Legal prism — 2026-09-04

If the importer considers or has reason to believe that the packaging does not comply with the applicable requirements, under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 the importer may not place it on the market until conformity has been ensured.

The burden of proving reuse targets under Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40 applies from 1 January 2030 or 18 months after the entry into force of the implementing act establishing the methodology, whichever is later.

Core issue

As of 12 August 2026, businesses using packaging must treat packaging as a regulated object placed on the market, and not merely as a waste management issue. The greatest practical change falls on importers: they must suspend supply where they have reason to believe that the packaging does not comply with the requirements of the Regulation. The relevant legal issue can be reduced to one question: what obligations concerning packaging, its documentation, composition, reuse, and waste-related information are established by Articles 1, 2, 5, 18, 23, 27, 30, 55, and 60 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40. Under Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40, the rules cover the packaging life cycle, labelling, extended producer responsibility, waste prevention, reuse, collection, and recycling. Under Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40, they apply to all packaging, irrespective of material and sector of use.

Legal assessment

The importer’s obligation is an active pre-market verification duty, not passive waiting until a supervisory authority identifies a defect. Under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40, an importer may place on the market only packaging that complies with the requirements laid down in Articles 5 to 12. Before supply, the importer must ensure that:

• the manufacturer has carried out the conformity assessment procedure referred to in Article 38;
• the technical documentation referred to in Annex VII has been prepared;
• the packaging is labelled in accordance with Article 12;
• the required documents are provided with it;
• the manufacturer has fulfilled the requirements of Article 15(5) and (6).

A separate standard applies to the composition of packaging: under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40, substances of concern in packaging must be minimised and present at the lowest possible concentrations. This requirement also covers the adverse environmental impact of microplastics, so packaging design and material become compliance issues. Reuse models also become regulated activities. Under Article 27 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40, economic operators using reusable packaging must participate in reuse systems and ensure their compliance with Part A of Annex VI. They must also ensure the reconditioning of packaging before it is offered again to end users. In closed-loop systems, packaging must be returned to collection points designated by the system participants and approved by the operator. Under the Regulation, the information chain covers waste management operators, producers, and consumers. Under Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40, packaging waste management operators must submit information on packaging waste annually to the competent authorities through an electronic register. Under Article 55 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40, producers or producer responsibility organisations must provide end users with information on waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, and the meaning of labels. The sources provided contain no case law, and therefore no precedent-based standard of application is assessed for this situation.

Consequences

The practical result for businesses is the relocation of compliance checks to the beginning of the supply chain. Importers will need to obtain documents and evidence from third-country manufacturers before placing goods on the EU market. Packaging waste management operators will need to prepare for annual data reporting through electronic registers under Article 23 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40. Producers and producer responsibility organisations will need to ensure the provision of consumer-facing information under Article 55 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40. Where packaging poses a risk to the environment or human health, market surveillance authorities may, under Article 60 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40, require that:

• the risk be eliminated within a reasonable and proportionate period;
• the packaging be brought into conformity;
• the packaging be withdrawn from the market;
• the packaging be recalled.

Under Article 228(2) of the Criminal Code, the pursuit of personal material benefit aggravates the legal qualification to a fine or imprisonment for up to six years.

Under Article 68-1(4) of the Criminal Code, public rights may generally be deprived for a period from one to five years, and, in the case of less serious and serious crimes under Chapter XXXIII, for a period from three to seven years.

Core issue

The case of the Joniškis politician has, in practical terms, already moved into the stage of enforcement of consequences: she is not punished by imprisonment, but she is subject to a one-year surety regime, is barred for three years from holding elected or appointed public office, and must pay a EUR 1,000 contribution. For three politicians from other municipalities, the issue of liability is still being determined, and their risk will primarily depend on whether the damage suffered by the municipalities, amounting to EUR 5,288, EUR 2,287 and EUR 3,091, will be qualified as significant under the suspicions brought against them. The legal issue is specific: whether the submission of fuel expense reports that do not correspond to reality, using the status of a council member, constitutes abuse of office for the purpose of obtaining material benefit. It is assessed under Article 228(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. These provisions require action by a civil servant or a person equivalent thereto, abuse of official position or exceeding of powers, substantial damage and, under paragraph 2, the pursuit of material or other personal benefit. The consequence relating to public office is assessed under Article 68-1 of the Criminal Code.

Legal assessment

The facts presented indicate a common pattern of conduct: in 2019-2023, council members may have submitted reports containing incorrect data on fuel. Under Article 3(6) of Law No. VIII-1316 Amending the Law on the Civil Service, abuse of office includes the use of official position contrary to the interests of the service, not in accordance with legal acts, or for self-interested purposes. The same provision cites the unlawful appropriation of another person’s property or funds as an example; therefore, the municipal funds reimbursement mechanism is legally relevant here. The content of the duties under the cited provisions is as follows:

• under Article 4(2)(1) of Law No. VIII-1316 Amending the Law on the Civil Service, a person is responsible for the consequences of his or her actions and for the proper use of documents;
• under Article 4(2)(3), the resources allocated to that person must be used economically;

