COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Luxembourg, 13.7.2022
SWD(2022) 515 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
2022 Rule of Law Report
Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania
Accompanying the document
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions
2022 Rule of Law Report
The rule of law situation in the European Union
{COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} -
{SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} -
{SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} -
{SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} -
{SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} -
{SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} -
{SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} -
{SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} -
{SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0500 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
1
ABSTRACT
The Lithuanian justice system continues to have good results in terms of efficiency, although
new challenges regarding the increasing disposition time and cases backlogs are emerging. A
new development programme of the justice system aims to further improve the efficiency of
the system, and discussions are ongoing regarding the criteria for allocating the budget to
courts. Procedural legislation is being adapted to ensure the use of digital tools, which
continues to be widespread. Delays in appointments to high judicial positions persist, and the
President of the Supreme Court remains in function ad interim since September 2019. There
are concerns regarding the transparency of the selection procedure for judicial functions, and
there are calls to bring it in line with European standards. Initiatives to strengthen the anti-
corruption culture in the judiciary continue to be implemented. Changes to the legal aid
system remain under preparation, while the low remuneration currently provided to lawyers
may act as a deterrent to their participation.
The new Anti-Corruption Agenda of 2022-2033 has been adopted. The new amendment to
the Law on the prevention of corruption entered into force on 1 January 2022, broadening its
scope to include state-owned enterprises and their subsidiaries. The Special Investigation
Service continues to regularly monitor and assess the public procurement sector, which
remains at high-risk of corruption. The register for private interests became operational in
January 2021 and contributes to increased transparency in the public sector. In parallel, the
rules on lobbying adopted in January 2021 as well as the ‘revolving doors’ and cooling off
period provisions adopted in July 2020 are achieving their objectives. Efforts to improve the
capacities of the Asset Recovery Division are ongoing. A new legal framework on
whistleblower protection adopted in December 2021 actively supports the investigation and
prosecution of corruption-related offences.
The legal framework for media pluralism and freedom in Lithuania guarantees the
fundamental right of freedom of expression and the right to information. Following a public
debate, legislation is in preparation to improve the effectiveness and impartiality of media
self-regulatory bodies. To strengthen media ownership transparency, the Ministry of Culture
has launched a publicly available Information System of Producers and Disseminators of
Public Information. The authorities have taken steps to alleviate the financial burden on
audiovisual media and radio service providers. The professional environment for journalists
is largely safe in Lithuania, although online threats against journalists remain an issue.
Legislative changes to tackle abusive litigation have been prepared. There are concerns that
the authorities’ interpretation of data protection rules has led to restrictions on access to
information, in particular by journalists, and efforts are being undertaken to resolve the issue.
Legislative amendments to the Law on the Parliamentary Ombudspersons are under
discussion, where concerns have been voiced over a possible impact on the effective
functioning of that institution. There are also concerns regarding the adequacy of the
resources allocated to the institution. The Constitutional Court has been called to review
emergency measures adopted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. A state of
emergency was declared in November 2021 in response to the instrumentalisation of migrants
by Belarus, under which certain restrictions to rights apply. Civil society space remains open,
and the new NGO fund has launched its first funding programmes.
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended to Lithuania to:
 Continue the reform of the legal aid system, including by ensuring adequate conditions
for the participation of legal aid providers, taking into account European standards on
legal aid.
 Proceed with the appointments to ensure the full composition of the Supreme Court and
with the appointment of the President of the Supreme Court.
 Initiate a process in view of adapting the system of appointments to judicial positions,
notably to the Supreme Court, including to improve transparency and taking into account
European standards on judicial appointments.
 Start implementing the anti-corruption agenda 2022-2033.
 Continue improving the practice of granting access to official documents, in particular by
making sure that the grounds for rejection of disclosure requests are not used to unduly
limit access, including by journalists, taking into account European standards on access to
official documents.
 Provide adequate human and financial resources for the functioning of the Office of the
Parliamentary Ombudspersons, taking into account European standards on resources for
Ombudsinstitutions and the UN Paris Principles.
3
I. JUSTICE SYSTEM
The justice system is composed of the Constitutional Court1
, courts of general jurisdiction
(the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, regional courts and district courts) and courts of
special jurisdiction (the Supreme Administrative Court and two regional administrative
courts). The judges of the Supreme Court, as well as its President chosen from among them,
shall be appointed and released by the Parliament (Seimas) upon submission by the President
of the Republic. The judges of the Court of Appeal, as well as its President chosen from
among them, shall be appointed by the President of the Republic upon the assent of the
Parliament. The judges and presidents of district, regional, and specialised courts shall be
appointed, and their places of work shall be changed, by the President of the Republic.
Judicial Council. The Judicial Council, entirely composed of judges appointed by their peers,
is the executive body of judicial self-governance, and ensures the independence of courts and
judges2
. The Judicial Council shall advise the President of the Republic on the appointment,
promotion, and transfer of judges, or their release from duties. The National Courts
Administration, which is independent from the executive, is competent for providing material
and technical support to the courts, ensuring the efficient functioning of the court system and
the training of judges. Prosecutors are independent; the Prosecutor General is appointed and
dismissed by the President of the Republic upon the assent of the Parliament3
. Lower-ranked
prosecutors are appointed by the Prosecutor General, on the recommendation of a Selection
Commission4
. Lithuania participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The
Bar Association is an independent part of the legal system and is financed from contributions
paid by advocates and from other sources.
Independence
The level of perceived judicial independence in Lithuania continues to be average
among the general public and high among companies. Overall, 52% of the general
population and 61% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to
be ‘fairly or very good’ in 20225
. According to data in the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the
perceived judicial independence among the general public has decreased slightly in
comparison with 2021 (55%), inverting a previously increasing trend. The perceived judicial
independence among companies has confirmed its positive trend, further consolidating in
comparison with 2021 (60%), and now well above the level in 2016 (48%).
The delay in the appointment of the President of the Supreme Court continues. The
appointment of the President of the Supreme Court is pending since September 20196
, and
further delays are possible. Although the President of the Republic announced the opening of
the selection procedure for the position of President of the Supreme Court on 10 September
1
The Constitutional Court is composed of nine judges, appointed by Parliament, from among candidates
presented by the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the Parliament, and the President of the Supreme
Court.
2
Law on Courts, Art. 119.
3
Deputy Prosecutors General are appointed and dismissed by the President of the Republic on the proposal of
the Prosecutor General.
4
Law on the amendment of the law on the prosecutor’s office, No. I-599, of 13 October 1994, Arts. 22 and
26.
5
Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised
as follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%).
6
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 2.
4
2020, the procedure remains in standstill. The reason is that, according to the Constitution,
the President of the Supreme Court can only be appointed once the full composition of the
Supreme Court is ensured7
- which has not been the case since 2019. Following the
appointment of a new judge to the Supreme Court on 31 March 2022, one vacancy remains
open, for which the selection procedure is ongoing8
. The law does not regulate the deadlines
in selection procedure and gives discretion to the President of the Republic when to announce
selection procedures to judicial positions in the Supreme Court9
. Stakeholders have raised
concerns regarding the existence of repeated delays in appointments of judges to the Supreme
Court10
, as well as regarding the very lengthy procedures11
. The President remains in function
ad interim12
, and although it appears that this circumstance has so far not affected the
functioning of the Supreme Court13
, it is important to proceed with the appointment
procedure. As recalled by the Venice Commission, the existence of anti-deadlock
mechanisms, such as continuation in function ad interim, in order to ensure the functioning of
state institutions, should not act as a disincentive to reaching an agreement14.
Stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the selection procedure for judicial
functions. In 2021, the National Courts Administration (NCA) established a ‘Study on
Judges’ Selection and Evaluation’, on the basis of which recommendations for the
improvement of the current selection process were prepared. The new selection and
evaluation model is being used for all newly launched selection procedures since 1 January
202215
. In parallel, the President of the Republic submitted draft amendments to the Law on
Courts to Parliament, proposing changes to the procedure for the selection of judges.
However, stakeholders have signalled that the proposed amendments do not address
longstanding issues, such as the discretion conferred to the President of the Republic not to
follow the proposal of the Selection Commission of Candidates to Judicial Office regarding
the most suitable candidates for the respective position of judge, and to appoint a different
candidate16
. In particular, stakeholders have criticised the absence of a legal provision
establishing the obligation to motivate this decision17
. The Judicial Council has called for the
amendment to the Law on Courts to clarify these aspects, in order to ensure the transparency
7
Art. 84, ‘The President […] (11) shall propose candidates for the posts of the justices of the Supreme Court
for consideration by the Seimas and, upon the appointment of all the justices of the Supreme Court, propose
the candidate from among them for the post of the President of the Supreme Court to be appointed by the
Seimas’. Regarding the standards on procedures for the appointment of Presidents of Supreme Courts, see
also CCJE, Opinion No. 19(2016), para. 53.
8
The procedure for the dismissal of another Supreme Court judge due to health reasons has been suspended,
pending discussion and adoption of Draft Law No. XIVP-285(3), amending the Law on State Pensions of
Judges.
9
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3. See also Figure 52, 2021 EU Justice
Scoreboard.
10
Contribution from the European Association of Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report,
p. 10; Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 6.
11
Information received from the Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
12
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 2.
13
Information received from the Supreme Court in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
14
Venice Commission Opinion (CDL-AD(2013)028), paras. 5-8.
15
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4.
16
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 3-4. For an overview of the selection and
appointment procedures, see 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in
Lithuania, p. 2.
17
Information received from the Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Lithuania;
Contribution from the European Association of Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report,
p. 8; Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11.
5
of the selection process and bring it in line with European standards18
. According to
European standards, in cases where the head of state, the government or the legislative power
takes decisions concerning the selection of judges, an independent and competent authority
drawn in substantial part from the judiciary should be authorised to make recommendations
or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice19
.
Legislation introduced the possibility for temporary transfers of judges to address the
increased workload in asylum cases. Amendments to the Law on Administrative
Proceedings provide for a right of the President of the Supreme Administrative Court to
redistribute cases (including asylum and migration-related cases) between the regional
administrative courts in order to ensure a reasonable and equal workload20
. In this context,
new possibilities for temporary transfers of judges were also introduced21
. Whereas the new
provisions allow for a transfer without consent of the judge concerned, this possibility is
limited to situations where the Judicial Council establishes the need for the temporary
transfer of the judge to another court, or to other chambers of the same court to which the
judge was appointed, in order to ensure their proper operation. The transfer has no negative
impact on remuneration, must not exceed one year, and cannot occur more frequently than
once every three years. When deciding on the transfer of the judge in such cases, the length
of service of the judge being transferred, the specialisation, family situation, the distance
from the judge’s place of residence to the court or chamber of the court to which the judge is
transferred, the judge’s opinion and arguments concerning possible transfer and other
essential facts shall be evaluated22
. The judiciary considers that the safeguards introduced are
adequate to ensure respect for the principles of irremovability of judges and judicial
independence23
. It should be recalled that, in line with European standards, transfers against
the will of the judge may be permissible only in exceptional cases24
.
Initiatives to strengthen the anti-corruption environment in the judiciary continue to be
implemented25. The Special Investigation Service (STT) conducted an analysis on possible
corruption risks regarding the system of allocation of cases, formation of judicial panels, and
formation of selection panels in the Supreme Court26
. In the sequence of this study, the
Judicial Council and the National Courts Administration (NCA) are implementing the
18
Information received from the Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Lithuania; Input
from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4.
19
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 47. The
Court of Justice of the European Union has declared that the rules on appointment decisions cannot give rise
to reasonable doubts as to judges’ neutrality and imperviousness to external factors (Court of Justice of the
European Union, judgments of 20 April 2021, Repubblika, C-896/19, para. 57; 19 November 2019, A.K. and
Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C‑585/18, C‑624/18 and
C‑625/18, paras 134 and 135, and of 2 March 2021, A.B. and Others (Appointment of judges to the Supreme
Court – Actions), C‑824/18, para. 123.
20
Art. 69(1).
21
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 5.
22
Article 63 (6)(8), Law on Courts.
23
Information received from the Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
24
Venice Commission, Independence of the Judicial System, Part I, CDL-AD(2010)004, The Independence of
Judges, para. 43. According to the Court of Justice of the European Union, transfers without consent may
only be ordered on legitimate grounds, in particular relating to distribution of available resources to ensure
the proper administration of justice and should be legally challengeable in a procedure fully safeguarding
rights of defence (Judgment of 6 October 2021, Case C-487/19, W.Z. (Chamber of Extraordinary Control
and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court – Appointment), ECLI:EU:C:2021:798, para. 118).
25
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4.
26
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 8.
6
recommendations addressed to them, and continue to report to the STT on the progress of the
implementation27
. The NCA has also prepared drafts of the Judicial Corruption Prevention
Programme and of the plan for its implementation, which have been submitted to the STT for
comments. On 25 February 2022, the branch action plan for the prevention of corruption in
the Lithuanian judicial system for 2022–2025 and a plan for measures for its implementation
for 2022–2023 were approved by the Judicial Council28
. The central entity responsible for the
creation of an environment resistant to corruption in the entire judicial system has been
established, and operates within the NCA29
. Draft guidelines on the management of conflicts
of interest for judges and assistant judges are also being prepared by the Chief Official Ethics
Commission, in coordination with the Judicial Council30
.
Questions regarding the respect for professional secrecy of lawyers remain under
judicial review. As referred to in the 2021 Rule of Law Report31
, concerns regarding alleged
control of communications between lawyers and their clients led the Bar Association to bring
an application before the European Court of Human Rights. Following the submission of
written observations by the parties, the case is still pending32
. The appeal submitted to the
Supreme Administrative Court, referred to in the 2021 Rule of Law Report33
was dismissed
and the administrative court proceedings were discontinued on 6 October 2021, as there had
already been adopted a final domestic court decision made in relation to the dispute between
the same parties, in relation to the same subject matter and on the same grounds. The Bar
Association submitted a plea to reopen the case34
, which was rejected by the Supreme
Administrative Court by final decision of 25 May 2022, based on the lack of legal grounds. In
line with European standards, all necessary measures should be taken to ensure the respect of
the confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship35
.
Quality
A new Development Programme for the justice system was approved in 2021. In October
2021, the Government approved the development programme for the period 2021-203036
.
The programme, which focuses on two main areas – improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of the justice system and improving the efficiency of the penal enforcement
system, identifies the possible root causes of inefficiencies, and establishes tools to address
them. Stakeholders are involved both in the identification of the problems and in the
implementation of the tools.
27
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 8.
28
Resolution No. 13P-46- (7.1.2.).
29
The central entity operates from 1 March 2022.
30
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 8
31
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4.
32
Application no. 64301/19. See contribution from the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE)
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 42.
33
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4.
34
Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report, p. 42.
35
Recommendation No. R(2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of
exercise of the profession of lawyer, para. 6.
36
Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice System Development Programme (Resolution of the
Government No. 861, of 20 October 2021).
