Correction. The article states that the pre-trial investigation was discontinued "in the absence of the consent of the competent institution, i.e. the Seimas", but omits the exception enshrined in Article 22(3) of the Statute of the Seimas — a Member of the Seimas may be held liable without consent where he or she is caught in the act of committing a criminal offence (in flagrante); this exception is inapplicable in this case, as the acts were not discovered in the course of their commission. It is also inaccurate to state that the prosecution's "appetite is growing" — the claim for EUR 5,105.44 formally encompasses the EUR 2,018 amount specified in the pre-trial charge; it is the same enrichment for the same period (17 December 2020 – 14 April 2023), assessed more broadly, rather than a new claim. It would be more accurate to say that the amount of the civil claim differs from the amount in the charge due to a different method of calculating the enrichment, which it will fall to the court to evaluate.
A. Nedzinskas currently faces not criminal liability but a civil claim: a prosecutor from the Vilnius District Prosecutor's Office has filed a claim for EUR 5,105.44 on grounds of unjust enrichment, seeking recovery of the amount for the Administration of the Trakai District Municipality. The criminal track stalled as early as 25 November 2025, when the pre-trial investigation was terminated in the absence of the Seimas's consent to prosecute a member of parliament; however, this does not bar civil liability — prosecutors' claims in defence of the public interest constitute a separate procedural avenue. The precise legal question for the court to resolve is whether the funds received for the activities of a council member from 17 December 2020 to 14 April 2023 constitute unjust enrichment without a legal basis under Article 6.242 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, and whether the defendant has grounds to rely on the exceptions of Article 6.241 of the Civil Code or the reduction provision of Article 6.242(2) of the Civil Code. The prosecutor's procedural basis is Article 49(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a prosecutor to bring an action in defence of the public interest.
Under Article 6.242(1) of the Civil Code, a person who has been unjustly enriched without a legal basis must compensate losses equal to the enrichment, and Article 6.237(3) of the Civil Code provides that property is to be returned in kind, or, if it has perished, in money representing its true value. The EUR 5,105.44 claimed by the Prosecutor's Office includes the EUR 2,018 indicated in the pre-trial investigation for fuel cheques paid with seven third-party payment cards; thus, the crux of the dispute will be whether the use of funds allocated to the activities of a council member had a legal basis. The defendant's position may be supported by Article 6.241(1)(3) of the Civil Code, under which property cannot be recovered from a person who received it from another person who knew that it was not obliged to perform the obligation, where this was consistent with standards of good morals — in practical terms, this means that deficiencies in the municipality's payment procedures may become a matter in dispute. If the court finds unjust enrichment, Article 6.240(1) of the Civil Code will oblige the defendant to pay annual interest at a rate of five per cent from the moment the defendant knew or ought to have known of the unjustified receipt of the money — accordingly, the Prosecutor's Office also seeks five per cent annual interest. From a procedural standpoint, the case is heard under Article 26 of the CPC: as the claim amount is below EUR 100,000, district court jurisdiction under Article 27(1) of the CPC does not apply, and the case is heard at first instance by a local court. The Administration of the Trakai District Municipality participates as a third party, since the recoverable sum goes to it rather than to the state — this is consistent with the logic of Article 49(4) of the CPC, under which persons concerned by an action brought in defence of the public interest are joined to the proceedings. The mediation, during which the defendant claims to have sought a compromise, takes place under Article 231 of the CPC on the court's own initiative or with the parties' consent, and under Article 18(1) of the Mediation Law its commencement suspends the limitation periods for the claim — this is relevant because the limitation of the claims is assessed under the ten-year general period of Article 1.125(1) of the Civil Code, so the claims for the 2020–2023 period are not yet time-barred. In the criminal context, the suspicion was based on the elements of Article 228 of the Criminal Code (abuse of office resulting in large-scale damage to a legal entity) and Article 229 of the Criminal Code (failure to perform official duties), but without the Seimas's consent these lines cannot be examined on immunity grounds; it should be assessed separately that Article 72(2) of the Criminal Code would permit confiscation of the proceeds of a prohibited act only upon conviction, whereas a civil claim requires no such prerequisite.
If the court awards the full EUR 5,105.44, A. Nedzinskas will additionally be liable for five per cent annual interest under Article 6.240 of the Civil Code and for litigation costs, and the money will go to the Administration of the Trakai District Municipality.
