The sources do not provide the text of Article 286 of the Criminal Code, nor do we have the text of Article 138 of the Criminal Code, even though it is precisely these provisions that would ordinarily assess injuries inflicted on officers.
Article 30 of the 1995 Law then provided that deprivation of the right to hold a specific job or engage in a specific activity was imposed for a term of 1 to 5 years; however, this version is no longer applicable to the 2026 events.
Both suspects, held in detention facilities, are at the pre-trial investigation stage for resisting police officers and violence against them; however, the available sources do not allow determination of which provisions will be used to qualify these acts. The reports describe events in Vilnius in 2026, while the sources provide only fragments of the 1995 amendments and empty references to articles of the old codes without their texts; therefore, no specific criminal provision applicable to this situation can be extracted from them. The precise legal question — whether the acts constitute the elements of resisting an officer or violence against an officer — would be resolved under the relevant articles of the current Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, but the sources do not provide the text of Article 286 of the Criminal Code. Likewise, we do not have the text of Article 138 of the Criminal Code, even though it is precisely this provision that would ordinarily assess injuries inflicted on officers. The fact of the disposition of narcotic substances in the first incident must be assessed separately under drug control provisions, which are also absent from the sources.
The sources contain only a few content fragments from the 1995 legislative amendments, which are no longer applicable to the 2026 events and can be used here only as historical context. Article 30 of the 1995 Law "On the Amendment and Supplement of the Criminal, Correctional Labour and Criminal Procedure Codes of the Republic of Lithuania" then provided that deprivation of the right to hold a specific job or engage in a specific activity was imposed for a term of 1 to 5 years, while Article 32 provided that a fine as a principal penalty ranged from 10 to 500 minimum living standards. The same law established confiscation of property as a mandatory supplementary penalty for an exhaustive list of offences, which did not include resistance to an officer or violence against an officer. The manufacture, acquisition, possession or distribution of narcotic substances under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 232-1 fell within the confiscation list, but the report does not clarify how the suspect disposed of the substance or whether it would correspond to those paragraphs. Procedural status from the standpoint of the sources: both individuals have been placed in detention, meaning a measure of restraint — remand in custody — has been applied, the grounds and time limits of which would be assessed under the Code of Criminal Procedure; however, the texts of Articles 93, 97, 104 and 282 of the CCP are not found in the sources. There is no case law in the sources at all, so no specific case involving similar circumstances can be cited. Consequently, any further analysis of qualification, sentencing ranges, or the lawfulness of the detention would be speculation that cannot be undertaken on the basis of these sources.
In practical terms, the situation of both suspects will depend on the evidence gathered during the pre-trial investigations regarding the severity of the harm and the nature of the resistance, but nothing can be asserted on the basis of the sources about possible penalties or their magnitude. If the detention is continued, its lawfulness will be reviewed by the court under procedural provisions whose texts are not available here. The officers, who are being treated at home, may raise a claim for compensation of damages, but no norms of civil liability are found in the sources either. Monitoring point: await prosecutorial decisions on the progress of the pre-trial investigations — a change in qualification, the filing of charges, or an extension of the detention periods.
Under Article 58(1) of the LC, the employer has the right to terminate the employment contract without notice and without paying severance if the employee, through culpable conduct, has violated duties established by labour law norms or the contract.
A decision to terminate the employment contract due to a violation committed by the employee must be adopted by the employer no later than one month from when the violation became apparent and no later than six months from the date of its commission (Art. 58(6)).
Employees who disappear mid-shift or show up to work intoxicated face a real risk of dismissal without notice and without severance pay under Article 58 of the Law on the Approval, Entry into Force and Implementation of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania. For employers, these situations raise questions of procedural obligations — an unlawful dismissal or suspension may result in the employee's reinstatement and an award of average wages under Article 218 of the Labour Code (LC). The precise legal question: when exactly does an absence or intoxication constitute a "gross violation of employment duties" under Article 58(3) of the LC, and what procedure must the employer follow for the dismissal to be lawful.
Article 58(3) treats as gross violations three circumstances relevant here:
Where an employee is intoxicated, the employer must on that same day apply the suspension from work without pay provided for in Article 49(1) of the LC. Procedural steps for the employer:
For a second identical violation, an additional requirement applies — the employer must, within one month from when the first violation became apparent, have warned the employee of possible dismissal for a second such violation (Art. 58(4)). By comparison, dismissal without the employee's fault under Article 58's counterpart, Article 57, entails severance of two average monthly wages, whereas dismissal under Article 58 provides for no severance at all. In the event of a dispute, the employee may apply to the labour disputes commission within three months (Art. 217(3) LC); where unlawful dismissal is established, the body reinstates the employee and awards average wages for the period of forced absence, but for no more than one year, as well as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (Art. 218(2)).