7
Discussions regarding the criteria for allocating budget to courts continue. As described
in the 2021 Rule of Law Report37
, the Judicial Council has raised concerns regarding the
allocation of funds to the judiciary and the criteria thereto. While no relevant changes
occurred during the reporting period, the executive has addressed the issue that the current
funding allocation model is not linked to the legal status and needs of the courts as
independent authorities in the Justice System Development Programme38
. In this context, the
National Courts Administration has been tasked with exploring best practices and alternative
solutions to the current funding model. The President of the Republic has also acknowledged
that the salaries of judges are low, in line with concerns expressed by stakeholders39
. To be
noted that, while the total expenditure on law courts has registered a slight increase in 2020, it
remains comparatively low40
.
Amendments to the judicial map are under discussion. In 2021, the Parliament started
discussing the amendments to the Law on Courts, the Law on Administrative Proceedings
and the Law on Establishment of Administrative Courts submitted by the President of the
Republic, which propose the reorganisation of the system of regional administrative courts41
.
The objective of the amendments under discussion is to continue the reform of the judicial
map launched in 201842
, with the aim of equalising the workload and conditions of judges
and court staff, and increase judicial efficiency. Discussion of the draft amendments will
continue in the Parliament in 2022. It is important that these amendments take into account
European standards regarding judicial maps43
.
Changes to the legal aid system remain under preparation. As referred to in the 2021
Rule of Law Report44
, the Government intends to implement a project aimed at improving the
quality of the legal aid system. To this end, a feasibility study to assess the efficiency and
quality of the state-guaranteed legal aid system is being carried out45
. Based on the
conclusions of the study, the Ministry of Justice intends to propose changes to the current
legislative framework46
. Stakeholders report concerns regarding the low remuneration
currently provided to lawyers47
, which deters lawyers from participating in the legal aid
system48
. According to European standards, Member States should ensure an appropriate
level of remuneration for legal aid providers49
.
37
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 5.
38
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 5. Problem 1.2 –
‘The current funding allocation model is not linked to the legal status and needs of the courts as independent
public authorities’.
39
Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 2 and 15.
40
Figures 34 and 35, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
41
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14.
42
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4.
43
CEPEJ, Revised Guidelines on the Creation of Judicial Maps to Support Access to Justice within a Quality
judicial System, CEPEJ (2013)7Rev1 (criteria for judicial maps, indicators, implementation of revised
judicial maps, impact measuring).
44
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 5.
45
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 10.
46
Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
47
The hourly rate is currently fixed at EUR 20/hour.
48
Information received from the Bar Association in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
49
Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the efficiency and the effectiveness of
legal aid schemes in the areas of civil and administrative law, CM(2021)36, para. 22.
8
Digitalisation of the justice system continues to be promoted. As referred to in the
previous editions of the Rule of Law Report50
, the use of digital tools in the justice system is
widespread. Whereas data show that procedural rules are already in place to allow digital
technology in courts in civil, commercial, administrative and criminal cases51
, new legislative
amendments were adopted regarding the use of videoconferencing tools in criminal, civil and
administrative cases, in order to ensure the publicity of hearings52
. The Judicial Council also
approved recommendations for the organisation of remote court hearings53
. In 2021, the
executive allocated funding for the acquisition of laptops and video conferencing equipment
for courts54
. Moreover, secure electronic communication among courts and between courts
and other institutions is ensured55
, and digital solutions to initiate and follow proceedings are
available56
. Whereas data show that the use of digital technology by the prosecution service is
not as widespread as in courts57
, on 22 March 2022 the Digital Service Portal was launched,
allowing private and legal persons, lawyers to submit, to receive the documents and to
communicate digitally with the pre-trial investigation officers and prosecutors during pre-trial
investigation58
. While stakeholders acknowledge the key role of digital tools to ensure the
work of courts during the COVID-19 pandemic, they also warned the resorting to distance
hearings over a prolonged period may harm the quality of justice59
.
Efficiency
The justice system continues to present good results in terms of efficiency, although new
challenges are emerging60. Despite an increase in the disposition time, it remains
comparatively low in first instance, both in civil and commercial cases61
and administrative
cases62
. In higher instances, the disposition time decreased both in civil and commercial
cases63
and in administrative cases64
. However, while the case backlog in Lithuania remains
comparatively low, the trend of reduction of backlogs has been interrupted, with more cases
entering the system than those resolved in 2020, in all categories of cases considered65
.
50
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 5; 2020 Rule of Law
Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 5
51
Figure 42, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
52
Order of the Minister of Justice of 23 February 2022 No. 1R-58 and 1R-59. Input from Lithuania for the
2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 12.
53
Contribution from the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report, p. 27.
54
Contribution from the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report, p. 27.
55
Figure 44, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
56
Figure 46, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
57
Figure 45, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
58
The Lithuanian Government refers that, in criminal procedures, the digital technologies are used much more
by prosecution service because all pre-trial investigations are conducted using case management system
(Integrated Criminal Procedure Information System (IBPS) and the criminal case during pre-trial case is
completely digital. However, the courts do not use digital case during court hearings stage.
59
Contribution from the European Association of Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report,
p. 24.
60
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 6.
61
117 days in 2020, from 87 days in 2019, Figure 7, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
62
112 days in 2020, from 96 days in 2019, Figure 9, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
63
Figure 8, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
64
Figure 10, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
65
Figure 11, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
9
Measures to improve the efficiency of the justice system are being implemented. In the
context of the initiatives to improve court efficiency referred to in the 2021 Rule of Law
Report66
, the Ministry of Justice has prepared draft laws which, if approved, will enable the
transfer of non-judicial cases to other institutions (such as notaries and bailiffs)67
. It is
expected that these measures will reduce the workload of courts68
. The amendments being
prepared will ensure judicial review of decisions taken by non-judicial authorities, which is
essential to safeguard the parties’ rights. These measures, as envisaged, appear to be in line
with European standards69
. The Judicial Council is being consulted in this context70
. The
draft laws were submitted to the Government for consideration71
, and it is expected that they
will be voted Parliament during the spring session. The Judicial Council has also included the
increase of the efficiency of court activities as one of its strategic directions for 2021-202472
.
The measures considered include balancing the workload of judges and improving the
conditions for the administration of justice73
.
II. ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK
The Ministry of Justice and the Special Investigation Service (STT) are the main bodies in
charge of the coordination of anti-corruption preventive measures at national level. The Chief
Official Ethics Commission supervises the institutional ethics standards. Furthermore, the
STT is tasked with preparing and implementing certain anti-corruption preventive measures.
The task to fight against corruption is shared among several authorities. While the STT has
competences to detect and investigate the most serious corruption-related criminal offenses74
,
the Prosecution Service conducts and coordinates pre-trial investigations.
The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in
the public sector remains relatively low. In the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index by
Transparency International, Lithuania scores 61/100 and ranks 12th
in the European Union
and 34th
globally75
. This perception has been relatively stable over the past five years76
. The
2022 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 81% of respondents consider
corruption widespread in their country (EU average 68%) and 21% of respondents feel
66
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 6.
67
In particular, amendments to the Civil Code of the Republic and to the Code of Civil Procedure.
68
Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
69
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 36.
70
Contribution from the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report, p. 29.
71
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 15.
72
Council for the Judiciary, Resolution No. 13P-27-(7.1.2) of 26 February 2021.
73
Contribution from the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report, p. 120.
74
Other investigation authorities are the police, the State Border Guard Service, the Financial Crime
Investigation Service and Custom but their competence is limited to offences committed by one of their
officials.
