Legal prism — 2026-10-10

Article 8(b)(i) and (ii) of the Rome Statute prohibit intentionally directing attacks against civilians not taking direct part in hostilities and against civilian objects, namely objects that are not military objectives.

Article 2 of the Law on the Status of Foreign Diplomatic Missions in the Republic of Lithuania grants embassy personnel the privileges and immunities of the Vienna Convention; accordingly, the note is the only direct legal measure against the representative personally.

Core issue

The protest note delivered by the Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to a representative of the Russian Embassy is a form of diplomatic measure by which a state officially records violations of international humanitarian law and demands that they cease; however, in itself it creates no criminal or material liability. The true legal significance of this communication is twofold: it documents the basis for Russia’s responsibility and Lithuania’s duty, as a party to the Geneva Conventions, to act against grave breaches of those Conventions. The more precise legal question arising from this matter is whether intentional strikes against residential buildings in Pryluky and public transport in Kramatorsk meet the definition of war crimes, and under which rules the perpetrators of such acts may be held liable. The assessment will apply Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, both of which are identified in the Ministry’s statement.

Legal assessment

Article 8(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Rome Statute classify wilful killing and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, i.e. war crimes. A residential building and public transport carrying civilians are civilian objects under these provisions, and the number of deaths, more than two dozen in Pryluky, including five children, and more than three dozen in Kramatorsk, satisfies the indicators of a large-scale violation. The duty referred to in the Ministry’s note to “take all necessary precautions” reflects a provision of the Additional Protocol which, according to the sources, the Ministry cites as strictly obliging the parties to protect the civilian population and civilian objects against the dangers arising from military operations. Lithuania’s duties in the context of martial law or armed conflict are established in Article 31(1) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Martial Law: state and municipal institutions must comply with, and within their competence ensure that all persons subject to Lithuanian jurisdiction comply with, universally recognised norms and principles of international humanitarian law. The procedure for delivering the note is based on Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Diplomatic Service, the legal basis of which consists of the Constitution, laws and international treaties, including the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The representative of the Russian Embassy in Vilnius acts under Article 2 of the Law on the Status of Foreign Diplomatic Missions in the Republic of Lithuania, which grants him the privileges and immunities of the Vienna Convention; accordingly, the note is the only direct legal measure against the representative personally, as he is not subject to Lithuanian jurisdiction for criminal prosecution. At the same time, Article 3 of that law obliges mission personnel to respect the Constitution and laws of Lithuania, while Article 12(1)(3) of the Law on the Diplomatic Service assigns to a diplomatic mission the function of negotiating with the government of the receiving state; the reverse channel, MFA to embassy, is a customary means of communicating a state’s position.

Consequences

The note does not create a procedure that would result in the judicial conviction of Russian officials in Lithuania; criminal liability, as the Ministry emphasises, remains a matter for international criminal justice or the jurisdiction of the responsible state, while Lithuania’s measures at this stage are diplomatic in nature. In practical terms, this means:

• The Russian Embassy may fail to respond to the note or may respond by denying it; diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention means that its implementation cannot be compelled.
• The qualification under Article 8 of the Rome Statute means that evidence collected in relation to these strikes may be used in future international proceedings, irrespective of the diplomatic fate of the note.

Liability under Article 123-1(1) of the Criminal Code takes the form of punishment by a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to five years, while under paragraph 2 liability may arise even through negligence.

Under Article 52(2) of the Criminal Code, the penalty of restricting a legal person’s activities may be imposed for a period of between one and five years.

Core issue

For the entities concerned, this information does not yet give rise to direct legal risk in Lithuania: the charges have been brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, not by Lithuanian or other Member State authorities, and therefore this is not, at this stage, a determination of guilt and does not create an automatic prohibition on using the company’s products. The actual legal position is twofold: the U.S.-registered company Oxygen Forensics will face the consequences of the indictment process in the U.S. system, including seized accounts, domains, and infrastructure, while in Europe the central question is whether Lithuanian and other law-enforcement bodies may continue using this software and whether such use may trigger liability under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. The precise issues that may have to be assessed in Lithuania are twofold: first, whether trading or providing services with an entity controlled from Russia breaches international sanctions implemented in the Republic of Lithuania, which would be assessed under Article 123-1 of the Criminal Code; and second, if such conduct were established, what penalties would apply to a legal person under Article 43 of the Criminal Code. The risk would not be limited to the company itself: under Article 123-1(2) of the Criminal Code, liability for breach of sanctions may arise even through negligence, and paragraph 3 provides that legal persons are also liable for these acts.

