Legal prism — 2026-09-11

The greatest practical risk arises from bribes exceeding 250 MGL, because in such cases Article 225(3) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania provides for imprisonment from two to eight years.

Under Article 43(1) of the Criminal Code, a legal person may be subject to a fine, restriction of activities, or liquidation.

Core issue

The case against the accused is already moving to the trial stage; therefore, their position will be determined not by the wording of the STT notice, but by the bribery episodes proven in the indictment. The news fact is narrow: the prosecutor has drawn up the indictment and referred the case to the Vilnius Regional Court. The precise legal question will be whether VAATC employees are to be regarded as persons equivalent to civil servants under Article 230 of the Criminal Code, and whether the money transferred to them constituted bribes for unlawful inaction in the exercise of their powers. The liability of the bribe-givers and the intermediary will be distinguished according to their roles:

• Article 225 of the Criminal Code on bribery applies to the VAATC employees.
• Article 227 of the Criminal Code on bribery of public officials applies to the company representatives.
• Article 226 of the Criminal Code is relevant to the intermediary’s conduct where a bribe is given or accepted by using presumed influence.
• Article 43 of the Criminal Code may apply to the waste transport company as a legal person.

Legal assessment

Under Article 230(1) of the Criminal Code, civil servants for the purposes of this chapter also include other persons who perform the functions of a representative of public authority in institutions or who hold administrative powers. Under Article 230(2), equivalence is also linked to the implementation of the public interest within a legal person or organisation where the person holds a position in such an entity. Municipal acts show why the weighing and accounting of landfill waste is not merely an internal procedural matter. They state that the Vilnius region comprises several municipalities and that VAATC was established to develop a regional waste management system. The “gate fee” also has a public financial function. The Vilnius City act specifies a tariff of LTL 113.49/t excluding VAT and LTL 137.32/t including VAT for delivery of waste to the regional landfill. Accordingly, the allegation concerning failure to weigh and record waste is legally connected to fee avoidance, not merely to disorderly accounting. If the court finds that the employees accepted bribes for such unlawful inaction, the principal provision will be Article 225(2) of the Criminal Code or, if the 250 MGL threshold is exceeded, Article 225(3). For the bribe-givers, it is material that Article 227(2) of the Criminal Code covers the giving of a bribe for unlawful action or inaction by a civil servant or a person equivalent thereto. Where the bribe exceeds 250 MGL, Article 227(3) of the Criminal Code provides for a fine or imprisonment for up to seven years. In the case of the intermediary, the key issue is the connection between the money transferred and the promise to influence persons holding office. Article 226(2) of the Criminal Code establishes liability for a person who accepted a bribe after promising to influence an institution, agency, or a person equivalent to a civil servant. For the company, criminal liability would mean independent sanctions separate from the penalties imposed on its representatives. Another group of consequences concerns property received or acquired from potential criminal proceeds. Article 67(2) of the Criminal Code lists confiscation of property and extended confiscation of property among penal measures. Extended confiscation is possible only where specific conditions are met:

• the offender is found guilty of committing a less serious, serious, or very serious intentional criminal offence;
• the offender obtained or could have obtained pecuniary benefit from it;
• the difference between the property and lawful income exceeds 250 MGL;
• the offender fails in the criminal proceedings to substantiate the lawfulness of the acquisition of the property.

Consequences

The first scenario is a conviction for the bribery and bribery-of-public-officials episodes. In that case, natural persons may be subject to fines or imprisonment, and under Article 225(3) of the Criminal Code a person who accepted a bribe is subject to imprisonment from two to eight years. The second scenario involves stricter consequences for property and activities. The court may decide on confiscation of property, extended confiscation of property, and restriction of the legal person’s activities under Articles 43, 67, and 72³ of the Criminal Code. The third scenario is important for the waste market. If it is proven that waste was accepted without weighing and recording, the case will confirm that landfill access and accounting control constitute a point of criminal risk in the public waste system. The status of a company undergoing bankruptcy or liquidation does not in itself eliminate the issue of criminal proceeds and damage suffered by the State.

Under Article 17(1) of the Law Amending Product Safety Law No. VIII-1206, once danger is established, the product model or the entire batch from which the samples were taken is deemed dangerous.

Under Article 19(1) of the Product Safety Law, placing or supplying a dangerous product on the market entails a fine of EUR 1,000 to EUR 5,000.

Core issue

The practical significance of this matter will lie not only in the price of the boards sold, but also in the consequences of their installation in buildings. The reported fact is as follows: a prospective class action has been announced concerning cement particle boards found not to conform to their declared reaction-to-fire class. The precise legal question is whether the boards placed on the market and supplied to consumers are to be regarded as a dangerous product, and what obligations this creates for the manufacturer, distributor or other economic operator under Articles 1, 2, 7, 10, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of the Product Safety Law.

Legal assessment

Article 2(3) of the Law Amending Product Safety Law No. VIII-1206 applies this regime to products intended for consumers and for professional use, irrespective of the method of sale. This makes it possible to cover construction boards as well, if they were placed or supplied on the market as products. Under Article 7 of the Law Amending Product Safety Law No. VIII-1206, the manufacturer must:

• place only safe products on the market;
• label the product and ensure its traceability;
• provide information on risks throughout the entire period of normal or foreseeable use;
• upon becoming aware of a dangerous product, inform consumers, the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority and market surveillance authorities no later than within 3 calendar days;
• withdraw the product from the market and, where necessary, recall or destroy it. The distributor’s position is supplemented by Article 9 of the Law Amending the Product Safety Law: it must likewise supply only safe products, provide consumers with the necessary information and discontinue the placing of an unsafe product on the market.