75
Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021, pp. 2-3. The level of perceived
corruption is categorised as follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public
sector corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between
59-50), high (scores below 50).
76
In 2017 the score was 59, while, in 2021, the score is 61. The score significantly increases/decreases when it
changes more than five points; improves/deteriorates (changes between 4-5 points); is relatively stable
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years.
10
personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%)77
. As regards
businesses, 58% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and
22% consider that that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%)78
.
Furthermore, 36% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter
people from corrupt practices (EU average 34%)79
, while 39% of companies believe that
people and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU
average 29%)80
.
A new anti-corruption agenda 2022-2033 was adopted. As referred to in the 2021 Rule of
Law Report81
, the current anti-corruption strategic framework82
will be updated with the
adoption of the new anti-corruption agenda 2022-2033. The text endorsed by the Government
is based on three main pillars: education; prevention; and control83
. The implementation of
the Agenda will be ensured by three four-year agenda plans On 28 June 2022, Parliament
approved the new anti-corruption agenda 2022-2033.The STT is also implementing a project
on the effective implementation of the national anticorruption strategy, to be finalised in
2023. The project will assist the authorities in implementing the revamped anti-corruption
strategy and action plan, and will support the design and operationalisation of a system of
monitoring and reporting on anti-corruption measures84
.
The new law on corruption prevention aims at creating a resilient anti-corruption
environment. Overall, the law on the Prevention of Corruption85
provides definitions, aims,
tasks and principles, and creates a system of measures to ensure an anti-corruption
environment for various entities86
. The new amendment to this law that entered into force on
1 January 2022 extends the scope to state-owned enterprises and their subsidiaries87
. This
amendment was welcomed by GRECO88
. Public entities now have the obligation to adopt
dedicated sector-targeted anti-corruption measures. Therefore, both public and private sector
entities are now primarily responsible for managing corruption risks. Moreover, this new law
provides for a specific set of measures to prevent corruption, raise awareness, introduce staff
77
Special Eurobarometer 523 (2022). The Eurobarometer data on citizens’ corruption perception and
experience is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020).
78
Flash Eurobarometer 507 (2022). The Eurobarometer data on business attitudes towards corruption as is
updated every second year. The previous data set is the Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019).
79
Special Eurobarometer 523 (2022).
80
Flash Eurobarometer 507 (2022).
81
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 8.
82
The Inter-institutional Action Plan Monitoring Report (2020) provides detailed information about the
implemented measures resulting from the National Anti-Corruption Programme. Out of 45 planned
measures, 36 have been implemented, six have been delayed, one has been partially implemented, one has
not been implemented, and one has been abandoned.
83
Under the first pillar, specific educational activities as well as awareness campaign will be carried out, with
the aim to increase the anti-corruption expertise of civil servants. Under the prevention pillar, a more
effective management of conflict of interest, more transparency in the lobbying relations as well as a
stronger control mechanism on political party financing will be developed, in order to improve transparency
in the public administration. Finally, the control pillar aims at increasing awareness and resilience against
corruption in the judiciary.
84
This project is receiving support through the European Commission’s Technical Support Instrument.
85
Law No. XIV-471 of 29 June 2021 Amending Law No. IX-904 on the Prevention of Corruption.
86
The main measures to prevent corruption according to the law are inter alia the corruption risk analysis, anti-
corruption assessment of (draft) legal acts, reporting of corruption-related criminal acts, determination of the
probability of manifestation of corruption, assessment of corruption risk management and vetting
procedures.
87
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 19.
88
GRECO Fifth Evaluation Report – Evaluation Report, p. 4.
11
clearance, as well as obligations to declare private interests and lobbying activities89
. The
Special Investigation Service is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Law90
.
The number of investigations and prosecutions of corruption related offences remained
relatively stable in 2021 in comparison to 2020. In 2021, 376 persons were investigated for
corruption offences as suspects, 38 persons were convicted for corruption offences (compared
to 69 in 2020), and 22 persons were convicted for corruption offences by a final court
decision. Based on STT data, the number of corruption-related offences increased by 3% in
2021 compared to the previous year91
. For 2021, the STT reports to have investigated six
high-level and complex corruption cases and three cases involving EU funds92
. At the same
time, the legislative framework to investigate and prosecute corruption offences was
strengthened by amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and introducing the possibility to
carry out procedural activities using digital tools.
Efforts are being undertaken to improve asset recovery. An Asset Recovery Division has
been in place since November 2020, with the task of recovering assets of corruption related
offences. In 2021, there were 10 cases opened (i.e. eight cases for illicit enrichment and two
cases for money laundering), with overall EUR 2.8 million seized, which amounts to
approximately four times the total amount of assets seized in 202093
. The Asset Recovery
Division is also responsible for performing asset tracing, using intelligence tools. In 2021, 16
asset tracing analyses were carried out on properties and suspicious transactions94
. The Asset
Recovery Division cooperates with the National Asset Recovery Office and is planning to
expand its cooperation agreements with its counterparts including EU Member States, as well
as third countries.
The STT is implementing measures to address shortcomings in public procurement,
which remains a high-risk area for corruption. The STT continues to analyse potential
risks in the public procurement sector and has, since the publication of the 2021 Rule of Law
Report, identified several weaknesses in the system95
. For example, open negotiations
procedures were used beyond merely unavoidable and urgent cases and lacked transparency,
especially in the context of public procurement during the health crisis. To address these
shortcomings, the STT proposed specific actions, while also supporting the idea of a more
centralised system that could improve transparency. Such measures include, for instance,
establishing rotation in internal public procurement services, publishing of public
procurement decisions, and separation of functions in public procurement96
. Moreover, the
STT is continuing its monitoring of the implementation of COVID-19 pandemic mitigating
measures, in particular in the area of public procurement, and is also actively participating in
the exchange of best practices at international level and sharing knowledge on the corruption
risks linked to the COVID-19 pandemic97
.
89
Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
90
Chapter V, Law No. XIV-471 of 29 June 2021 Amending Law No. IX-904 on the Prevention of Corruption.
91
Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
92
Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
93
Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
94
Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
95
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 23.
96
Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
97
A specific webinar on ‘COVID-19 vaccination and managing corruption risks’ was organised by the STT on
behalf of the European anti-corruption and police oversight body (EPAC/EACN), with the participation of
12
The Register for Private Interests (PINREG) has started to deliver positive results in
terms of simplification of the process. More than 150 000 persons are now obliged to
declare interests. The Law of Public and Private Interests in the Public Service for elected and
appointed persons98
was amended to ensure more effective and quicker declarations of
private interests, prevent corruption and ensure transparency in the public sector. As a result,
the data entry on PINREG was simplified, and now the system generates declarations using
data from national databases and pre-filled forms. In consequence, since the launch of
PINREG, the number of enquiries about the declaration of private interests, the completion of
the declaration and the use of the PINREG tools increased significantly99
. The Chief Official
Ethics Commission (COEC) now controls and analyses the data quality while the system also
sends reminders whenever the data needs to be declared or corrected100
. While this
development was overall welcomed by GRECO, it was also noted that the declarations of the
top political officials should be subject to a thorough accuracy control in a routine manner
and not only in the context of specific investigations101
.
The updated lobbying rules which entered into force in January 2021 are contributing
to increased transparency. As described in the 2021 Rule of Law Report102
, the law
provides for a cross declaration scheme where lobbyists, politicians and public servants must
report their meetings in the Register of Lobbyists maintained by the COEC. This scheme is
assessed as a positive step forward103
. According to the latest COEC annual report, the
number of registered lobbyists increased considerably in 2021104
. The COEC has continued
to actively provide persons with training in the topics concerning the lobbying framework105
.