Legal assessment

If it were established that a Lithuanian institution or undertaking entered into transactions with an entity subject to international sanctions and that substantial damage resulted, liability under Article 123-1(1) of the Criminal Code would take the form of punishment by a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to five years. The absence of any requirement to prove damage under this provision is defined only for the first scenario: where a prohibition on a person entering the territory of a Member State is breached, it is sufficient that the conditions for entry or transit were created, without the need to prove damage. For a legal person, Article 43(1) of the Criminal Code provides for three possible penalties: a fine, restriction of activities, or liquidation, and only one penalty may be imposed for a single criminal offence under Article 43(3). Article 52(1) of the Criminal Code would allow the court to prohibit a legal person from engaging in certain activities or to revoke permits or licences, while Article 52(2) sets the applicable term at between one and five years. The most extreme measure, liquidation under Article 53 of the Criminal Code, entails an obligation to terminate all economic and financial activity within the time limit set by the court. From an asset perspective, two provisions are relevant: Article 72(2) of the Criminal Code treats as confiscable property any instrument, means, or proceeds of a prohibited act, while Article 72-3, concerning extended confiscation, applies only to a natural offender convicted of a less serious, serious, or very serious intentional offence where the difference between the property held and lawful income exceeds 250 MGL during the five years preceding the offence. The fact that the charges brought in the United States do not map directly onto Lithuanian legal provisions means that there is no direct transposition mechanism here; Article 8 of the Criminal Code regulates only the liability of a natural person for acts committed abroad under Articles 5 and 51 and would apply only to a limited extent in this situation, since the issue concerns a legal person and the circumstances of its control, rather than the enforcement of a sentence imposed abroad on an individual. It should be noted that the sources provided contain neither Lithuanian case law nor the text of EU sanctions instruments, and therefore any specific analysis of the application of sanctions to this supplier can be based only on the wording of Article 123-1 of the Criminal Code itself.

Consequences

In practical terms, the most important scenarios for Lithuanian users and purchasers are as follows:

• if it is established that transactions with this supplier breach implemented international sanctions and cause substantial damage, the institution or its managers may face liability under Article 123-1(1) of the Criminal Code: a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest, or imprisonment for up to five years;
• for a legal person, under Article 43 of the Criminal Code, the court could impose a fine, restriction of activities for up to five years under Article 52(2), or liquidation under Article 53;
• the software used may be treated as an instrument or means of a prohibited act under Article 72(2) of the Criminal Code and confiscated, irrespective of formal ownership, if the conditions set out in Article 72(4) are met.

In such cases, liability under Article 244 of the Criminal Code is also relevant: the manager or responsible employee of a legal person who fails to comply with an imposed penalty or penal measure, except confiscation of property and extended confiscation, commits a criminal misdemeanour. In the context of the presumption of innocence, it is important that the U.S. charging document itself states that the charges do not amount to a finding that the product contains malicious code. This means that decisions by Lithuanian institutions to discontinue use may be based on a risk assessment rather than on a final and binding conviction.

Under Article 48(1) of the CCP, defence counsel has the right to communicate without obstruction and to meet privately with the detained person, with no limitation on the number or duration of meetings.

Article 90(7) of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence of imprisonment imposed on a minor may not exceed ten years, while Article 82 of the Criminal Code allows the court to impose no more than three educational measures.

