Correction. The article's statement that "the inspection must be carried out by 10 October" sets out only the deadline for the autumn inspection, whereas paragraph 63.2 of STR 1.07.03:2017 provides for two annual inspections: a spring inspection after the snow has melted (63.2.1) and an autumn inspection by 10 October (63.2.2). More precisely, it should be formulated that the autumn inspection is carried out "in order to determine how the technical condition of hydrotechnical structures has changed over the summer–autumn period". Likewise, the statement that inspections are "always carried out after the snow has melted and after spring floods" is too broad: under paragraph 157 of the Rules for the Operation of Power Plants and Electrical Networks, the post-flood inspection is required only at power plants, not for all hydrotechnical structures.
Article 47-1(2) of the CAO: carrying out continuous maintenance without the required qualifications or equipment, or without civil liability insurance, attracts a warning or a fine of EUR 100 to EUR 300.
Article 515 of the CAO: violation of international sanctions or restrictive measures attracts a fine of EUR 200 to EUR 6,000 for individuals, and EUR 600 to EUR 6,000 for heads of legal entities.
In this news story, the legal position of individuals and companies is defined not by crisis scenarios but by everyday obligations: owners and users of hydraulic structures must carry out inspections and maintenance of the structures in a timely manner, as failure to do so may trigger administrative liability under the Lithuanian Republic's Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter – the CAO). The precise legal question arising from this story is: what sanctions apply where hydraulic or other potentially hazardous equipment and infrastructure structures are improperly maintained, and when such liability may escalate to the criminal level. In resolving this, the applicable provisions are Article 5 of the CAO (an administrative offence as a dangerous act prohibited and committed by the offender with culpability), Article 23 of the CAO (types of administrative penalties), Article 47-1 of the CAO (violations concerning the maintenance of potentially hazardous equipment), Article 264 of the CAO (violation of water protection requirements), Article 381 of the CAO (non-compliance with railway infrastructure requirements), as well as Articles 42 and 72 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, where the act attracts criminal liability.
Under Article 2(1) of the CAO, a natural person is liable if the act committed was prohibited by a legal act in force at the time of its commission, while Article 2(3) requires culpability – this means that an owner or user who has failed to carry out an inspection or to comply with maintenance requirements will be liable only where that obligation was imposed on them by a legal act. The specific sanctions under the cited sources are:
The type of penalty and the amount of the fine under Article 34 of the CAO are determined by the competent authority or court, taking into account the nature of the offence, the form of culpability, and mitigating and aggravating circumstances; where only mitigating circumstances exist, a fine not exceeding the average may be imposed, and where only aggravating circumstances exist, a fine not lower than the average. Confiscation under Article 29(3) of the CAO is possible only where provided for in a provision of the Special Part – for example, Article 514-1(8) of the CAO allows the confiscation of unlawfully obtained visual information and the equipment used to obtain it, while Article 515(3) of the CAO allows confiscation of the instrument, goods, or funds used in the offence. Where the act attracts criminal liability, administrative liability does not apply pursuant to Article 5(2) of the CAO, while Article 42 of the Criminal Code sets out the types of penalties – from community service to imprisonment – and Article 72 of the Criminal Code permits the confiscation of the instrument, means, or result of the offence, including property transferred to third parties who knew of its intended purpose.
In practical terms, for owners and users of hydraulic structures in the Marijampolė municipality, the risks relate to three matters:
The annex to the Ukmergė district municipality's climate change adaptation plan states that improperly installed or worn-out culverts may lead to the washout of road embankments – this provides a practical basis for municipalities to demand repairs and reconstruction, as is being done in respect of the dam of the Marijampolė II pond on Marių Street. The question of amending the legal framework raised at the Ministry of Transport forum indicates that new or stricter obligations for infrastructure managers may emerge in the future; however, at present this remains a declaratory position rather than an applicable norm. The resolution of the Marijampolė municipal council on the implementation of the reconstruction project of the Marijampolė II pond dam – the story states that the main stages of the works are expected to be completed in 2027, so in the coming months one should expect the appointment of a contractor selected through a tender procedure and the approval of the design documentation.