However, COEC acknowledges that there is still a need to improve transparent and public
law-making106
.
more than 70 experts from all EU Member States. The objective of this webinar was to discuss potential
corruption risks in the context of the vaccination campaign, as well as in other high-risk areas related to the
measures to limit the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
98
The amendment to the Law of Public and Private Interests in the Public Service also changed the name of
the Law which is now Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests. It was adopted in July 2020.
99
COEC Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 18.
100
The PINREG is intended not only for declaring persons, but also for the public, whose members can easily
search for relevant declarations of private interests, as well as for the management of the institution or its
authorised representatives, who can create in the PINREG the structure of the institution, the list of declaring
employees, easily analyse the data of their declarations of private interests, and ensure control (COEC
Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 16).
101
GRECO Fifth Evaluation Report – Evaluation Report, para. 143.
102
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 8.
103
Information received from Transparency International in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
104
Overall, 133 lobbyists added to the list, bringing the total number of lobbyists to 255. Of the latter, 120 are
legal entities and 135 natural persons. According to COEC, this is due to, among others, such as the right of
legal persons to act as lobbyists (COEC Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 23).
105
Nearly 2000 persons took part in the seminars. The training activities were targeted at several types of
audiences: members of the municipal councils, other public service employees, registered lobbyists,
potential lobbyists and influencers on law-making. The COEC aimed to familiarise them with the concept of
legal and illegal lobbying, involvement of lobbyist in the legislative process, interaction and cooperation
between lobbyists and public officials, and the regulatory novelty – influence over law-making (COEC
Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 7).
106
For instance, with regard to the activities that are currently not considered lobbying, such as those involving
persons in the public sector that participate in the activities of advisory collegiate bodies (i.e. councils,
commissions, working parties) set up by state and municipal institutions and agencies (COEC Annual
Activity Report 2021, p. 10).
13
The implementation of the ‘revolving doors’ and cooling-off provisions continues with
positive results. ‘Revolving doors’ and cooling-off periods are regulated in the Law on the
Adjustment of Public and Private Interests (LAPPI)107
, which establishes a one-year cooling-
off period108
. Additionally, the COEC has the power to derogate from the general rules on a
case-by-case basis109
. In 2021, COEC examined 358 notifications regarding potential
violation of provisions of the LAPPI by 500 persons110
. In the same year, 60 investigations
were opened and notifications in respect of 13 persons were referred to the head of the
institution or agency in which the person worked111
. Regarding the 71 investigations
concluded in 2021, the COEC found that the provisions of the LAPPI had been breached in
62% of the cases (44)112
.
Whistleblower protection rules in place are contributing to the investigation and
prosecution of corruption related offences. In 2021, the Office of the Prosecutor General
recognised 43 persons as whistleblowers113
. Based on the information provided by
whistleblowers, 10 pre-trial investigations were initiated. Furthermore, internal audits were
carried out and breaches were identified in one case. The most frequent types of misconduct
include false accounting in private companies, abuse of powers, bribery and corruption in the
public sector114
. In December 2021, an amendment to the Law on the protection of
whistleblowers was adopted. This amendment aims at transposing the Whistleblowers
Directive 115
.In order to further raise awareness on the importance of protecting
whistleblowers, the Office of the Prosecutor General organises public consultations with
private companies and public bodies116
. These consultations provide specific guidance on
how to set up and manage internal reporting channels. GRECO recommended a dedicated
training and awareness-raising activities on whistleblowing and the protection of
whistleblowers for all levels of hierarchy and chains of command in the Police and State
Border Guard Service117
.
III. MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM
In Lithuania, the legal framework concerning media pluralism and media freedom is based on
constitutional safeguards and sectorial legislation. The Constitution prohibits censorship and
monopolisation of the media and guarantees the right to freedom of expression and
information. The Law on the Provision of Information to the Public is the main media law.
Legislation to transpose the Audiovisual Media Services Directive has been adopted118
. The
institutional framework consists of the Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission
107
The Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests, latest amendment entered into force in July
2020.
108
Art. 15 and 17 of the Law of Public and Private Interests in the Public Service.
109
Art. 18, idem.
110
COEC Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 32.
111
COEC Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 33.
112
COEC Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 35.
113
According to statistics provided by the Office of the Prosecutor General, 73 decisions were taken, 43 people
were recognized as whistleblowers while 30 people were not. Information received from the Office of the
Prosecutor General in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
114
Information received from the Office of the Prosecutor General in the context of the country visit to
Lithuania.
115
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.
116
In 2022, the first consultation took place with the representatives of the Lithuanian Business Confederation.
117
GRECO Fifth Evaluation Report – Evaluation Report, p. 60.
118
Complete transposition of the AVMSD was notified to the Commission on 27 January 2021.
14
(LRTK), the Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics and the Public Information Ethics
Association119
.
There have been no significant changes in the legal framework concerning the regulator
for audio-visual media services. Financial and human resources of the LRTK are considered
adequate and have remained stable, especially since its budget is funded by fees collected
from the market players rather than allocations from the state budget decided each year. No
attempts by public or private parties to interfere in the independent functioning of the LRTK
have been reported120
. The Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM 2022) reports a very low risk for
the independence and effectiveness of the media authority121
.
Legislation is in preparation to improve the effectiveness and impartiality of media self-
regulatory bodies. Following public discussions about the effectiveness and impartiality of
the Public Information Ethics Commission; the composition of the Public Information Ethics
Association; and the extent to which the functioning of media self-regulation bodies should
be prescribed by law, on 19 May 2021 the Parliament established a working group tasked to
review the current institutional framework and suggest legislative improvements. The
mandate of the working group extends until 30 June 2022122
. Stakeholders have expressed
different opinions about the desired direction of the improvements. Some suggested that few
changes are needed and that the public service broadcaster should rejoin the self-regulatory
structure. Others argued for better representation of NGOs, academia, journalists and
business associations, as well as new requirements to increase the professionalism of the
Ethics Commission. These requirements would provide for its members to have a substantial
prior experience in the media sector123
.
To enhance media ownership transparency, the Ministry of Culture has launched a
publicly available Information System of Producers and Disseminators of Public
Information. The system, called ‘VIRSIS’ and envisaged by the Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public and Strategic Directions of the Public Information Policy 2019-
2022, provides data on media owners and amounts of funds obtained from public bodies124
.
In line with the general requirements for the websites and mobile applications of state and
municipal institutions and bodies, as of 2022 all websites of public bodies have to contain a
link to the VIRSIS125
. According to the MPM 2022, media ownership transparency is at low
risk126
. While news media concentration is very high, Lithuanian law does not provide for
specific rules on market concentration in the media sector127
.
The authorities have reduced the fees payable by audiovisual media and radio service
providers. The Law on the Provision of Information to the Public guarantees editorial
independence by prohibiting to exert influence on media, their owners and journalists with
119
Lithuania ranks 9th in the 2022 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 28th in
the previous year.
120
Information received from LRTK in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
121
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 11. Nevertheless, MPM 2022 refers to
several recent ‘potentially political’ appointments of the members of LRTK.
122
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 29.
123
Information received from the Public Information Ethics Association and Lithuanian Radio and Television
(LRT) in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
124
See also 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 11.
125
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 29.
126
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 12.
127
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 12-13.