In the Joniškis case, the damage amounted to EUR 637, guilt was admitted and the damage was compensated; therefore, release from criminal liability on surety was chosen. However, deprivation of public rights is not a symbolic measure: Article 68-1(1) of the Criminal Code defines it as deprivation of the right to be elected or appointed to positions in state or municipal institutions, agencies, enterprises or non-governmental organisations. Under Article 68-1(2) of the Criminal Code, such a measure is imposed where the criminal offence was committed by abusing public rights. Therefore, the three-year prohibition imposed on V. Bartašienė falls within the system of time limits set out in the cited provision. The position of the three suspects is not yet identical to that of the Joniškis politician, because they have only been notified of suspicions. The key points of assessment in their cases will be the following:

• whether the reports on council member activity expenses were used as a basis for obtaining public funds;
• whether the data on fuel expenses did not correspond to reality;
• whether material benefit was pursued;
• whether the damage suffered by the municipality permits the application of Article 228 of the Criminal Code.

The sources provided contain no case law; therefore, no specific precedent can be applied for the purposes of this task.

Consequences

The practical consequences for V. Bartašienė have already been identified: a one-year surety period, a EUR 1,000 contribution and a three-year restriction of public rights. The latter restriction means that she may not be elected or appointed to elected or appointed positions in state or municipal institutions and their agencies, enterprises or non-governmental organisations. For R. Sujeta, Z. Grabauskas and A. Mickienė, the realistic scenarios will depend on the outcome of the pre-trial investigation. If the elements of Article 228(2) of the Criminal Code were established, they would face a fine or imprisonment for up to six years. If Article 228(1) of the Criminal Code were applied, the sanction would be a fine, arrest or imprisonment for up to four years. If the court found that the act was committed by abusing public rights, the right to be elected or appointed could be restricted under Article 68-1 of the Criminal Code. In practical terms, this matter is important for members of municipal councils because an activity expense report may become a basis for criminal liability when it is used to obtain municipal funds. It is important for municipalities in relation to compensation for damage and internal control, because the facts presented concern reimbursement of public funds on the basis of documents.

Under Article 29(1) of the Law on Social Insurance for Occupational Accidents and Occupational Diseases, the tariff depends on safety infringements established by the State Labour Inspectorate, the severity of occupational accidents, and the number of injured persons.

Such conduct may be punishable by a fine, arrest, or imprisonment for up to seven years.

Core issue

For construction companies, the consequence may be not only a requirement by the State Labour Inspectorate to remedy an infringement, but also higher social insurance contributions from 1 January 2027. The financial risk arises when an occupational safety infringement established by the State Labour Inspectorate becomes a tariff indicator transmitted to Sodra. The precise legal question is this: when does an infringement established by the State Labour Inspectorate allow the insured employer to be moved to a higher occupational accident social insurance tariff group? This is determined under Article 29 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Social Insurance for Occupational Accidents and Occupational Diseases and Article 3(2) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Safety and Health at Work. If the infringement results in a serious or fatal accident, the question of applying Article 176 of the Criminal Code also arises.

Legal assessment

Paragraph 2 of the same article establishes the mechanism: the State Labour Inspectorate submits the infringement indicator to the State Social Insurance Fund Board. This means that an act of the State Labour Inspectorate operates not only as a control document, but also as a basis for differentiating contributions.

• The competence of the State Labour Inspectorate is to determine the infringement indicator and transmit it to the State Social Insurance Fund Board.
• The number of tariff groups and their tariffs are approved annually by the Seimas through the law approving the indicators of the State Social Insurance Fund budget.

Under Article 3(2) of the Law on Safety and Health at Work, employers are required to provide safe and healthy working conditions. Therefore, an unassessed risk of falling from height, soil collapse, or falling loads on a construction site is not a formal deficiency, but an indication of a breach of the duty to provide safe conditions. The employer also has management measures under Article 31 of the Law on Safety and Health at Work. It may issue safety orders, require compliance with instructed requirements, and access State Labour Inspectorate inspection materials. If the infringement is committed by an employee, the employer may, under Article 31(2), require compensation for damage caused to the company in accordance with the procedure established by law. The criminal threshold arises under Article 176(1) of the Criminal Code where an infringement by the employer or an authorised person causes a serious or fatal accident or other serious consequences. Under Article 176(2) of the Criminal Code, this act is criminal only where committed through negligence, and under paragraph 3, a legal person may also be held liable.

Consequences

The practical impact on a construction company is twofold: it must remedy the infringements and may have to pay higher insurance contributions. Companies with infringements will pay higher contributions from 1 January 2027. The tariff amounts are not specified in the sources provided, so, as a matter of legal accuracy, one may refer to an elevation of the group, but not to a specific percentage.

• If the State Labour Inspectorate infringement is transmitted to Sodra, the insured employer may be moved from the first to the second, from the second to the third, or from the third to the fourth group.
• If a serious or fatal accident occurs, liability under Article 176 of the Criminal Code may arise alongside the tariff consequence.
• If the infringement resulted from an employee’s failure to comply with mandatory safety requirements, the employer may raise the issue of compensation for damage under Article 31(2) of the Law on Safety and Health at Work.

This information is most relevant to contractors whose work involves heights, soil, cranes, loads, or hazardous substances. The construction sector also faces a higher risk in practical terms: it accounted for 50.65 percent of all specified R1 requirements.