Correction. The article's assertion that the investigation is "organised and directed" by a prosecutor of the Organised Crime and Corruption Investigation Division is a deliberate specification, but the general rule is broader: under Article 164(1) of the CCP, the pre-trial investigation is organised and directed by a prosecutor, which, under Article 16(1) of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office, applies to any prosecutor, not only to one specialised in the division. It would be more accurate to state that the authority to direct the investigation derives from Article 164(1) of the CCP, and that this case was assigned to the specialised division because of indications of organised crime. It should also be distinguished that the wording of the charges — "with the aim of distributing them" and "in large and very large quantities" — corresponds to different penalties under the Criminal Code, namely imprisonment of 8 to 10 years and 10 to 15 years respectively, and the article does not explain the relationship between these offences.
Under Article 72³(2) CC, extended confiscation may also cover assets acquired within five years prior to the offence, where the difference between their value and the person's lawful income exceeds 250 times the MMW and the suspect fails to substantiate the lawfulness of their acquisition.
Under Article 47(6) CC, the fine imposed may not be less than the value of the subject matter of the criminal act, the damage caused, or the benefit obtained (or sought to be obtained).
In this case, five suspects have been charged under Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (CC) — for the unlawful handling of narcotic or psychotropic substances with the intent to distribute them, as well as for handling large and very large quantities. The subject of the investigation is approximately 2.7 kg of substances, valued at EUR 200,000 on the illegal market. The precise legal issue is under which paragraph of Article 260 CC each individual's conduct will be qualified, as the sanctions differ substantially: under Article 260(1), imprisonment from two to eight years is faced; under Article 260(2) (large quantity), from eight to ten years; and under Article 260(3) (very large quantity), from ten to fifteen years. The distinction between "with the intent to distribute" and "without such intent" is decisive: under Article 259 CC, possession without intent to distribute is punished far more leniently — by arrest, a fine, or public works, or imprisonment of up to two years.
The charges brought encompass two paragraphs of Article 260, and therefore the prosecutor will have to substantiate, separately for each individual, both the intent to distribute and the quantity category. The factual matrix of the case — settlements in cryptocurrency, stash locations provided by coordinates, 43 buried vacuum-sealed packages, electronic scales, and vacuum-sealing devices — constitutes the indicators by which the intent to distribute is to be proven. The pre-trial investigation is organised and led by a prosecutor of the Organised Crime and Corruption Investigation Division of the Klaipėda District Prosecutor's Office. The property dimension is no less significant here: under Article 72(2) and (3) CC, the instrument, means, and proceeds of the criminal act belonging to the offender must be confiscated in all cases, while under Article 72³(2) CC, extended confiscation may also cover assets acquired within five years prior to the offence, where the difference between their value and the person's lawful income exceeds 250 times the minimum monthly wage (MMW) and the suspect fails to substantiate the lawfulness of their acquisition. To ensure that confiscation is enforced, the prosecutor may apply Article 151(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure — a temporary restriction of ownership rights. The provision of Article 47(6) CC must also be assessed separately: for offences under Chapter XXXIII, the fine imposed may not be less than the value of the subject matter of the criminal act, the damage caused, or the benefit obtained (or sought to be obtained) — in this case, a benchmark linked to the same EUR 200,000 figure. The risk under Article 261 CC must also be considered: should the evidence reveal data concerning distribution to minors, the sanction would rise to imprisonment from three to twelve years.
The five individuals practically face:
These consequences are significant for the suspects themselves, as well as for participants in the cryptocurrency payment chain, since such data facilitate the disclosure of assets derived from the offence. The suspects' ages (22–27) may be relevant only at the stage of individualisation of the penalty.
Under Article 33(1) GDPR, the data controller must notify the supervisory authority of a personal data breach no later than 72 hours after becoming aware of it.
Since the NŠA is a public authority, the maximum administrative fine under Article 33 of the Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data is EUR 30,000 or EUR 60,000, depending on the paragraph of Article 83 GDPR infringed.