15
the objective of obtaining incorrect or biased reporting128
. The Law also sets out the types of
media activities that are subject to licensing, such as TV or radio broadcasting, and the main
principles of licensing, such as organising tenders and giving priority to entities undertaking
to ensure the provision of truthful and impartial information. It further establishes safeguards
against the control of media by individuals with links to third countries not belonging either
to the EU or NATO and that are deemed to threaten national security129
. Audiovisual media
service providers and radio broadcasters are required to pay fees to the LRTK and an annual
fee which is transferred to the Public Information Ethics Commission. Following complaints
from the companies concerned about the high financial burden, the LRTK proposed lowering
the annual fees. On 25 April 2022, the Ministry of Culture made the necessary amendments
to lower the fees130
. In addition, the size of the Press, Radio and TV Fund has been increased
by EUR 0.5 million (to EUR 3.2 million) for the year 2022131
.
Robust legal safeguards ensure the independence of Lithuanian public service media.
State advertising is allocated to media under the public procurement rules and, in the case of
production of TV and radio programmes, under the specific rules adopted by the
Government. In line with the public procurement rules, ‘prior serious professional
misconduct’ can be used by a purchasing entity as grounds for eliminating a media outlet
from the procurement procedure132
. The Law on Lithuanian National Radio and Television
contains specific safeguards for the independence of public service media (LRT). In
particular, the ‘Council’133
is entrusted with representing the whole society in its management
supervision activities. The term of office of Council members does not coincide with those of
the different appointing institutions and bodies. Also, the members of the Council cannot be
members of political parties and cannot be removed from the office before the end of the
term, save on the limited grounds specified in the Law. The LRT’s Director General is
selected through a public competition and can be dismissed only by a two thirds’ majority of
the members of the Council. The LRT is financed from fixed shares of tax income. Its annual
report is prepared by the Director General and submitted to the Parliament by the Council134
.
According to the MPM 2022, both ‘state regulation of resources and support to the media
sector’ and ‘independence of public service media governance and funding’ are at low risk135
.
There are concerns that the authorities’ interpretation of data protection rules has led
to restrictions on journalists’ access to information136. In particular, there are instances of
128
Art. 7 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public.
129
Arts. 22 and 31 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public.
130
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 30 and information available on the website of the
Ministry of Culture - https://lrkm.lrv.lt/lt/naujienos/audiovizualiniu-ziniasklaidos-paslaugu-teikejams-mazes-
metines-imokos.
131
Information received from the Ministry of Culture in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
132
Art. 46 of the Public Procurement Law.
133
The Council forms the strategy of the LRT programming and LRT website, supervises the implementation
of the LRT’s mission and approves the annual income and spending by LRT administration. The Council
comprises twelve members prominent in social, scientific and cultural fields, appointed for a six-year term.
Four members are appointed by the President of the Republic of Lithuania, four by the Seimas (two are
chosen from the candidates put forth by the opposition in the parliament), while the Lithuanian Science
Council, the Lithuanian Education Council, the Lithuanian Creative Artists Association and the Lithuanian
Bishops’ Conference delegate one member each. https://apie.lrt.lt/en/management/lrt-council
134
Information received from LRT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
135
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 15.
136
According to Art. 3 of the 2009 Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents, any
limitation to the right of access to official documents, such as a limitation aiming to protect privacy and
other legitimate private interests, should be set down precisely in law, be necessary in a democratic society
16
journalists having to enforce their right to information through courts. By the time a judgment
is issued, the information has often become outdated137
. In a case that attracted public
attention, the Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics decided that a media service
provider had violated personal data protection rules by disclosing in its publication the names
of and the kinship between a head of a company that won a public procurement and an
employee of the procuring municipal company138
. Initially, in October 2021, the Supreme
Administrative Court of Lithuania upheld that decision139
. Following a wide public debate
and protests by the media, the judicial proceedings were renewed and the earlier court ruling
was reversed in February 2022140
. Moreover, the Law on the Provision of Information to the
Public was amended in December 2021 to broaden the definition of a public person141
,
making access to and publication of information about such persons easier. In addition,
concerns were expressed about the pressure on an investigative journalism project by the
State Data Protection Inspectorate142
. The Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics is
taking part in an EU-funded project143
aimed at solving this issue through practical measures,
such as roundtable discussions and guidance. The Ministry of Justice has launched a series of
targeted public consultations on the regulation of personal data protection. One of them was
dedicated to the application of data protection rules to media144
.
While the professional environment for journalists continues to be largely safe,
journalists’ access to information and online threats against journalists remain an issue.
Since the publication of the 2021 Rule of Law Report, no new alerts have been published for
Lithuania on the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and
safety of journalists145
, or the Mapping Media Freedom platform146
, and the country has
significantly improved its ranking in the Reporters without Borders’ World Press Freedom
Index147
. In 2021, the work of journalists was restricted by the Ministry of Internal affairs at
the border with Belarus148
for a few months, without however issuing a decree or proposing
legislative changes. The matter was solved through direct exchanges between journalists and
and be proportionate to the stated objective; access to information contained in an official document should
not be refused if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure; parties to the Convention are encouraged
to consider setting time limits beyond which the limitations to the right of access to official documents
would no longer apply.
137
Information received from LRT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
138
The decision has not been published.
139
Supreme Administrative Court, judgment of 6 October 2021, Case No. eA-2398-525/2021. The ruling of the
Court is available in the Information System of Lithuanian Courts:
https://liteko.teismai.lt/viesasprendimupaieska/tekstas.aspx?id=916676bf-fc3a-4554-839d-3ef4ba619270.
140
Supreme Administrative Court, judgment of 3 February 2022, Case No. eA-51-822/2022. The ruling of the
Court is available in the Information System of Lithuanian Courts:
https://liteko.teismai.lt/viesasprendimupaieska/tekstas.aspx?id=1aa9816e-b92f-470c-9fe2-83ee67b436bd.
141
Law No XIV-867 of 23 December 2021, available in the Information System of Lithuanian Parliament:
https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/34230bb066f711ecb2fe9975f8a9e52e?jfwid=-1ckebls2nk.
142
Media Freedom Rapid Response, Open Letter of 27 January 2022.
143
Connecting not conflicting: removing the tension between personal data protection and freedom of
expression and information, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-
participate/org-details/999999999/project/101005477/program/31076817/details.
144
Information available on the website of the Ministry of Justice: https://tm.lrv.lt/lt/struktura-ir-
kontaktai/administracine-informacija/viesosios-konsultacijos/vykstancios-viesosios-konsultacijos-1.
145
Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Lithuania.
146
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, Mapping Media Freedom, Lithuania country profile.
147
See footnote 119.
148
See Section IV.
17
the competent authorities149
. Online threats and harassment on social media networks,
especially directed at investigative journalists and those who cover protests, remains an
issue150
. In order to tackle the problem of Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation
(SLAPPs), legislative amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure and the Criminal Code
have been prepared. The former provides a new possibility of early dismissal of a lawsuit in
case a court establishes that it may be categorised as a SLAPP. The amendment to the
Criminal Code revises the criminal liability for defamation, in order to strengthen the
protection of journalists and other disseminators of public information from unjustified
prosecution151
.
IV. OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES
Lithuania is a representative democratic republic with a directly elected President and a
unicameral Parliament (Seimas). The Constitutional Court in charge of constitutional review
of enacted legislation and of the acts of the President and the Government (a posteriori
control). The Parliament, the President, the Government, and a group of at least 50 000
citizens have the right of legislative initiative. The Parliamentary Ombudspersons are tasked
with protecting and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The project aiming at improving the quality of law-making is being implemented. As
noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report152
, the Ministry of Justice is carrying out a project to
improve the quality of legislation initiated by the Government. In this context, amendments
were introduced to the recommendations for drafting legislation153
. Moreover, as the
programme also aims at eliminating outdated or disproportionate regulation, a methodology
for ex post evaluation of the impact of existing legislation was adopted in May 2021. It is to
be noted that the quality of law-making and frequent changes to the law are the most stated
concern about effectiveness of investment protection among companies in Lithuania
(39%)154
.