Core issue

For an arrested minor for whom the participation of defence counsel is mandatory, the law guarantees not the formal presence of a lawyer in the case, but actual defence: unhindered communication with counsel, with no limitation on the number or duration of meetings, and the participation of a legal representative. The real legal question in this situation is whether the lawyer’s failure to meet with the detained client breaches counsel’s duties under Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the right to defence under Article 10 of the CCP, as well as how the family may challenge the suitability of appointed counsel under Article 21 of the Law on State-Guaranteed Legal Aid. The mother’s position as a legal representative under Articles 53 and 54 of the CCP, and the legal basis for the lawyer’s threat of a fine for the risk of disclosing pre-trial investigation data, are also at issue; however, since the sources do not provide the provision establishing such a sanction, it cannot be analysed.

Legal assessment

Under Article 10(1) of the CCP, the right to defence is guaranteed immediately from the moment of arrest or the first interrogation, while paragraph 2 obliges the court, prosecutor and pre-trial investigation officer to take the necessary measures to secure that right. The tools available to defence counsel are listed in Article 48(1) of the CCP:

• to meet privately with the suspect before an interrogation or court hearing;
• to communicate and meet without obstruction with the detained person, with no limitation on the number or duration of meetings;
• to participate in interrogations and other procedural acts involving the suspect, to ask questions and to make statements. Although the sources contain no rule directly requiring a lawyer to visit a detained person, Article 50(1) of the CCP requires that a detained person be afforded the opportunity to meet with defence counsel before the first interrogation; this indicates that actual contact is regarded as an essential part of the defence, not as an option. The mother’s status also has substantive content: under Article 53(1) and (2) of the CCP, parents may participate in the proceedings and defend the interests of the minor, while Article 54(1) of the CCP gives her the right to accompany her son throughout the proceedings, participate in procedural acts, and receive information about the minor’s rights; she may meet with the detained person with the permission of an officer, prosecutor or judge. The mechanism for replacing appointed counsel is reflected indirectly in the sources: Article 21(2) of the Law on State-Guaranteed Legal Aid provides that the service selects a lawyer from the lists, and, as an authorised representative for a minor, a lawyer who has completed specialised training for work with minors. The outcome of the case for the minor will depend on the specific sentencing rules set out in Article 90 of the Criminal Code: a fine of only 5 to 50 MSL, arrest from 5 to 45 days, imprisonment for no more than 10 years, while Article 82 of the Criminal Code allows the court instead to impose up to three educational measures, including placing the minor under parental care and supervision for upbringing. Article 93 of the Criminal Code also opens a route to exemption from criminal liability for a minor who has committed a minor or less serious offence for the first time, but such a decision may depend on a defence that prepares evidence of compensated damage or admitted guilt and remorse.

Consequences

In practice, the family has several courses of action supported by the cited provisions:

• the mother, as legal representative, may request information about her son’s rights and participate in the proceedings under Article 54 of the CCP, regardless of the lawyer’s position;
• where counsel fails to exercise the rights set out in Article 48 of the CCP, a complaint may be submitted to the Bar Association; as the head of the centre also states in the report, this complaint route exists, although its effectiveness is viewed sceptically;
• the issue of replacing counsel is handled through the service under Article 21 of the Law on State-Guaranteed Legal Aid, but the report states that in practice this requires “substantial” grounds and is rarely successful. For the minor, the principal consequence of the quality of defence is substantive: whether counsel actually cooperates with the client may determine whether the custodial sentencing limits under Article 90 of the Criminal Code apply, whether lighter measures under Article 82 are imposed, or whether exemption from liability under Article 93 is granted. Monitoring point: the further course will depend on whether the family or a non-governmental organisation submits a complaint regarding counsel’s conduct to the Bar Association or a request to the service to review the appointment under Article 21 of the Law on State-Guaranteed Legal Aid; the expected document would be a decision by the Bar Association or the service on counsel’s suitability.

Under Article 4(1) of the Law on Public Institutions, only a person who has transferred a contribution to the institution in accordance with the procedure established in the articles of association becomes a stakeholder of a public institution, and the declared amount of EUR 1.5 million is the form in which that contribution is implemented.

Under Article 3(2)(3) of the Law on Public Institutions, it is prohibited to transfer the assets of a public institution to a stakeholder at a price below market value as determined under the Law on the Fundamentals of Property and Business Valuation.

