Under Article 168(1) CCP, a pre-trial investigation may be refused only where the data on the criminal act are manifestly false or where the circumstances specified in Article 1(1) CCP clearly exist.
Under Article 90 CC, a minor may be fined in the amount of 5 to 50 MGL (minimum monthly living standard amounts), arrested for five to forty-five days, and imprisonment may not exceed ten years.
A pre-trial investigation into a possible breach of public order is ongoing at the Klaipėda District Prosecutor's Office, and the minors who allegedly used violence risk criminal liability or educational (reformatory) measures. The essential legal question is whether the police decision to refuse to open an investigation on age grounds was lawful, and it is to be resolved under Article 168 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). The prosecutor's decision to annul the ruling demonstrates that age, in itself, is not a ground for declining to conduct verification actions.
The police officer's ruling of 14 October refusing to open an investigation is assessed under Article 168(2) CCP. The prosecutor, having found that the decision was taken without establishing all relevant circumstances, opened an investigation into the offence provided for in Article 284 of the Criminal Code (CC) — a breach of public order, the sanction for which provides for imprisonment of up to two years. If the victim's injuries are established during the investigation, the qualification may change to Article 140(1) CC or to Article 138(2) CC. As to age: under Article 13(1) CC, persons who have reached the age of sixteen are liable, and in the case of the offences listed in paragraph 2 — fourteen; for younger persons, educational measures may be applied under paragraph 3. If the accused are minors, penalties are limited under Article 90 CC, and the court must take into account the minor's living conditions, social maturity and behaviour after the act (Article 91(2) CC).
During the investigation, the prosecutor's office plans to:
For minors who are subject to educational measures, non-compliance, after two warnings, may result in placement in a special educational institution under Article 89(2) CC. What is most important for the victim is that the investigation proceeds, because Article 140(4) CC permits an investigation into the infliction of physical pain only upon the complaint of the victim or her legal representative — the mother's complaint secures this basis.
Under Article 6.228-4(3) of the CC, the burden of proving that a consumer contract term was individually negotiated lies with the business.
Article 6.587(5) of the CC prohibits terms of a residential premises lease agreement establishing contractual penalties for the lessee exceeding the amount of actual losses incurred by the lessor.
Airbnb guests with reservations made from 20 November 2026 will enjoy clearer platform-level protection against disproportionate checkout obligations and hidden terms, but this is not a change in the law — the legal assessment in Lithuania will proceed through the provisions of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC) concerning consumer contracts and lease. The question that will arise in a dispute over a long checkout checklist or an additional agreement is: whether such a term is an unfair consumer contract term under Article 6.228-4 of the CC, and whether it is valid as part of a residential premises lease agreement under Articles 6.576 and 6.580 of the CC. On the host's side, a tax question arises — whether the cleaning fee and rental income are declared as individual activity income under Article 10 of the Law on Personal Income Tax of the Republic of Lithuania (PIT Law).
A short-term rental service to a guest under Article 6.576 of the CC corresponds to the concept of a residential premises lease agreement: the lessor provides the premises for temporary possession and use for living purposes, and the lessee pays rent. In such a contract, the cleaning fee is a contractual term which, under Article 6.580(2) of the CC, may be stipulated as an additional term, but its content is assessed through consumer protection rules, since the guest is a consumer and the host is a business. Under Article 6.228-4 of the CC:
Additionally, Article 6.587(3) of the CC provides that terms of a residential premises lease agreement establishing the lessee's liability without fault or excluding the lessor's liability are invalid, and Article 6.587(5) of the CC prohibits contractual penalties exceeding the amount of actual losses. Separate damage remains a matter of the lessee's liability under the general lease rules; platform changes do not alter this. On the host's income side: rental income under Article 10(1) of the PIT Law is classified as individual activity income, and the moment of its receipt is determined under Article 8(2) of the PIT Law — income is recognised at the moment it is actually received, including a cleaning fee received separately.
In practice, the following scenarios are possible:
Article 9 of the Law on the National Audit Office provides that the Auditor General submits state audit reports and conclusions to the Seimas — this is the only provision presented characterising the legal weight of audit conclusions.
The auditors' finding that 3.8% of EU budget expenditure did not comply with the rules and exceeded the 2% materiality threshold constitutes a risk indicator justifying political recommendations, but not an obligation to impose sanctions.