The Constitutional Court is reviewing several measures adopted in the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic. The nationwide situation of emergency declared by the Government
and referred to in the 2021 Rule of Law Report155
was lifted on 1 May 2022. Restrictive
measures have gradually been withdrawn. Whereas the Constitutional Court had found
admissible the petition by 36 members of Parliament to examine the constitutionality of the
requirement of the ‘Certificate of opportunities’156
, it also adopted a decision to dismiss the
proceedings, as it found that they were no longer needed, following the Government’s
decision to abolish the challenged regulation157
. Three other cases concerning COVID-19-
related measures are currently pending before the Constitutional Court158
, and the decision on
149
Information received from Freedom House and Lithuanian Journalists’ Union in the context of the country
visit to Lithuania.
150
Information received from LRT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania and the Reporters without
Borders 2022 World Press Freedom Index.
151
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 31.
152
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 12.
153
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 32.
154
Figure 55, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
155
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 12.
156
Certificates of vaccination, recovery or negative test result.
157
Constitutional Court, decision of 9 February 2022, Case No 21/202.
158
Information received from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
18
admissibility is pending for the fourth one. The Constitutional Court has not received any
individual requests for constitutionality review of COVID-19-related measures159
.
On 1 January 2022, Lithuania had 16 leading judgments of the European Court of
Human Rights pending implementation160. While Lithuania’s rate of leading judgments
from the past 10 years that remain pending was at that time at 24%, the average time that the
judgments have been pending implementation was 3 years and 9 months161
. The oldest
leading judgment, pending implementation for 14 years, concerns the lack of legislation
governing the conditions and procedures relating to gender reassignment162
. On 21 April
2022, Parliament adopted in the second vote the constitutional amendment aimed at
implementing the European Court of Human Rights judgment in case Paksas v. Lithuania163
,
which remains under enhanced supervision164
. The case is included in the indicative list of
cases for the 1443rd
meeting of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights (September 2022). On 1 July 2022, the number of leading
judgments pending implementation has increased to 19165
.
A state of emergency was declared in 2021 in response to the instrumentalisation of
migrants by Belarus. From November 2021 until January 2022, the Parliament declared a
state of emergency at the state border with Belarus, covering the border zone, as well as areas
surrounding migrant reception facilities166
. The state of emergency included certain
restrictions on the rights of individuals such as migrants’ right to receive and disseminate
information, and the right to travel within the territory167
. During the earlier phase of the state
of emergency, concerns were raised, including by the UN Committee against Torture168
,
regarding restrictions on the monitoring by the National Human Rights Institution, non-
159
Information received from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.
160
The adoption of necessary execution measures for a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights is
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken.
161
All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases
that are considered pending at the annual cut-off date of 1 January 2022. See the Contribution from the
European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 54.
162
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 11 September 2007, L. v. Lithuania, 27527/03, pending
implementation since 2008.
163
Judgment of European Court of Human Rights of 6 January 2011, Paksas v. Lithuania, 34932/04. The case
concerns the violation of the right to free elections due to the permanent and irreversible nature of the
applicant’s disqualification from standing for elections to Parliament as a result of his removal from
presidential office following impeachment proceedings conducted against him.
164
CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-18. See also Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights, Press release of 21 April 2022.
165
Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC).
166
Resolution No XIV-617 of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of 9 November 2021. The state of
emergency was initially declared for the period of one month, starting on 10 November 2021, and was
further extended until 14 January 2022.
167
Resolution No XIV-617 of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of 9 November 2021. See also Press
release of the Lithuanian Parliament of 9 November 2021. On 30 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the
European Union ruled on an urgent preliminary ruling proceeding regarding some of the restrictive measures
applied during the state of emergency (Judgment of 30 June 2022, Case C-72/22, M.A.,
ECLI:EU:C:2022:505).
168
Contribution from the UN Human Rights Regional Office for Europe – Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report, p. 2.
19
governmental organisations (NGOs) and journalists of the situation of asylum seekers,
refugees and migrants at the border zones. Stakeholders report that authorities were
responsive to the criticism, and that activities of NGOs were gradually facilitated in the areas
in question169
.
The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons lacks the resources needed to fulfil its
mandate. The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons, accredited with ‘A’ status by the
United Nations Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, has an extensive
mandate, which covers the investigation of complaints regarding activities of officials,
institutions and agencies both at state and municipal level, while also acting as National
Human Rights Institution and National Preventive Mechanism against Torture. However, the
Office has raised concerns that the funding allocated is not sufficient to efficiently carry out
its mandate170
. The Office currently counts 38 employees, significantly below the maximum
number of positions (50) approved by the Board of Parliament171
. The lack of specialised
personnel also limits the capacity to implement the tasks stemming from the mandate172
. In
December 2021, the UN Committee against Torture expressed concerns about the shortage of
staff of the Office assigned to tasks and activities related to the mechanism and recommended
that Lithuania ensure the necessary financial and human resources for the performance of its
work173
. According to European standards, Member States should provide
Ombudsinstitutions with adequate, sufficient and sustainable resources to allow them to carry
out their mandate in a fully independent manner174
.
Parliament is discussing amendments to the Law on the Parliamentary Ombudspersons
where concerns have been voiced over a possible impact on the effective functioning of
that institution. Currently, the law allows the investigation of complaints to continue beyond
the time-limit of three months, when required by the complexity of the case175
. The draft law
tabled in Parliament proposes to subject the examination of complaints to strict deadlines176
.
The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons has raised concerns that this amendment
could limit its independence177
. In particular, that this amendment would limit its capacity to
thoroughly investigate complaints, to identify the causes of the infringements and to take
action to remedy them. In face of this criticism, Parliament has postponed the discussion of
this draft law to the spring session, without, however, removing it from the agenda178
.
169
Information received from NGO Coalition and Freedom House in the context of the country visit to
Lithuania.
170
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 37.
171
Pursuant to Art. 25(3) of the Law on the Parliamentary Ombudspersons, the Board of Parliament shall
approve the maximum number of positions of the Office.
172
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.
173
Contribution from the UN Human Rights Regional Office for Europe – Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report, p. 2.
174
Recommendation CM/Rec(2019)6 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the
development of the Ombudsman institution, para. 6.
175
Law No. NoVIII-950, of 3 December 1998.
176
Draft Law No. XIIIP-5306, amending Arts. 18 and 22 of Law No. NoVIII-950.
177
Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 37.
178
In line with European standards, Member States shall refrain from taking any action aiming at or resulting in
any hurdles to the effective functioning of the Ombudsperson institution (Venice Commission, Principles on
the Protection and Promotion of the Ombudsman Institution (‘The Venice Principles’), CDL-AD(2019)005,
para 24).
20
Civil society remains active, despite challenges. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic,
stakeholders report that the Government increased coordination and collaboration with civil
society organisations (CSOs), namely by creating regular working groups and round-table
discussions to identify main challenges and lessons learned and preparing recommendations
on how to organise volunteer activities during extreme situations, in line with the identified
national and international best practices179
. CSOs were also granted financial support to
overcome the challenges posed by the pandemic180
. Although the civil society space in
Lithuania continues to be considered open181
, isolated cases of threats to members of NGOs
and attempts to limit the operation of NGOs have been reported by stakeholders182
.