Correction. The claim "whose land, his the buildings" is presented as a universal rule, whereas under Article 4.40 of the Civil Code it applies only subject to the proviso "unless otherwise provided by law or contract" — a material qualification, because the rules on the spouses' property regime (Articles 3.88 and 3.89 of the Civil Code) are precisely such an "otherwise" provision. Moreover, even outside the spousal context the principle is not absolute: under Article 6.557 of the Civil Code, upon termination of a land lease where the buildings remain owned by the former lessee, the latter is entitled to an easement over the land — that is, the building need not follow the landowner. A more accurate formulation would be: the rule harmonising land and buildings is residual and applies only in the absence of specific statutory or contractual regulation, whereas in the case of spouses the primary consideration is the basis of acquisition of the property under Articles 3.88 and 3.89 of the Civil Code.
Under Article 3.109(3) of the Civil Code, a joint and several obligation does not arise where one spouse takes out a loan without the other spouse's consent when this is not necessary to meet common family needs.
Where personal property has been substantially improved during marriage by joint funds or the funds or labour of the other spouse, the court may recognise it as common under Article 3.90(1) of the Civil Code.
In such a situation, the loan is usually a joint and several obligation of both spouses owed to the creditor, while the house may remain registered in the name of only one spouse — these two regimes exist separately and do not intertwine. The practical risk for the spouses is twofold: the defendant may be liable with all of his or her assets for the joint loan, yet ownership of the house may appear in the register entry as belonging to one person only. The precise question here consists of two: (1) when does a loan taken during marriage become a joint obligation of the spouses under Article 3.109 of the Civil Code, and (2) when is a house built during marriage on one spouse's personal land plot recognised as common joint property under Articles 3.88 and 3.90 of the Civil Code. The answer is resolved under the marital property provisions of Book Three and the obligations provisions of Book Six of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania.
Under Article 3.109(3) of the Civil Code, a joint and several obligation does not arise where one spouse takes out a loan without the other's consent when this is not necessary to meet common family needs — thus, the consent of both spouses or the nature of the family's needs are the decisive circumstances. If the loan is a joint one, then under Article 3.109(1) of the Civil Code both obligations related to the maintenance of the family household and joint and several obligations of the spouses are enforced against the common property of the spouses. On the ownership side, Article 3.88(2) of the Civil Code establishes a presumption: property is presumed to be common joint property until it is proven to be personal, while paragraph 3 requires that both spouses be indicated as owners of common property in a public register. A plot of land donated to one spouse remains personal property under Article 3.89 of the Civil Code (as interpreted in the memorandum), but a house built on it with joint funds during marriage is assessed separately. Spouses use and dispose of common joint property by mutual agreement (Article 3.92(1) of the Civil Code), whereas the owner disposes of personal property at his or her own discretion (Article 3.97(1) of the Civil Code). In its ruling of 26 February 2026 in civil case No. e3K-3-2-781/2026, the Supreme Court of Lithuania held that not every investment in one spouse's personal house provides grounds to recognise the entire house as common — it may only be possible to decide on compensation for a substantial improvement. Upon division of property, Article 3.116(1) of the Civil Code permits the division of common joint property both between spouses who are married and between spouses whose marriage has been dissolved, whether by their agreement or by court judgment. Under Article 4.86(1) of the Civil Code, co-owners are obliged to jointly bear the expenses of maintaining the common property and are liable to third persons for obligations related to it.
The practical consequences depend on two separate assessments — obligations and ownership:
[TEISINIS_KLAUSIMAS] The regulation was initiated by the drafters of the legislative amendments, with the aim of updating the provisions of the Civil Code concerning the property relations of spouses and co-ownership in common, including the new Article 3.76¹. The principal objective is to balance the interests of spouses and their creditors: when a marriage is amended by mutual consent or a separation is confirmed, or when joint property is divided, it is necessary to protect creditors who have no opportunity to bring claims in court in respect of that property. The argumentation relied on the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania — for example, the position that outstanding joint and several obligations of spouses are not divided upon the division of property, and that former spouses remain co-debtors, since spouses may not settle their property relations at the expense of third parties (creditors).
Under Article 227(3) of the Criminal Code, a bribe exceeding 250 MSLs is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years, and under Article 52(2) of the Criminal Code the activities of a legal entity may be restricted for a period of one to five years.
Under Article 72(4) of the Criminal Code, confiscation may extend to a legal entity whose manager or participants include the offender, or members of his family or close relatives — directly relevant here given that the company is managed by the defendant's brother.