Core issue

“Rytas” operates as a public institution; accordingly, Civinity’s admission as a stakeholder is assessed not by reference to the logic applicable to joint-stock companies, but under the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Public Institutions, i.e. through the transfer of a contribution and the acquisition of stakeholder rights “on other grounds”. This gives rise to the principal consequence: only a person who has transferred a contribution to the institution in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Law on Public Institutions may become a stakeholder of the club, and the declared amount of EUR 1.5 million is the form in which that contribution is implemented. The more precise legal issue to be addressed by the transaction parties and auditors has two parts: (1) whether the procedure for the transfer of stakeholder rights and the admission of a new stakeholder complied with the articles of association and with the competence of the general meeting of stakeholders laid down in Article 12 of the Law on Public Institutions; (2) whether the stakeholders, in particular Vilnius City Municipality, are under an obligation to apply Article 3(2)(3) of the Law on Public Institutions, which prohibits the transfer of a public institution’s assets to a stakeholder at a price below market value as determined under the Law on the Fundamentals of Property and Business Valuation. Since the EUR 1.5 million is to be paid in instalments, and the financial terms are to be disclosed only after completion of the transaction, the issue of whether the price and asset transfer comply with market value will be the principal tax and municipal oversight risk.

Legal assessment

Under Article 4(4) of the Law on Public Institutions, a stakeholder has the right to transfer stakeholder rights; therefore, existing stakeholders may transfer interests to Civinity, but the procedure for the transfer of those rights must be governed by the articles of association and the law.

• Under Article 12(1) of the Law on Public Institutions, the general meeting of stakeholders decides matters such as amendments to the articles of association, appointment of the head of the institution, and transfer or lease of fixed assets; the approval of the new stakeholder by the meeting, as mentioned in the notice, means that the decision has already been adopted within the competence of that body.
• Under Article 1(4)–(5) of the Law on Public Institutions, the provisions of Articles 14–19 apply to those public institutions in which the State or a municipality holds more than 1/2 of the votes, and, where it holds 1/2 or less, only if the general meeting of stakeholders so decides; in Rytas, Vilnius City Municipality will hold 16 out of 81 interests, approximately 19.8%, meaning that these special governance requirements apply only if the meeting adopts a decision to that effect.
• Under Article 3(1) of the Law on Public Institutions, a public institution exercises civil rights only through its governing bodies and may not exercise them through its stakeholders; this means that the documentation for the contribution payment and transfer of interests must be aligned with the competence of the bodies established in the articles of association.
• Under Article 3(2)(3) of the Law on Public Institutions, the transfer of assets to a stakeholder below market value is prohibited; if part of the transaction involves the transfer or use of infrastructure assets by Civinity, this provision will be directly assessed.
• From a tax perspective, if the acquisition price of the interests does not correspond to the true market price, or if the transaction involves associated persons, Article 40(1) of the Law on Corporate Income Tax applies, requiring income and expenses to be recognised at true market value, together with Article 40(2) on the recalculation of terms agreed with associated persons.
• As regards payment partly in cash, the question whether this constitutes a taxable supply is assessed under Article 5(1) of the Law on VAT, concerning supply for consideration, and Article 15(1), under which the taxable amount is the consideration received or receivable by the seller; where consideration is non-cash, it is valued as the consideration that would have been received in cash.
• The sources provided do not identify any court decision concerning a comparable transfer of interests in public institutions; therefore, this analysis cannot rely on precedent.

Consequences

Procedurally, completion of the transaction is expected: the first contribution will confer 13 interests, while two subsequent payments will confer 41 votes, or 50.6%; accordingly, the control point will be the moment at which each payment is made, because the scope of the interests depends on those payments.

• The financial details will be disclosed only after completion of the transaction; only then will it be possible to assess objectively whether the EUR 1.5 million amount corresponds to market value within the meaning of Article 3(2)(3) of the Law on Public Institutions and Article 40 of the Law on Corporate Income Tax. Until then, the risk remains unassessed.
• As a stakeholder, the municipality will not have majority control; therefore, the special rules in Articles 14–19 of the Law on Public Institutions will apply to it only on its own initiative. However, it retains the non-property rights under Article 4(3), namely the right to apply to court for annulment of meeting resolutions or transactions by governing bodies if they are contrary to the articles of association or the principle of good faith.
• If Civinity later becomes involved in the operation of the national stadium, that will constitute a separate issue of public procurement and asset-transfer assessment; the group itself states in the announcement that the scope of responsibility has not yet been agreed.

