to Health of the Republic of Lithuania applies: the doctor must provide information about the patient's condition and treatment in a form the patient can understand, explaining specialized medical terminology.
The liability established in Article 144 CC applies only where all of the conditions are met cumulatively, and the prosecutor bears the burden of proving each of them:
The practical scenarios differ depending on whether the prosecutor proves a life-threatening danger and the ability to provide assistance:
Correction. [TIKSLINAME_REIKSME_PLACEHOLDER]:
Article 7 of the Law on Competition prohibits the abuse of a dominant position through actions that restrict competition, unjustifiably impede the ability of other undertakings to operate in the market, or harm the interests of consumers.
Under Article 6(1), the exception applies only where the conduct promotes technical or economic progress, affords consumers the opportunity to obtain additional benefits, and does not afford the possibility of restricting competition in a substantial part of the relevant market, with the burden of proving compliance resting with the undertaking itself.
The new European Commission guidelines on abuse of a dominant position do not create infringements and do not alter sanctions — they are an interpretive instrument designed to assist in assessing when the conduct of a dominant undertaking becomes prohibited. In Lithuania, such conduct is assessed under Article 7 of the Law on Competition of the Republic of Lithuania, which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position through actions that restrict competition, unjustifiably impede the ability of other undertakings to operate in the market, or harm the interests of consumers. There are two precise legal issues that will be resolved by applying the guidelines: first, whether the specific conduct of a dominant undertaking (predatory pricing, exclusivity clauses, product tying, refusal to supply) meets the characteristics of prohibited actions set out in Article 7; and second, whether that conduct can be justified as competition on the merits rather than the exploitation of market power. The objective of the law, enshrined in Article 1(1) — the protection of the freedom of fair competition — means that a dominant position is not in itself considered an infringement, but the liability risk for the undertaking holding it, arising from the assessment of its conduct, is a constant one.
In applying Article 7 of the Law on Competition, the Competition Council must establish whether the conduct restricts or may restrict competition, including the forms enumerated in Article 7(1): the imposition of unfair prices or other purchase or sale conditions, the restriction of trade or production to the detriment of consumers, the application of discriminatory conditions, and the imposition of additional obligations unrelated to the subject matter of the contract. The exclusionary abuse discussed in the guidelines corresponds to the substance of these forms, since its essence lies in restricting the activities of existing competitors or making market entry more difficult for potential competitors. Article 18(1) of the Law tasks the Competition Council with establishing the criteria for the definition of the relevant market and the determination of a dominant position, investigating markets, and applying the sanctions provided for in the law; it is therefore this authority that will decide in Lithuania how the benchmarks set out in the Commission guidelines align with national practice. An aggrieved business seeking to initiate an investigation must submit evidence that the Competition Council would consider sufficient — this evidentiary threshold is not provided for in the guidelines and remains a matter of practical assessment. The dominant undertaking does not bear a transferable burden of proving the infringement as a whole, but in practice it is required to play a more active role in presenting data that rebuts the applicable legal rules or substantiates a justification for its conduct. When assessing whether conduct constitutes competition on the merits, the logic of Article 6(1) may be applied by analogy, under which the exception applies only where the conduct promotes technical or economic progress, affords consumers the opportunity to obtain additional benefits, and does not afford the possibility of restricting competition in a substantial part of the relevant market; in the event of a dispute, the burden of proving compliance rests with the undertaking itself. Among the sources provided there is no case law, and therefore no specific case can be cited.
For an undertaking in a dominant market position, this practically means a greater burden of documentation and justification: the justification of pricing, exclusivity agreements, and supply and access conditions, so that the conduct is not qualified as the exclusion of competitors. Where a violation of Article 7 is established, the Competition Council applies the sanctions provided for in the law pursuant to Article 18(1)(5), which for a dominant undertaking may entail a fine and an obligation to change the conditions applied in the market. For aggrieved businesses, the guidelines may lower the barrier to gathering evidence if the Competition Council begins to initiate investigations more frequently on the basis of clearer assessment benchmarks. Next steps: the practical significance of the guidelines will be revealed by concrete cases of their application, and it should therefore be monitored whether the Competition Council begins to rely on the new benchmarks in its investigations.