The European Court of Auditors' annual report creates pressure in the media space on EU budget negotiations, but it does not in itself produce legal consequences for anyone — it is a political oversight instrument, not a sanctions act. The actual legal situation concerns two directions: the referral of suspected fraud cases to the competent authorities sets the further path to liability, while the negotiations on the 2028–2034 multiannual financial framework will determine whether the financing and debt repayment model will be changed. The precise question here is framed not by penalty regimes, but by the legal procedure by which EU institutions may withhold payments or require corrections where expenditure did not comply with the rules, and by what liability awaits recipients whose cases have been referred for investigation. The sources provided do not directly set out the substantive norms of this matter at the EU level — they include provisions of the Lithuanian Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure on limitation periods, interest, jurisdiction and mediation, as well as Article 9 of the Law on the National Audit Office, which governs the powers of the national audit authority. Therefore, an assessment of the EU debt and error level based on the sources provided can only be made through the analogous logic of oversight institutions' competence, not through specific EU financial liability norms.
Article 9 of the Law on the National Audit Office illustrates how the system of audit institutions' powers operates: the Auditor General submits state audit reports and conclusions to the Seimas, has the right to participate in Seimas sittings and express opinions, and also submits proposals for the improvement of legislation. The European Court of Auditors' report operates on the same logic — it is addressed to the legislature (the European Parliament and the Council in negotiations on the multiannual financial framework), not to the courts. The Commission's position that, where non-compliance is established, part of the funds may be withheld or corrections required reflects the mechanism of the NextGenerationEU model of payments based on milestones and targets; the auditors noted that in some cases corrections occurred only after payments had been initiated. The referral of suspected fraud cases to the competent authorities means that further liability (administrative or criminal) will be determined under those authorities and the norms they apply, which are not contained in the sources provided. Among the sources provided there is no case law on the oversight of the use of EU funds, so I cannot cite precedent. In the Lithuanian context, similar audit conclusions would be assessed through the reporting to the Seimas provided for in Article 9(8) of the Law on the National Audit Office — this is the only provision presented that directly characterises the legal weight of audit conclusions.
The practical consequences fall into three groups. For participants in the budget negotiations, the auditors' conclusions mean pressure to choose, for the 2028–2034 period, among higher national contributions, new sources of own EU resources, or spending cuts. For recipients of EU funds — particularly in cohesion policy, agriculture and the environment — it is important that violations may result in the withholding of funds, a requirement for corrections, or referral for investigation as suspected fraud. The debt dynamics (EUR 738.9 billion, growth of more than one-fifth per year, repayment in 2028–2058) mean that interest costs exceeding those planned will, in the long term, reduce funding for other programmes.
The period for submitting candidates' declaration documents begins 85 days before election day and ends at 5 p.m. 65 days before; documents submitted later cannot be recognised as declaration documents.
The electoral deposit for registering a mayoral candidate in a single municipality is the amount of the most recently announced reference (VMDU) size (Article 39(1)).
Mr. Kaminskas's intention to run for a third term means, as a matter of law, that he will have to go through the entire candidate registration procedure for municipal council member – mayor again, pursuant to the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to Municipal Councils. His release from criminal liability under a bond, as applied by the Klaipėda District Court, does not, in the view of the sources provided, create a bar to candidacy – the provisions of the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils do not establish a criminal record or pending criminal prosecution as grounds for ineligibility to stand as a candidate. The precise question to be resolved in the electoral process is whether Mr. Kaminskas, whether self-nominated or nominated by a party, will meet the nomination conditions of Article 34 and the document submission deadlines of Article 36 of that Law. The acts of the Tauragė District Municipality confirm that he currently holds the office of mayor and signs the municipality's legal acts; accordingly, his status is that of an incumbent mayor seeking re-election.
Under Article 1(4), the mayor is elected under an absolute majority electoral system in a single-member constituency comprising the entire municipality, and Article 10 provides that in municipalities with a population of 50,000 to 100,000, 27 council members are elected. The sources provided contain no case law directly applicable to assessing the interplay between release from criminal liability under a bond and electoral rights; therefore, that aspect cannot be determined on the basis of these sources. Under Article 14(6), the municipal electoral commission registers candidates for municipal council member – mayor and issues them certificates, while Article 6 prohibits the purchase of voters' votes during the election campaign; facts of such violations are investigated by the municipal electoral commissions, and where a violation is found to be gross, the statutory consequences ensue.