Correction. The statement that “currently compensation is due if electricity supply is not restored within 72 hours” is incomplete and misleading: the 72-hour threshold applies only to interruptions of transmission caused by natural phenomena or fire under Article 72-1 paragraph 3. The general restoration period under paragraph 1 is 6 hours, and compensation under paragraph 2 is due where that period is breached. A more precise formulation would be: “where transmission is interrupted due to natural phenomena, compensation is due if supply is not restored within 72 hours, or, from 2027, within 48 hours, while in other cases a 6-hour period applies.” The news item also does not specify the amount of compensation or the method of calculation, without which it is impossible to assess what the “automatic” award of compensation would change in practice.

Under Article 17(1)(4) of the Law on Personal Income Tax, compensation in amounts established by laws or other legal acts, as well as compensation whose payment is regulated by laws and Government resolutions, is non-taxable.

Under Article 50(3) of the Law on Electricity, compliance by operators with transmission reliability and service quality requirements is supervised by the Council, and persons failing to comply with those requirements are liable in accordance with the procedure laid down by law.

Core issue

Following the August storm, when more than 268,000 ESO consumers were left without electricity, the question arose whether the existing compensation system protects consumers sufficiently, and a proposal has been made in the Seimas to shorten the period from 72 hours to 24 hours and to award compensation automatically. Legally, this would mean amending the consumer protection provisions of the Law on Electricity of the Republic of Lithuania: their basis is the obligation of operators under Article 50 of the Law on Electricity to ensure the safe, reliable and uninterrupted transmission of electricity up to the ownership boundary of the consumer’s facility. The precise legal question for the legislature is what duration of failure to restore supply should trigger an obligation to compensate, and whether compensation should be paid automatically, without an application by the consumer. A secondary question is whether such compensation would be subject to personal income tax, as this determines the real value of the compensation.

Legal assessment

Under Article 50(1) of the Law on Electricity, the distribution network operator (ESO) must ensure uninterrupted transmission up to the ownership boundary of the consumer’s facility, and interruption of supply is permitted only in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law and its implementing legislation. A mass supply disruption caused by a storm is not in itself inconsistent with that obligation if the operator complied with the prescribed reliability requirements. Under Article 50(3), compliance by network operators with transmission reliability and service quality requirements is supervised and controlled by the Council, and persons failing to comply with those requirements are liable in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. This means that shortening the compensation period does not, in itself, punish ESO, but a shortened threshold would increase the scope for enforcement of liability. The basis for consumer protection is supplemented by Article 49(1), under which the State ensures consumers’ right to the accessibility and sufficiency of electricity and protects their interests in relations with network operators. As to taxation: under Article 17(1)(4) of the Law on Personal Income Tax, compensation in amounts established by laws or other legal acts, as well as compensation whose amounts are not established but whose payment is regulated by laws and Government resolutions, is non-taxable. If compensation for an electricity supply disruption is regulated by law or by Government resolution, it should fall within this exemption for the consumer. The sources provided contain no case law on comparable situations, and therefore no precedent is cited in this analysis.

Consequences

If the Seimas adopted the proposed amendment, the practical consequences for consumers and the operator would be as follows:

• consumers would become entitled to compensation after a supply disruption lasting 24 hours, and in the case of the 268,000 consumers affected by the August storm, most would fall within the scope of compensation;
• compensation would be awarded automatically, meaning that the consumer would not need to submit a separate application, thereby shifting the administrative burden to the operator;
• ESO would face larger volumes of payouts and a stronger incentive to restore supply more quickly;
• the taxation of compensation would depend on whether the procedure for its payment is regulated by law or by Government resolution within the meaning of Article 17(1)(4) of the Law on Personal Income Tax;
• under Article 50(3) of the Law on Electricity, the Council would remain the institution assessing whether the operator complied with reliability requirements.