[TEISINIS_KLAUSIMAS] The regulation was initiated by the institutions drafting the amendments to the Competition Act, with the aim of creating conditions for sustainable competition for the major Lithuanian commercial banks holding a presumed monopoly position; in addition, the draft sought to reduce the administrative burden on businesses (in particular by harmonising merger notification thresholds) and to align Lithuanian competition law with EU law. [TEISINIS_PAGRINDAS] The principal argument is that holding a dominant position is not in itself prohibited; only its abuse is prohibited, and market share is not the sole criterion for dominance, so the Competition Council is required to assess other factors as well (the stability of market shares, barriers to entry into the market, etc.). [PRAKTIKA] The discussion emphasises that, under EU practice, a presumption of dominance is unlikely where the market share is below 40 per cent, and that the courts and the Competition Council, when assessing dominance in the banking sector, must follow the practice of the EU institutions.
Article 67(2) of the Criminal Code permits the imposition of criminal impact measures on a person released from criminal liability, including compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (point 4) and a contribution to the Fund for Victims of Crime (point 6) — the prosecutor requests the EUR 1,000 contribution specifically under this provision.
Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entitles injured persons to bring a civil claim in criminal proceedings against the accused or persons materially liable, and the court examines it together with the criminal case — thus the VLK claim of EUR 17,139 for medical treatment and the victims' claims for EUR 63,000 in non-pecuniary damage entered the case.
T. Baidan, the driver of the TOKAS minibus who, while reversing, struck and subsequently killed a pedestrian, bears liability under Article 281 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, and the case concludes with release from criminal liability based on a guarantee (bail). The accused avoids imprisonment, but criminal impact measures and pecuniary obligations are imposed on him. The precise issues will be resolved by the court under Article 281 of the Criminal Code, Article 67 of the Criminal Code, Article 68 of the Criminal Code, and Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The charge is grounded in point 27 of the Road Traffic Rules: when reversing, the driver must in all cases yield to the pedestrian; his violation, which resulted in a person's death, is qualified under Article 281 of the Criminal Code. The course of the case reveals several parallel legal processes:
Of greatest practical significance is that release from criminal liability based on a guarantee does not mean complete release from obligations. T. Baidan faces: a one-year guarantee without a deposit, a EUR 1,000 contribution to the Fund for Victims of Crime, reimbursement of EUR 5,837.04 in costs to the victim's counsel, and the examination of civil claims — VLK's EUR 17,139 claim and the non-pecuniary damage claims — in the same case under Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Deprivation of the right to drive is not raised in this case, as the prosecutor did not request it, and Article 68 of the Criminal Code leaves the court discretion on this issue. The next step is the court's decision on release from criminal liability and the imposition of criminal impact measures.
Under Article 183(6) of the Criminal Code, for acts under paragraphs 1 and 4, a person is liable only where there is a complaint by the victim, a statement by their lawful representative, or a prosecutor's demand — in this case, the victim is the Telšiai District Municipality, which suffered damage of EUR 3,500 and EUR 4,125.
A three-year deprivation of the right to be elected or appointed to positions in state or municipal institutions means in practical terms that both individuals may not stand as candidates for the municipal council.
The individuals in this story — former members of the Telšiai District Municipal Council, P. Kuizinas and S. Čekanauskas — were released from criminal liability under a conditional discharge (laidavimas), and no conviction was therefore entered against them; however, real legal consequences were imposed: a one-year conditional discharge period, a three-year deprivation of the right to stand for election to state and municipal offices, and criminal-impact measures — contributions of EUR 500 and EUR 1,000 respectively to the Fund for Victims of Crime. The suspicions concern abuse of office, misappropriation of property, and forgery of documents, and the sources provided directly reflect the normative basis in the criminal law of the Republic of Lithuania — Article 183 of the Criminal Code, "Misappropriation of Property": where a person misappropriates property entrusted to them or in their possession, or property rights belonging to another, a fine or imprisonment for up to three years is provided (Art. 183(1)), and for property of high value, up to six years (Art. 183(2)). The precise legal question raised by this case is: under what conditions may a person who has committed a criminal act be released from liability under a conditional discharge, and what measures are applied to them in place of a punishment. An important normative detail: under Article 183(6) of the Criminal Code, for acts under paragraphs 1 and 4, a person is liable only where there is a complaint by the victim, a statement by their lawful representative, or a prosecutor's demand — in this case, the victim is the Telšiai District Municipality, which suffered property damage of EUR 3,500 (P. Kuizinas) and EUR 4,125 (S. Čekanauskas).
The prosecutor's decision to terminate the pre-trial investigation and release the persons from liability under a conditional discharge was approved by the Šiauliai District Court. Under the conditional discharge, both individuals are required to:
The additional sanction — a three-year deprivation of the right to be elected or appointed to positions in state or municipal institutions, agencies, enterprises, or non-governmental organisations — means in practical terms that both individuals may not stand as candidates for the municipal council or hold similar offices until 2029. The difference in the amount of damage (EUR 3,500 versus EUR 4,125) is also reflected in the criminal-impact measures: the person who caused the greater damage pays twice the contribution. The local legal acts of the Telšiai District Municipality (descriptions of land-use, budget, and social services procedures) are not directly applicable to this criminal case — they regulate the management of municipal property and budget, not the liability of council members for falsified expense documents.