In this case, liability runs along two tracks: works manager E. Gudynas may be convicted under Article 227 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (bribery), while "Versiculus" itself may be held liable as a legal entity under Article 20 of the Criminal Code. The precise question is whether the EUR 3,000 sum, the wine and the snacks constitute a bribe "for desired favourable treatment," or a carelessly given gift, and which paragraph of Article 227 of the Criminal Code applies. Two provisions are decisive in resolving this: Article 227(3) of the Criminal Code provides for imprisonment of up to seven years where the bribe exceeds 250 MSLs (minimum monthly subsistence levels), while Article 230 of the Criminal Code establishes that a representative of the armed forces with administrative powers is equated to a public servant or a person of equivalent status. For a company whose revenue is generated exclusively from public procurement, the risk does not end with a fine — the penalties under Article 43(1) of the Criminal Code also apply, including restriction of activities under Article 52 of the Criminal Code for a period of one to five years, which would prohibit participation in certain transactions, likely including public procurement.
Under Article 20(2) of the Criminal Code, a legal entity is liable where a criminal act was committed for its benefit by a person entitled to represent it, to make decisions on its behalf, or to control its activities; under paragraph 3, liability may also arise where the act was committed by an employee at the direction or with the permission of a person in a managerial position, or as a result of insufficient supervision or control. This is why the prosecution frames the charges against the company itself, and attorney E. Vėbraitė was questioned as a company representative rather than as a defendant.
Upon a conviction finding the company guilty becoming final, the court could, under Article 43(1) of the Criminal Code, impose a fine, restriction of activities (under Article 52(2) of the Criminal Code — for one to five years), or liquidation (Article 53 of the Criminal Code); for serious crimes and crimes under Chapter XXXIII, the judgment must be published in the media (Article 43(2) of the Criminal Code).
[TEISINIS_KLAUSIMAS] The documents contain no information about any specific case involving a company or the bribery of a military representative — they comprise various interpretive letters on legal regulation (the repeal of the decriminalisation of bribery of foreign officials under the Convention, and provisions of criminal procedure concerning the protection of victims and notification of detention). [TEISINIS_PAGRINDAS] The drafters of the legislative proposals were the initiators, seeking to harmonise national law with international obligations and to strengthen the fight against corruption and the rights of victims. The principal argument was that immunity from liability for bribing a foreign official would be pointless, as foreign states often refuse to prosecute their own officials. [PRAKTIKA] However, since the documents are essentially unrelated to the indicated subject matter, I respond: [SKIP]
Correction. The news report states that, for the purposes of criminal law, a partner is regarded as a family member; however, this formulation is incomplete, as it fails to identify the necessary condition — cohabitation without a registered marriage. It would be more accurate to state that, under Article 141 of the Criminal Code, a family member is a person with whom the offender lives in a common household without having registered a marriage (partnership). Likewise, the statement that the judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeal of Lithuania within 20 days is presented without the full procedural context, without explaining the conditions for appealing the decisions of a regional court as a court of first instance.
Consequently, the case was not examined under the general provision of Article 129(1) of the Criminal Code (imprisonment from 7 to 15 years), but under Article 129(2)(3) — murder of a member of one's own family — which carries a penalty of 8 to 20 years' imprisonment or life imprisonment.
The judgment may be appealed to the Lithuanian Court of Appeal within 20 days of its pronouncement.
P. Gaižauskas was sentenced to imprisonment for murder, the qualification of which hinged on a single circumstance: the court found that N. Ambajevas was a member of his family. The precise legal question raised by this case is when persons who have not entered into marriage are regarded as family members within the meaning of criminal law; it is resolved by interpreting the wording of Article 129(2)(3), "a close relative or family member," as no other statutory definition of this concept is provided in the Criminal Code.
The court found that a partnership relationship existed and rejected the defendant's argument that the partnership displayed in TikTok broadcasts was merely a means of monetising content for the audience — this is a factual, not a legal, assessment which the appellate court could re-evaluate. The defendant admitted the fact (that he stabbed with a knife) but denied the qualifying circumstance; accordingly, the mitigating presumption under Article 61(4) of the Criminal Code cannot be applied to him in full — he denied the essential circumstance of qualification. The sentence was determined under Article 61(2), with a reasoned assessment of the balance between mitigating and aggravating circumstances; the situation under Article 39 does not apply to him, as he is not a first-time offender. Intoxication (2.3 per mille) does not negate intent — the court established direct intent rather than negligence, so the liability-mitigating threshold of Article 47(3)(5) is inapplicable. The victim was awarded EUR 944 in pecuniary damages and EUR 4,000 in non-pecuniary damages — this is a civil claim in a criminal case, the obligation for which, under Article 67(2)(4), may also be formalised as a measure of criminal impact.