The NŠA, as a public authority and the likely data controller, faces GDPR liability in this situation for a potential personal data security breach, but the practical consequences depend on whether unauthorised access to the data actually occurred. Under Article 4(12) GDPR, a personal data breach includes cases where data are "subjected to unauthorised access"; accordingly, a software error enabling other users to view data belonging to other accounts may satisfy this definition even without a hack. The precise legal question is whether the NŠA complied with the obligation under Article 33(1) GDPR to notify the supervisory authority (the State Data Protection Inspectorate) within 72 hours, and with the obligation enshrined in Article 24 GDPR to implement appropriate technical measures that would have prevented such an error. Since the NŠA is a public authority, the amount of the administrative fine is determined by Article 33 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data — up to 0.5% of annual income, but not more than EUR 30,000 (for infringement of Articles 83(4)(a)–(c) GDPR) or up to 1%, but not more than EUR 60,000 (for infringement of Articles 83(5)(a)–(e)).
The data controller's obligations in this situation are distributed as follows:
The most realistic scenario is that the SDPI, having received the NŠA's notification, assesses whether the breach posed a risk to individuals' rights and, taking into account the limited scope and the mitigation measures, may confine itself to a reprimand instead of a fine, since recital 148 of the GDPR preamble expressly provides that in the case of a minor infringement a reprimand may be issued instead of a fine. If the SDPI finds that the technical measures were inadequate, an administrative fine is possible under Article 33 of the Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data — up to EUR 30,000 or up to EUR 60,000, depending on the provision infringed. For the data subjects holding the accounts, the following is practically relevant: they have already been informed, they have the right under Article 15 GDPR to access the data processed about them, and under Article 79 GDPR they may go to court for compensation if they suffer damage. The system is currently inaccessible; it would be advisable to await the NŠA's report on the results of an independent software audit and the SDPI's decision on whether the incident is treated as a security breach to which the procedures of Articles 33–34 apply.
Under the LILE, the creditor must submit its claim and the documents supporting it to the insolvency administrator within 30 days from the date of publication of the court ruling instituting the proceedings.
Article 25(1) of the LCIT allows a debt to be treated as bad where the taxpayer cannot recover it after at least one year has elapsed, or where the debtor is in bankruptcy, in both cases requiring proof of hopelessness and efforts to recover.
The debtor company's bankruptcy proceedings directly alter the legal position of the creditor – the company that issued the invoice: from now on, individual enforcement is no longer available; instead, the collective process established by the Law on Insolvency of Legal Entities (LILE) applies. The creditor can no longer demand the debt individually, and the final amount it receives will depend on the value of the bankrupt company's assets and on whether it submits its claim in the bankruptcy proceedings in due time. A separate question arises in the tax sphere: whether this debt can already be recognised as hopeless (bad) under Article 25 of the Law on Corporate Income Tax (LCIT) and Article 89-1 of the Law on Value Added Tax (LVAT).
The claim must state the basis and amount of the obligation, with the principal debt, interest, and default penalties calculated separately, and must be accompanied by contracts, invoices, acceptance acts, and correspondence. Creditors' claims are confirmed by the court – under Article 42(2) of the LILE, undisputed claims are confirmed no later than 20 days after their receipt. A creditor holding confirmed claims acquires, under Article 43 of the LILE, the right to participate and vote at creditors' meetings, to receive information on the financial condition, to seek damages from the management bodies or the administrator, and to apply for restrictions on the duties of the director. The mechanism for convening meetings is governed by Article 46 of the LILE: a meeting may be requested by creditors whose claims constitute at least 1/10 of the total sum of all claims confirmed by the court, or, if the administrator does not agree to convene a meeting, by creditors whose claims exceed 1/2 of the total. Notice of the meeting must be given at least 14 days in advance (Article 47 of the LILE). The order of satisfaction under Article 94 of the LILE: the holder of a pledge is satisfied first out of the pledged assets; the first rank covers new and interim financing, employee claims, social insurance contributions, and obligations arising from activities carried out during the insolvency process; the second rank covers all other creditors. Each rank is divided in two: amounts without interest and penalties are satisfied first, and only then those items. If funds are insufficient, claims of the same rank are satisfied proportionally, so earlier filing of the claim confers no priority. As regards bad debt for tax purposes: Article 25(1) of the LCIT allows a debt to be treated as bad where the taxpayer cannot recover it after at least one year has elapsed, or where the debtor is in bankruptcy; in both cases the taxpayer must prove hopelessness and efforts to recover. Point 5.5 of the LCIT commentary explains that, in respect of a legal entity, a debt is to be regarded as bad when the court, having declared the company bankrupt, confirms the amount of the creditor's claims, or when the creditors decide to liquidate the company and the administrator determines that funds are insufficient to satisfy the claims. Thus, an issued invoice is not yet "bad" at the moment the bankruptcy proceedings are instituted – the tax moment is linked to the confirmation of the amount of claims or the established absence of funds. Furthermore, under Article 89-1 of the LVAT, the output VAT portion may be adjusted only after at least 12 calendar months have elapsed from the moment of taxation, except in the exceptions provided by law. Bad debts constitute a deductible item subject to a cap under Article 17(2)(7) of the LCIT.
