COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Lithuania, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 314 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report  Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report       The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Lithuanian  justice  system  has  been  subject  to  a  significant  number  of  reforms, 
related to the appointment of judges, the structure of the Supreme Court and the judicial 
map. These reforms appear to have had a positive impact in the efficiency and quality of 
the  justice  system.  The  perceived  independence  of  the  judiciary  has  improved.  The 
Constitutional  Court  has  clarified  the  scope  of  the  functional  immunity  of  judges.  The 
case surrounding the dismissal of the Chairperson of the Civil Division of the Supreme 
Court  and  a  consequent  lack  of  appointment  to  the  post  of  President  of  that  Court  was 
submitted  to  the  Constitutional  Court,  which  ruled  that  the  legal  acts  relating  to  the 
dismissal  were  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  and  the  Law  on  Courts.  The  justice 
system presents good results in terms of efficiency, with short disposition times and low 
backlogs of cases, and new measures to further improve it are foreseen. The use of digital 
tools  in  the  justice  system  is  widespread,  in  particular  electronic  case  management  and 
court statistics are available in all courts. 

Lithuania  has  largely  put  in  place  an  institutional  framework  to  fight  corruption with  a 
key  role  played  by  the  Special  Investigations  Service,  which  combines  policy 
coordination and preventive competences with investigative powers. The implementation 
of  some  of  the  measures  in  the  anti-corruption  action  plan  are  delayed.  Procedures  on 
whistle-blowers  reporting  and  protection  were  adopted  at  the  end  of  2018.  Parliament 
adopted  the  amendments  to  the  Law  on  Lobbying  in  June  2020.  The  verification  of 
conflict of interest declarations is hampered by the lack of a single registry of interest. 

The  legal  framework  for  media  pluralism  in  Lithuania  guarantees  the  basic  right  of 
freedom of expression and the right to information. The media regulators are considered 
independent and effective. Availability of information  on  media ownership  raises some 
concerns,  as  in  practice  public  information  on  media  ownership  is  often  limited  or 
outdated.  A  recently  adopted  law  on  public  information  is  intended  to  ensure  greater 
transparency and objectivity of public information. Another issue of concern is indirect 
political ownership of media through subsidiaries with political interests, especially with 
regard to local and regional media. A new media policy document ‘Strategic Directions 
of the Public Information Policy 2019–2022’ envisages a range of measures to strengthen 
media pluralism in Lithuania.  

As  regards  the  checks  and  balances,  the  legal  framework  governing  the  legislative 
process  ensures  its  transparency  and  the  involvement  of  stakeholders.  A  reform  from 
2019 has given the possibility to individual citizens to trigger constitutional review. The 
Parliament Ombudsman plays an important role in safeguarding fundamental rights, and 
the  Equal  Opportunities  Ombudsman  has  a  mandate  to  investigate  complaints  and 
provide  conclusions  and  recommendations  on  any  issue  related  to  discrimination.  The 
participation of the civil society in the decision making process is ensured and a new Law 
creates  the  legal  basis  for  a  National  NGO  fund,  which  is  set  to  become  a  sustainable 
mechanism of strengthening institutional capacities of NGOs in 2020. 

1 

 
 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The justice system is composed of courts of general jurisdiction (the Supreme Court, the 
Court of Appeal, regional courts and district courts) and courts of special jurisdiction (the 
Supreme  Administrative  Court  and  two  regional  administrative  courts).  District  court 
judges  are  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  upon  the  advice  of  a  Selection 
Commission, while Supreme Court judges are appointed by Parliament (Seimas)1, on the 
nomination  by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  following  the  advice  of  the  Judicial 
Council. The Judicial Council, entirely composed of judges appointed by their peers, is 
the  executive  body  of  judicial  self-governance,  and  ensures  the  independence  of  courts 
and  judges2.  The  National  Courts  Administration,  which  is  independent  from  the 
executive,  is  competent  for  providing  material  and  technical  support  to  the  courts, 
ensuring  the  efficient  functioning  of  the  court  system  and  the  training  of  judges.  The 
Constitutional Court is composed of nine judges, appointed by Parliament, from among 
candidates presented by the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the Parliament, and 
the President of the Supreme Court; it adjudicates on the constitutionality of legislation 
and  of  the  acts  of  the  President  and  the  Government.  Prosecutors  are  independent;  the 
Prosecutor General is appointed and dismissed by the President of the Republic upon the 
assent  of  the  Parliament3.  Lower  ranked  prosecutors  are  appointed  by  the  Prosecutor 
General, on the recommendation of a Selection Commission4. The Bar is an independent 
part of the legal system, and is financed from contributions paid by advocates and from 
other sources. 