The practical consequences differ for the defendant and for the victim's next of kin:
Correction. No specific correction is required for the analysis above; the legal question, the statutory basis and the administrative data are internally consistent. The only material gap remains the absence of the draft law's full text, which prevents a definitive assessment of the final scope of the amendments.
Under Article 72(1)(2) of the Law on Electricity, the network operator pays compensation only upon the consumer's request, and the right to compensation does not apply where transmission was interrupted due to force majeure circumstances.
Article 17(1)(4) of the Personal Income Tax Law treats allowances for natural disasters as non-taxable only where they are paid pursuant to decisions of state or municipal authorities.
The legal position of consumers left without electricity due to storms or other grid disruptions is currently grounded in Article 72-1 of the Law on Electricity of the Republic of Lithuania, which establishes direct obligations on network operators to restore transmission. Under Article 72-1(1), the transmission system operator must resume the transmission of electricity no later than within 12 hours, while distribution network operators must do so within 6 hours in cities with more than 80,000 inhabitants and in free economic zone territories, and within 12 hours in other territories. The legal question can be formulated as follows: whether the Seimas may, by statute, shorten the compensation-triggering deadline to 24 hours without a separate consumer request, and whether such compensation, as well as benevolently paid allowances for incurred expenses, will be exempt from taxation. The tax question is resolved under Article 17(1)(4) of the Law on Personal Income Tax of the Republic of Lithuania, while income related to insurance benefits is governed by Article 12 of the Law on Corporate Income Tax of the Republic of Lithuania.
Under Article 72-1(2), a network operator that fails to resume transmission within the time limits set out in paragraph 1 pays compensation to the consumer only "upon the consumer's request" — precisely this condition is the opposite of the model proposed for amendment in the Seimas. The same provision excludes from the right to compensation the essential scenario in this context: a transmission interruption caused by force majeure circumstances, as well as cases where supply was interrupted in order to prevent an accident or to remedy failures in the electricity system. A storm during which trees damage overhead lines may in practice be classified precisely under these exceptions, so statutory compensation under Article 72-1 may lawfully be absent — this explains why, after the 2024 storm, payments were organised as a benevolent arrangement between ESO and the Ministry of Energy rather than as an obligation enshrined in statute. The proposed model, under which the 24-hour deadline and automatic payment would be written into the statute, would mean that the operator's obligation would arise independently of a consumer request; however, the draft has not yet been adopted, so the request-based and exception-based construction remains in force. On the tax side, Article 17(1)(4) of the Personal Income Tax Law recognises allowances for natural disasters as non-taxable only on the condition that they are paid pursuant to decisions of state or municipal authorities — amounts paid autonomously by ESO as a commercial company do not automatically fall within this provision. If compensation is enshrined in statute and paid under its mechanism, its tax status will need to be assessed separately, because the condition in the quoted extract of Article 17 ties the exemption to a decision of a state or municipal authority. As regards business entities, Article 12(2) of the Corporate Income Tax Law treats insurance benefits not exceeding the value of lost property or incurred losses as non-taxable, and Article 12(8) treats contractual penalties (damages) as non-taxable, which is relevant where damage is compensated not in the form of an allowance but in the form of civil liability. The foundation of consumer rights is further shaped by Article 49(1) of the Law on Electricity, under which the state ensures consumers' right to the availability and sufficiency of electricity and protects their interests in relations with network operators — it is precisely this provision that constitutes the constitutional-level basis for strengthening statutory compensation measures. It should be assessed separately that Article 71(1) permits a network operator to interrupt transmission without fault of the users in order to protect the public interest, and the procedure for calculating and compensating the directly related justified losses is established by the Minister of Energy — this is a second, ministerial level of compensation regulation existing alongside Article 72-1.
If the amendments are adopted, three things would practically change for consumers:
The risk, which the initiator of the draft law himself identifies, is the shifting of costs onto consumers' bills, although after the 2024 storm, of the EUR 2 million allocated, residents claimed only EUR 1 million, indicating a relatively small share of compensation in the company's overall budget. For consumers, the most important practical conclusion for now: until the amendments enter into force, compensation under Article 72-1 is due only upon request and may be denied under the force majeure exception, so the legal basis and tax regime of amounts paid after natural disasters will depend on the manner in which they were paid.