An employee who disappears faces dismissal under Article 58 of the LC if the employer properly documents the absence for the entire shift and obtains, or is able to prove the absence of, an explanation. An employee who appears intoxicated will be suspended without pay that same day (Art. 49(1)), followed by dismissal under Art. 58(3)(2). An additional practical consequence in both cases is the deferral of unemployment benefit payments for up to three months. For the employer, a procedural error means the dismissal is declared unlawful and average wages are awarded for a period of up to one year. Where suspected abuse of sick leave is involved, the employer may submit data to "Sodra", which, upon establishing violations, has consequences for sickness benefit.
Under Article 9(1)(3) of the Law on Postal Services, where a parcel cannot be delivered or placed in letterboxes, the provider must notify the recipient — it is precisely this obligation that the amendments would extend to notification where delivery in accordance with the recipient's preferences is not possible.
Article 21 of the Law on Postal Services empowers officers of the Communications Regulatory Authority to obtain information and explanations from postal service providers, so it is the Communications Regulatory Authority that would supervise compliance with the new obligations.
Recipients of parcels who, due to disability, short stature or age, cannot access high parcel-locker compartments currently find their legal position independent of their preferences: the Law on Postal Services of the Republic of Lithuania in force permits the provider to place a parcel according to its size and an available compartment, and grants the recipient only the right to be informed where delivery is impossible. This model would be changed by the amendments to the Law on Postal Services currently under consideration in the Seimas, under which parcel delivery companies would be obliged to ensure that a parcel is placed in a suitable compartment and to inform the recipient where delivery in accordance with their preferences is not possible, as well as to allow the choice of another collection point or delivery method. The targeted legal question is whether the recipient's preference regarding compartment height can become an obligation of the delivery service provider, and in what manner compliance with such obligations will be supervised under Articles 9, 10 and 21 of the Law on Postal Services.
Under the current regulatory framework, the following provisions apply to the parties:
If the amendments are adopted, delivery companies will face three practical obligations: to technologically ensure the recording of the recipient's compartment preference and its transmission to the courier, to inform the recipient where delivery in accordance with the preference is impossible, and to allow the choice of another collection point or method; a representative of "Omniva" states that at present a parcel is placed according to its size and an available compartment, and that no preference-recording function exists, so implementation would require changes to apps and processes. Two risks identified by "DPD Lietuva" are also relevant to business: the handling of data capable of revealing a disability (for which reason the solution would be for the recipient to set the preference directly with the company), and the holding of empty or reserved compartments, limiting other recipients' ability to collect parcels during peak periods. For the consumers at whom the amendments are directed, the existing regime remains in force for now — reliance on the procedure published in the provider's description and, where delivery is improper, use of the complaint procedure under Article 9(1)(2) of the Law on Postal Services.
[TEISINIS_KLAUSIMAS] This regulatory initiative was initiated by Member of Parliament Darius Razmislevičius. Its purpose is to ensure that persons with disabilities and others with physical particularities (e.g., seniors, persons of short stature) can choose a parcel locker compartment that is physically accessible to them, and that parcels are not automatically directed to inaccessible collection points or heights. The principal argument is that the accessibility of parcel lockers for persons with disabilities is currently entirely unregulated in legislation, and the proposal would therefore strengthen the principle of equal opportunities and enhance the accessibility of postal services for all users.
Correction. The fine amount stated in the article is quoted accurately but is incomplete: Article 417 of the ANK also contains paragraph 2¹, which provides for separate (more severe) liability for stopping or parking in spaces reserved exclusively for vehicles of persons with disabilities — this exception is omitted from the article's text. A more precise formulation would be: the general range of 30–90 euros applies under Article 417(2), whereas a separate sanction under paragraph 2¹ applies to special parking spaces. It would also be worth clarifying that the municipality's comment rests not on a local self-government act but on the state-level ANK — the fine is imposed by the police, not by the municipality.
Stopping and parking in places where stopping and parking are prohibited under the Road Traffic Rules attract a fine for drivers of EUR thirty to EUR ninety (Article 417(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences).