Independence 

In 2020, new legal provisions on appointments of the judiciary came into force. The 
amendments  to  the  Law  on  Courts  strengthened  the  role  of  the  Judicial  Council  in  the 
Selection Commission of Candidates to Judicial Offices5. This Selection Commission is 
now  composed  of  three  members  who  are  judges  selected  by  the  Judicial  Council,  and 
four  lay  members  selected  by  the  President  of  the  Republic6.  Previously,  both  judicial 
and lay members were selected by the President of the Republic. Furthermore, the criteria 
for  the  selection  of  candidates  to  judicial  office  are  now  approved  by  the  Judicial 
Council.  Nevertheless,  the  opinion  of  the  Selection  Commission  remains  non-binding. 
The  amendments  to  the  Law  on  Courts  introduced  the  possibility  for  candidates  to 
challenge  the  opinion  of  the  Selection  Commission  before  the  Supreme  Court.  This  is 
possible in case of a substantial procedural violation, where such violation could affect 
the objective assessment of candidates. In such cases, the Supreme Court is authorised to 
suspend the appointment of a judge to a court, and may instruct the selection panel to re-
evaluate  the  applicant,  or  to  revoke  the  findings7.  Although  the  judges  elected  by  their 
peers continue to make  up less than half of the members of the Selection Commission, 
and the possibility of review remains limited to procedural aspects, the increased role of 

1   The Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania consists of one chamber, i.e. Seimas.  
2   Art. 119 of the Law on Courts. 
3   Deputy  Prosecutors  General  are  appointed  and  dismissed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic  on  the 

proposal of the Prosecutor General. 

4   Arts. 22 and 26 of the Law on the amendment of the law on the prosecutor’s office, No. I-599, of 13 

October 1994. 

5   Law No. XIII, of 16 July 2019. 
6   Art. 55, Law on Courts, of 31 May 1994, No. I-480, as amended. 
7   See previous note. 

2 

 
                                                 
the  judiciary  in  the  selection  of  new  judges  and  in  career  advancement  of  judges  is 
consistent with Council of Europe recommendations8.  

The level of  perceived judicial  independence is  average to  high among the  general 
public  and  companies.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  has  further 
improved and is high among the companies (66% of companies rated their perception as 
‘fairly good’ or ‘very good’)9 and average among the general public (52% perceive it as 
‘fairly good’ or ‘very good’)10. 

The  Constitutional  Court  has  clarified  the  scope  of  the  functional  immunity  of 
judges. On 9 March 2020, it ruled that the constitutional provisions on immunities only 
guarantee  protection  from  measures  to  restrict  a  person’s  freedom,  and  that  procedural 
diligences,  such  as  searches,  do  not  amount  to  restrictions  of  freedom  and  that, 
consequently, an authorisation from the Parliament or the President is not necessary. This 
ruling was delivered in the context of a submission of the Parliament, following a ruling 
of  the  Supreme  Court  in  2019.  In  this  ruling,  the  Supreme  Court  found  that,  during 
criminal investigations in which judges are involved, all searches needed to be preceded 
by an authorisation of the Parliament or the President. This decision was criticised by the 
Prosecutor  General,  according  to  whom  such  a  requirement  amounted  to  an  absolute 
immunity for judges11. 

Members  of  the  judiciary  are  suspected  of  being  involved  in  corruption  cases.  In 
February  2019,  eight  judges  were  detained  under  suspicions  of  corruption,  bribery, 
trading in influence and abuse of power. The judges were suspected of receiving bribes to 
influence  verdicts  in  a  range  of  administrative,  civil  and  criminal  court  cases.  The 
criminal cases are currently pending. The President of the Republic sought the opinion of 
the  Judicial  Council  as  regards  the  possible  dismissal  of  the  judges  involved  in  the 
corruption case12 and, in August 2019, the Judicial Council gave its positive opinion to 
the dismissal of five of the judges13. In public declarations, the Judicial Council referred 
to the consequences of this case for the reputation of the profession.  