A one-year conditional discharge period now applies to both individuals; if they comply with it exemplarily, criminal liability will not ultimately be enforced, but the three-year deprivation of the right to hold elected or appointed offices remains in force regardless of the course of the conditional discharge. For the municipality, this is practically significant in two respects: the damage has already been compensated, so no pecuniary claim remains, and the deprivation of the right to stand for election alters the pool of candidates in the upcoming elections to the Telšiai District Municipal Council. For other council members, this case demonstrates that the submission of inaccurate data in fuel expense summaries may be qualified as misappropriation of property under Article 183 of the Criminal Code, and that for acts under paragraph 1, liability arises already upon a prosecutor's demand (Art. 183(6)).
For other consumers, upon providing the information necessary for payment, ESO undertakes to make the payment within three business days.
If the payment is recognised as taxable, Article 24(1) and (2) of the PITL obliges the withholding agent to declare the payments: the monthly declaration is filed by the 15th day of the following month, and the annual declaration by the 15th day of the second month of the following tax period.
More than 70,000 consumers for whom the electricity supply restoration deadline was exceeded due to the storm of 22 August can no longer dispute the compensation amounts with the supplier or the transmission/distribution operator at this stage — ESO calculates them automatically, irrespective of losses incurred, and consumers' obligation is limited to providing account details for those who do not have them on file with the company. The legal issue that will arise in practice from this announcement is the tax qualification: whether compensation for an exceeded supply restoration deadline paid to an individual constitutes a non-taxable allowance under Article 17(1)(4) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Personal Income Tax (PITL) (allowances in cases of natural disasters), or a taxable amount at the 15% rate under Article 6(2) of the PITL. A second, partial issue also arises — the tax assessment of payments to business clients under Article 12(8) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Corporate Income Tax (CITL), under which non-taxable income includes contractual penalties. The context is shaped by Article 50(1) and (2) of the Law on Electricity, under which the distribution network operator must ensure uninterrupted transmission and comply with the established reliability requirements.
The scope of application of Article 17(1)(4) of the PITL is determined here by the status of the payer: a non-taxable allowance in the event of a natural disaster must be paid "pursuant to decisions of state or municipal authorities," whereas ESO is a network operator granting compensation under its own service quality regime; therefore, under the literal wording, the condition of this provision is not automatically satisfied — the qualification for a particular consumer will depend on whether the payment is of the nature of an allowance unrelated to employment relations or of compensatory payment for a disrupted service. For legal entities, Article 12(8) of the CITL opens a different path — if compensation for an exceeded deadline is qualified as contractual penalties, it falls within non-taxable income except for the portion received by entities registered in targeted territories; this means that payments to business clients, which by their consumption volumes are larger than those to household consumers, are to be classified as non-taxable contractual penalty income under the stated norm. On the operational plane, Article 50(3) of the Law on Electricity provides that the Council supervises network operators' compliance with transmission reliability requirements, and those failing to comply are liable in the manner established by law; Article 70-4 of the Law on Electricity additionally assigns supervision of consumer rights to the Council and the Authority. Disputes of household consumers regarding the amount of compensation may, under Article 10(1) and (3) of the Law on Electricity, be raised with the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority, which examines complaints about unfair commercial practices of energy companies; at the same time, Article 51(1) of the Law on Electricity grants the right to receive clear information about one's rights from the network operator itself. Regarding the shortening, currently considered in the Seimas, of the deadline after which compensation is due from 72 to 24 hours, the position of ESO's head rests on the Government plan's objective of achieving a 72-hour deadline by 2030; however, this question will receive a legal resolution only upon adoption of a legislative amendment — for now, the 72-hour threshold applies.
The practical course for consumers is short and time-bound:
The fiscal consequence is differentiated: if payments to individuals are not classifiable as allowances under Article 17(1)(4) of the PITL, taxation at the 15% rate will arise upon declaration of 2026 income, and ESO, as the payer, may have to fulfil the declaration obligation under Article 24(2) of the PITL. For business clients, a favourable qualification under Article 12(8) of the CITL removes the corporate income tax burden from the penalties received. For the company, the risk lies not in these payments but in the future: if the Seimas adopts the 24-hour deadline before the cabling measures of the Government programme are implemented, instances of exceeded restoration deadlines and the scope of compensation will increase significantly.