Practical set of actions for the creditor:
The actual amount recovered will depend on the value of the assets, the volume of pledged assets, and the ranking of creditors – a supplier's claim usually falls into the second rank and is satisfied proportionally.
[TEISINIS_KLAUSIMAS] The regulation was initiated by members of the Seimas with the aim of eliminating the unequal treatment between finance companies granting consumer credit and credit institutions (banks and credit unions) in the taxation of provisions for doubtful assets with corporate income tax. Under the Corporate Income Tax Law then in force, only credit institutions were permitted to deduct special provisions from taxable income. Consequently, non-bank finance companies whose clients failed to meet their obligations found themselves in a discriminatory position from a tax perspective, in breach of the principle of equality. The purpose of the draft legislation was to harmonise the regulation of permissible deductions so that all participants in the credit market could recognise provisions for doubtful claims (i.e. claims unlikely to be recovered), for example due to a client's insolvency or bankruptcy. [TEISINIS_PAGRINDAS] [PRAKTIKA] [TIKSLINIMAS] [PRAKTINE_REIKSME]
Under Article 6.270(1) of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, a person whose activities involve the use of explosive substances must compensate for the damage unless they prove that it arose from force majeure or from the intent or gross negligence of the injured party.
In the case of a Ukrainian drone that crashed and exploded in the Pasvalys district, civil liability for damage to the damaged car will be resolved under the rules governing liability for sources of increased danger, rather than under ordinary fault-based liability. The more precise legal question raised by this story is: who is considered the "possessor" of the drone, and does the apology by the Ukrainian state create any basis for civil or criminal liability in Lithuania. The subject of liability is determined under Article 6.270(2) of the Civil Code — it is the person who possesses the source by right of ownership, trust, or another lawful basis, not the state that merely apologized diplomatically.
The injured car owner has the right to demand compensation from the possessor of the drone without having to prove fault — liability under Article 6.270 of the Civil Code is objective, based on the principle of risk. The possessor is released from liability only by proving one of two grounds: force majeure, which under Article 6.253(2) of the Civil Code means circumstances that are unavoidable, uncontrollable, and insurmountable, or the intent or gross negligence of the injured party. If the drone was unlawfully taken possession of, or its possession was lost due to the unlawful acts of other persons, Article 6.270(3) of the Civil Code applies — in that case, the person who unlawfully took possession of the source is liable for the damage, and where the possessor is also at fault, liability is joint and several. From a criminal perspective, the explosion of the drone that damaged a civilian car may be classified as destruction of or damage to property by a generally dangerous method under Article 187(2) of the Criminal Code, which carries a custodial penalty of up to five years. If only property of low value was destroyed, Article 187(3) of the Criminal Code applies — a criminal misdemeanor; however, under Article 187(4), prosecution in that case is initiated only upon a complaint from the injured party or a prosecutor's demand. If the drone's crash is to be assessed as negligence, the elements of Article 188(1) of the Criminal Code may apply — damage to property through negligence causing significant material harm, which likewise requires a complaint from the injured party under Article 188(3). Ukraine's apology does not in itself create any legal obligation — it is a political gesture, and compensation remains a separate civil claim that the injured person must bring themselves.
In practice, the car owner's course of action is a civil claim against the drone's possessor or the insurer, and the amount of damage will be determined under the general rules of civil procedure. If the possessor proves force majeure or that possession was lost due to the unlawful acts of third parties, liability under Article 6.253 of the Civil Code or Article 6.270(3) may be excluded entirely or shift to another person. Criminal prosecution for the consequences of the explosion will in practice depend on whether a perpetrator of the specific offence can be identified within Lithuanian jurisdiction, and on the injured party's complaint if the act is to be classified under Article 187(3) or Article 188 of the Criminal Code.