Amendments to the Law on Development of NGOs are being discussed following a
decision of the Constitutional Court. The Law on Development of NGOs is the legal basis
for a National NGO fund, aiming to provide sustainable institutional support for NGOs183
.
However, as a consequence of the Constitutional Court’s ruling stating that the laws on
programmes’ financing must not set a specific amount of state budget funds allocated to
them184
, amendments to the law were prepared. These amendments are currently pending
before Parliament185
. In parallel to the legislative amendments, the National NGO Fund,
operating under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, launched its funding
programmes in 2021186
. Their main priorities are strengthening the institutional capacity of
NGOs187
, and extending their opportunities to participate in crisis and emergency
management188
.
179
Franet (2022), Country research – Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting
fundamental rights – Lithuania, p. 6.
180
The Ministry of Social Security and Labour dedicated EUR 3.5 million in subsidies to CSOs that provide
social services to society during quarantine, allocated to 500 NGOs; the Ministry of Education, Science and
Sport granted EUR 49 980 to one non-governmental organisation coordinating the activities of volunteers
providing assistance to educational establishments affected by the distance learning effects of the COVID-19
pandemic.
181
Rating given by Civicus, Lithuania; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed,
obstructed, repressed and closed.
182
Contribution from Civil Society Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3.
183
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 12.
184
Constitutional Court, decision of 3 November 2020, Case No 8/2019 on compliance of the provisions of
legal acts, which regulates financing certain programs, funds or institutions, to the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
185
Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania, 17 December 2021.
186
Franet (2022), Country research – Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting
fundamental rights – Lithuania, p. 4.
187
Total amount EUR 973 000.
188
Total amount EUR 417 000.
21
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order*
* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report
can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en.
CEPEJ (2013), Revised Guidelines on the Creation of Judicial Maps to Support Access to Justice
within a Quality judicial System, CEPEJ(2013)7Rev1.
Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Lithuania https://monitor.civicus.org/country/lithuania/.
Civil Society Europe (2022), Contribution from Civil Society Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report.
COEC (2021), Annual Activity Report 2021.
Constitutional Court, decision of 3 November 2020, Case No 8/2019.
Constitutional Court, decision of 9 February 2022, Case No 21/202.
Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (2022), Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law
Societies of Europe (CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2000), Recommendation No. R(2000)21 of the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of exercise of the profession of
lawyer.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2019), Recommendation CM/Rec(2019)6 on the
development of the Ombudsman institution.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2021), Guidelines on the efficiency and the effectiveness
of legal aid schemes in the areas of civil and administrative law, CM(2021)36.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2021), Decision CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-18 on
H46-18 Paksas v. Lithuania.
Council of Europe: Consultative Council of European Judges (2016), Opinion No. 19(2016), on the
Role of Court Presidents.
Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists –
Lithuania https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte?years=2022&typeData=1&time=1653914309287.
Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2010), Report on the Independence of the Judicial System,
Part I, The Independence of Judges (CDL-AD(2010)004).
Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2013), Opinion on the Draft Amendments to three
Constitutional Provisions relating to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme State Prosecutor and the
Judicial Council of Montenegro (CDL-AD(2013)028).
Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2019), Principles on the Protection and Promotion of the
Ombudsman Institution (‘The Venice Principles’) (CDL-AD(2019)005).
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 19 November 2019, A.K. and Others
(Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C‑585/18, C‑624/18 and
C‑625/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:982, paras 134 and 135.
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 2 March 2021, A.B. and Others (Appointment of
judges to the Supreme Court – Actions), C‑824/18, ECLI:EU:C:2021:153.
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 20 April 2021, Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru,
C-896/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:311, para. 57.
22
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 6 October 2021, Case C-487/19, W.Z. (Chamber
of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court – Appointment),
ECLI:EU:C:2021:798, para. 112.
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 30 June 2022, Case C-72/22, M.A.,
ECLI:EU:C:2022:505.
Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (2022), Press
release of 21 April 2022.
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the
protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.
Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses’ attitudes
towards corruption in the EU.
Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption.
Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Flash Eurobarometer 507: businesses’ attitudes
towards corruption in the EU.
Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption.
European Association of Administrative Judges (2022), Contribution from the European Association
of Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
European Association of Judges (2022), Contribution from the European Association of Judges for
the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (2022), Mapping Media Freedom.
European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation
in Lithuania.
European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation
in Lithuania.
European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard.
European Commission (2022), EU Justice Scoreboard.
European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 11 September 2007, L. v. Lithuania, 27527/03.
European Court of Human Rights of 6 January 2011, Paksas v. Lithuania, 34932/04.
European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2022), Contribution from the European Network of
Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
European University Institute, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), The Media
Pluralism Monitor 2022 (MPM2022).
Franet, Lithuanian Centre for Social Sciences (2022), Country research – Legal environment and
space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Lithuania, Vienna, EU Agency
for Fundamental Rights, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-
related.
GRECO (2022), Fifth Evaluation Report – Evaluation Report on Lithuania on preventing corruption
and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement
agencies.
Lithuanian Judicial Council (2021), Resolution No. 13P-27-(7.1.2).
Lithuanian Government (2015), Lithuania National Anti-Corruption Program 2015-2025
https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct.
Lithuanian Government (2022), Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
23
Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court, judgment of 6 October 2021, Case No. eA-2398-525/2021.
Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court, judgment of 3 February 2022, Case No. eA-51-822/2022.
Media Freedom Rapid Response (2022), Open Letter of 27 January 2022 – Lithuania: State Data
Protection Inspectorate (SDPI) must not obstruct journalistic activity in the country
https://www.mfrr.eu/lithuania-state-data-protection-inspectorate-sdpi-must-not-obstruct-journalistic-
activity-in-the-country/.
Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice System Development Programme.
Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (2021), Draft Law amending Articles 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the
Law on the Development of NGOs No XII-717, 17 December 2021.
Lithuanian Parliament (2021), Press release, 9 November 2021.
Lithuanian Parliament (2021), Resolution No XIV-617, 9 November of 2021.
Reporters Without Borders – Lithuania https://rsf.org/en/country/lithuania.
STT (2020), Progress report of National Anti-corruption Program 2015-2025
https://www.stt.lt/doclib/iwlpfjmqm2krucnq2u28zyguhkhv7ddy.
Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021.
United Nations Human Rights Regional Office for Europe (2022), Contribution from the UN Human
Rights Regional Office for Europe on Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
24
Annex II: Country visit to Lithuania
The Commission services held virtual meetings in February 2022 with:
 Bar Association
 COEC
 Constitutional Court
 Judicial Council
 Freedom House
 Human Rights Monitoring Institute
 Lithuanian Journalists Union
 Lithuanian Radio and Television
 Media Authority – Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania
 Ministry of Culture
 Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 Ministry of Justice
 National Courts Administration
 National NGO Coalition
 Office of the Prosecutor General
 Office of the Seimas Ombudspersons
 Public Information Ethics Association
 Public Procurement Service
 Special Investigation Service
 Supreme Court
 Transparency International Lithuania
* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:
 Amnesty International
 Article 19
 Civil Liberties Union for Europe
 Civil Society Europe
 European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
 European Civic Forum
 European Federation of Journalists
 European Partnership for Democracy
 European Youth Forum
 Free Press Unlimited
 Human Rights Watch
 ILGA Europe
 International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
 International Press Institute
 Open Society European Policy Institute ( OSEPI)
 Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa
 Philea
 Reporters Without Borders
 Transparency International Europe