In practice, for a third term Mr. Kaminskas will need to:
For voters and competitors, it is relevant that the validity of a candidate's registration will be verified by the municipal electoral commission, and its decisions regarding facts of vote-buying may be appealed to the Central Electoral Commission. No later than 110 days before the elections, the Central Electoral Commission will announce the number of council members to be elected (Article 10(2)).
[TEISINIS_KLAUSIMAS] The documents relate to amendments to the Law on Elections to Municipal Councils, rather than specifically to the decision of D. Kaminskas, Mayor of the Tauragė District, to stand in the elections. However, the subject matter concerns the regulation of municipal council elections, and I therefore assess it as relevant. The regulation was initiated by Members of the Seimas (including Seimas Member Gintarė Skaistė), with the aim of harmonising the conditions for participation of political parties and election committees in municipal council elections and of refining the provisions on the preparation of candidate lists. One of the draft laws also sought to strengthen communication between residents and their elected representatives, since in municipalities—particularly those remote from urban centres—the link between council members and residents is, in practice, virtually non-existent. The Government approved the draft laws in principle, but identified technical inaccuracies—for example, the absence of a deadline by which a voter's residential address must be assigned to an electoral district in order for it to be entered in the electoral roll. The committees proposed improvements to the drafts in order to ensure the precision of the legal regulation and its compatibility with previously adopted amendments. [TEISINIS_PAGRINDAS] [PRAKTIKA] [TIKSLINIMAS] [PRAKTINE_REIKSME]
Article 389 of the ANK provides for a fine on directors of legal entities or other responsible persons ranging from EUR 300 to EUR 860 for breach of the rules on informing passengers of the identity of the operating air carrier and the right to compensation.
Under Article 5(3), the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation under Article 7 if it proves that the flight was cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
The legal position of the participants in this scenario — passengers, airlines, and tour operators — is determined by the fact that airspace restrictions are most commonly qualified as "extraordinary circumstances," which exempt the carrier from paying compensation but do not exempt it from the duty of care. The precise question that arises is: what exactly must a carrier do when a flight is cancelled or delayed due to airspace restrictions, and when does the right to monetary compensation arise. This is resolved under Articles 5, 7, 9, and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, while the carrier's liability for delay in international carriage is governed by Article 19 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention). The only provision under which a carrier is administratively penalised in Lithuania is a breach of the duty to inform — Article 389 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania (the ANK).
Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 provides that, in the event of cancellation or a long delay, the carrier must provide free of charge: meals and refreshments proportionate to the waiting time; hotel accommodation where an overnight stay or longer is necessary; transport between the airport and the place of accommodation and back; as well as two free telephone calls, e-mails, or messages. These obligations apply even where the cause of the disruption is extraordinary circumstances, because Article 5(3) exempts the carrier only from compensation under Article 7 if it proves that the flight was cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The burden of proving whether and when notice of cancellation was given lies with the carrier under Article 5(4). The compensation amounts under Article 7 are: EUR 250 for flights of up to 1,500 km; EUR 400 for intra-Community flights of more than 1,500 km and for other flights of between 1,500 and 3,500 km. Article 14 obliges the carrier to display a notice of passenger rights at check-in and to provide a written notice to each passenger whose flight is cancelled or delayed by at least two hours. A breach of this obligation is sanctioned under Article 389 of the ANK, which imposes fines on directors of legal entities or other responsible persons ranging from EUR 300 to EUR 860. Complaints concerning the application of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, where the flight departs from a Lithuanian airport or arrives in Lithuania on an EU carrier, are examined by the Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration in accordance with the examination procedure description approved by Order No. 2BE-27 of 22 January 2021 of the Director of the LTSA. In international carriage, the carrier is liable under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention for damage caused by delay unless it proves that it took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible to take such measures — an airspace restriction due to a security threat generally constitutes grounds for such exemption.
For a passenger whose flight is cancelled or delayed due to an airspace restriction, two distinct regimes apply in practice: the duty of care under Article 9 is always mandatory, whereas compensation under Article 7 generally is not, because restrictions arising from a hybrid attack or an air threat meet the criteria of extraordinary circumstances. If care is not provided, the passenger may recover reasonable expenses upon presentation of receipts, and a breach of the duty to inform may give rise to a case under Article 389 of the ANK, with a fine of EUR 300–860 for responsible persons. Airlines must bear the costs of rerouting, accommodation, and returning passengers at their own expense, since the exemption from compensation does not eliminate these costs. Those travelling with a tour operator are also subject to the operator's obligations to ensure accommodation and repatriation, although compensation for losses due to extraordinary circumstances is not mandatory.