Accordingly, an undertaking in the sales chain cannot defend itself solely on the basis that it did not manufacture the boards, if distributor obligations apply to it. The legal significance of expert examination extends beyond the result for a single sample. Under paragraph 2 of the same article, the costs of expert examination are borne by the economic operator that placed or supplied the product, if the product is found to be dangerous. Administrative liability depends on the seriousness of the consequences. If the dangerous product caused harm to a consumer’s health, Article 19(3) provides for a fine of EUR 5,000 to EUR 15,000. If the dangerous product caused the death of a consumer, Article 19(4) provides for a fine of EUR 15,000 to EUR 50,000. The grounds for reducing or avoiding liability are narrow. Under Article 20(1) of the Product Safety Law, an operator is not liable if it proves that the lack of safety was caused by improper transportation or storage by a third party, insufficient scientific knowledge, the consumer’s breach of rules, or force majeure. It is also relevant to the fine whether the infringer voluntarily compensated consumers for their losses, as Article 20(2) treats this as a mitigating circumstance. In a damages dispute, the decisive issue will not be the fine, but the causal link between the unsafe product and the costs or harm suffered by the consumer. Article 21(1) of the Law Amending the Product Safety Law provides that damage caused to consumers by unsafe products is compensated in accordance with the procedure established by the Civil Code. Under Article 21(2), agreements seeking to release the manufacturer, distributor or service provider from liability for damage caused to a consumer are invalid.

Consequences

The first scenario is action by the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority and market surveillance authorities in respect of a specific batch or model, if the expert examination results satisfy the conditions of Article 17. In that case, the practical issue will be informing consumers, withdrawing the product from the market and a possible recall under Articles 7 and 10. The second scenario is a civil damages dispute, in which consumers will have to substantiate that their costs or harm arose from the unsafe product. In the case of installed boards, the value of the dispute may include not only the purchase price, but also removal, replacement or building-safety-related costs, insofar as these are claimed as damages under Article 21. The third scenario is additional administrative liability, if non-compliance with decisions or harm to consumers’ health is established. Under Article 19(2), failure to comply with a market surveillance decision entails a fine of EUR 2,000 to EUR 10,000. The next point to monitor after 11 September 2026 is the filing of the prospective claim with the court and the authorities’ decisions concerning specific board batches or models.

Article 131 of the Constitution obliges the Seimas to consider the draft state budget and approve it by law before the start of the new budget year.

Article 20(2) of the Law on the Government requires the Government to adopt a resolution in respect of draft laws or draft resolutions of the Seimas submitted to the Seimas.

Core issue

The autumn session programme does not itself alter individual rights, taxes, or budget appropriations; it merely indicates what the Seimas will consider as a priority. The decisive turning point will not be support for the programme at the presentation stage, but the adoption of each draft in accordance with Seimas procedure. The legal question is how initiatives of the Seimas, the Government, and the President become legislative drafts under consideration and potentially adopted legal acts. This issue is governed by Article 67 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, because the Seimas considers constitutional amendments, enacts laws, approves the budget, and establishes taxes. The persons and bodies entitled to initiate legislation are specified in Article 68 of the Constitution: members of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Government, and 50,000 citizens with the right to vote have the right to initiate laws in the Seimas.

Legal assessment

The 127 drafts submitted by the Government are not merely a political preference, because Article 20(1) of the Law on the Government grants the Government the right of legislative initiative in the Seimas. Government initiatives are subject to a multi-stage procedure:

• drafts are prepared, coordinated, considered, and approved in accordance with Article 40(1) of the Law on the Government;
• the Government may submit proposals to the Seimas concerning the session work programme under paragraph 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Government;
• in the Seimas, the Government is represented by the Prime Minister, an authorised minister, or a vice-minister under Article 20(2) of the Law on the Government and paragraph 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Government. The workload of committees also has legal significance, because that is where it is assessed whether drafts preserve the original will of the initiator. Paragraph 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Government provides that the Government’s representative in the lead committee may not agree to proposals that would substantially alter the fundamental provisions of a Government draft. Initiatives of members of the Seimas and of the President are legally based on the same logic of Article 68 of the Constitution. All drafts must pass through the Seimas procedure established by law pursuant to Article 69 of the Constitution. The internal working procedure of the Seimas is determined by Article 76 of the Constitution, under which the Statute of the Seimas has the force of law. A separate constitutional limit applies to the budget package. When considering the budget, the Seimas may increase expenditure only by indicating the sources of funding for it, and expenditure provided for by law may not be reduced until those laws have been amended. The competence of the Seimas in defence matters is also clear. Article 67(20) of the Constitution assigns to the Seimas the introduction of martial law and a state of emergency, the declaration of mobilisation, and decisions on the use of the armed forces.

Consequences

In practical terms, what is changing for residents and the market at this stage is not the rules, but the risk calendar. Ideas concerning taxes, social insurance, health, education, or borrowing will become binding only once specific legal acts are adopted. The immediate legal consequences for institutions are as follows:

• the Government must maintain the formal basis of its drafts through resolutions under Article 20(2) of the Law on the Government;
• ministers and authorised officials must attend sittings of committees, commissions, or political groups when invited, pursuant to Article 18(3) of the Law on the Government;
• during the session, the Prime Minister and ministers answer questions from members of the Seimas pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Law on the Government. On the basis of the sources provided, the issue of a constitutional amendment concerning Article 137 falls within the competence of the Seimas, because Article 67(1) of the Constitution provides that the Seimas considers and adopts constitutional amendments. However, the sources provided do not set out the special voting procedure for amending the Constitution, and therefore they do not support a conclusion as to what majority or interval will be required for the two votes.