Article 603 of the Code of Administrative Offences permits the compulsory removal of a vehicle where an offence under Article 417(2) obstructs safe traffic or otherwise infringes the rights of other persons.
Drivers who block the entrance to the courtyard of the apartment building at 36 Herkaus Manto Street while delivering goods to the canteen risk an administrative fine of EUR 30 to EUR 90 and, in more serious circumstances, the compulsory removal of the vehicle. The core legal rule here is simple: the delivery of goods is not a ground for blocking the entrance to a residential courtyard, as the Road Traffic Rules provide no such exceptions. The precise legal question is whether a specific stop or parking in the courtyard entrance constitutes an offence under Article 417(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Lithuania.
Article 417(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences applies to the accused driver: a fine for drivers of EUR thirty to EUR ninety. For officials who have initiated administrative offence proceedings, Article 603 of the Code grants the right to remove the vehicle compulsorily where the obstruction impedes the safe movement of vehicles or pedestrians, endangers health or life, or infringes the rights of other persons; the removed vehicle may be recovered once the obstruction has been eliminated. The municipality instructs residents to take two steps: call the general assistance number, or record the violation and report it to the municipality or the police — it is precisely the documented information that forms the basis for officials to initiate proceedings. The municipality's role here rests on the principles of legality and resident participation under Article 4 of the Law on Local Self-Government, but the fine is not imposed by the municipality; it is imposed by police officers under the Code of Administrative Offences. For protecting the courtyard entrance by technical means, Article 13(1) of the Law on Roads should be followed, under which technical traffic-regulation measures in apartment-building courtyards are installed by road maintenance companies or the road owner, in coordination with the municipal executive institution or its authorised company. In the Šiauliai City Sustainable Mobility Plan, blocked entrances to apartment-building courtyards are identified as a problem hindering the access of service vehicles and emergency services — this confirms that such cases are treated as a threat not only to residents' convenience but also to service functions. It should be noted that the sources provided contain no case law on similar matters, so the individualisation of the fine's amount will depend on the circumstances established by the officials.
For the offender: a fine of EUR 30–90 under Article 417(2) of the Code of Administrative Offences, and where the violation recurs, each new instance is assessed separately.
Article 102 of the Constitution empowers the Constitutional Court to determine whether acts of the Seimas are contrary to the Constitution; the resolution of 6 June 2024 No. XIV-2696 will therefore be assessed precisely under this power.
The 25-year period under Article 6 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations is merely a precondition for initiating the recognition procedure, not a condition concerning the conformity of teachings with the law and morals.
The Lithuanian religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses will continue to operate as usual as a registered religious organisation with legal entity status — the case at issue does not concern a ban on its activities, but only the granting of a special state-recognised status which, according to source [11], is held by only 10 of 180 registered organisations. The Constitutional Court will commence an oral hearing on whether the Seimas Resolution No. XIV-2696 of 6 June 2024 is contrary to Articles 25 and 26 and the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Constitution. The outcome of the case hinges on two matters: whether the Seimas, in refusing recognition, acted as a religiously neutral institution, and whether its arguments (the prohibition of blood transfusions, refusal to participate in defence) are grounded in objective criteria rather than the convictions of parliamentarians.
Article 6 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations grants the Seimas the power to confer or refuse to confer state recognition, but establishes that the 25-year period from initial registration is merely a precondition for initiating the procedure, not itself a condition of societal support or of the conformity of teachings with morals — that is, the substantive assessment remains a separate requirement. An implied condition under the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Constitution is that the teachings and practices must not contradict the law and morals. The Seimas grounded its refusal in a 2022 conclusion of the Ministry of Justice, but the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Constitution permits restrictions on freedom of religion only by law and only for the protection of public safety, public order, public health, morals, or the rights of others — meaning that the Seimas's arguments must satisfy these conditions for restriction, not merely command a parliamentary majority.
If the Constitutional Court finds the resolution contrary to Article 26 or Article 43 of the Constitution, the Seimas will have to reconsider the question of recognition, as ultimately occurred in the *Romuva* case. If the Seimas resolution is found to be constitutional, the community remains a registered organisation without state support and financial assistance, which, according to source [11], is enjoyed by state-recognised communities. As a practical matter, the decision will also be significant for other applicants: it will determine on what grounds and with what evidence the Seimas may assess the conformity of religious teachings with morals, and whether arguments advanced in parliamentary debates constitute a proper basis for such assessment.