8   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, paras 47 
and 48. These foresee, in particular, that an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial 
part from the judiciary should be authorised to make recommendations or express opinions, which the 
relevant appointing authority follows in practice, and that unsuccessful candidates should have the right 
to  challenge  the  decision,  or  at  least  the  procedure  under  which  the  decision  was  made.  See  also 
GRECO, Fourth evaluation round – Corruption prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges 
and prosecutors, Recommendation vii. 

9  Figure 44, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised as 
follows: very low (below 30% of respondents  perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 
75%). 

10  Figure 46, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
11   LRT  (2019),  Investigators  decry  Lithuania's  Supreme  Court  ruling  that  may  “negatively  affect  fight 
against corruption”. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommends that, when not 
exercising judicial functions, judges should be liable under civil and criminal law in the same way as 
any other citizen. CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para 65. 
See  also  CDL-AD(2010)004,  Report  on  the  Independence  of  the  Judicial  System  Part  I:  The 
Independence of Judges adopted by the Venice Commission at its 82nd Plenary Session (Venice, 12-13 
March 2010), para 61. 

12   According to Art. 90(1) §6 of the Law on Courts, ‘[t]he judge shall be dismissed […] when he engages 
in  a  conduct  discrediting  the  office  of  judge’.  The  Parliament  is  competent  to  dismiss  judges  of  the 
Supreme Court, on the motion of the President of the Republic. 

13   The Judicial Council gave negative advice on the dismissal of the three other judges. 

3 

 
                                                 
The  Constitutional  Court  ruled  that  the  dismissal  of  the  Chairperson  of  the  Civil 
Division of the Supreme Court was unconstitutional. In April 2020, in the framework 
of the procedure to appoint a new President of the Supreme Court, the President of the 
Republic  proposed  to  Parliament  the  then  Chairperson  of  the  Civil  Division  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  who  had  also  been  exercising  functions  as  acting  President14.  In  an 
unprecedented manner, Parliament’s legal committee submitted the President’s proposal 
to  two  different  votes:  one  on  the  dismissal  as  Chairperson  of  the  Civil  Section,  and  a 
separate  one  on  the  appointment  as  President  of  the  Supreme  Court.  The  first  proposal 
was approved in the vote, while the second was rejected. The judge was thus dismissed 
from the position as Chairperson of the Civil Division, and subsequently lost the position 
of acting President. The case was brought before the Constitutional Court by a group of 
members of Parliament, who question if the decision of Parliament to dismiss the judge 
from the position as Chairperson of the Civil Division can be reconciled with any of the 
grounds  for  dismissal  provided  for  in  Article  115  of  the  Constitution and  Article  90  of 
the  Law  on  Courts.  On  2  September  2020,  the  Constitutional  Court  ruled  that  the 
concrete decision of Parliament to dismiss the judge from the position of Chairperson of 
the Civil Division was unconstitutional, and contradicted specific provisions of the Law 
on  Courts15.  The  Constitutional  Court  also  ruled  that  from  the  day  of  the  official 
publication  of  the  ruling,  the  judge  who  was  dismissed  should  hold  the  position  of 
Chairperson  of  the  Civil  Division  of  the  Supreme  Court16.  The  dismissal  from  the 
position of Chairperson of the Civil Division has had, according to the Judicial Council, a 
detrimental effect on the transparency of judicial appointments and independence of the 
judiciary17.  

Quality 

A number of reforms have been implemented, including a comprehensive reform of 
the judicial map. From January 2018, the number of district courts was reduced from 49 
to  12,  and  the  number  of  regional  administrative  courts  was  reduced  from  five  to  two. 
However,  none  of  the  existing  court-houses  was  physically  closed,  as  court  chambers 
continue  to  function  in  the  previously  existing  court  premises.  This  reduction  in  the 
number  of  courts  was  motivated  by  a  need  to  equalise  the  workload  and  working 
conditions  of  judges  and  court  staff,  and  to  rationalise  the  allocation  of  human  and 
material  resources.  According  to  the  National  Courts  Administration,  the  court  reform 
has resulted in gains in efficiency, having accelerated hearings, and in a more effective 
management  of  the  courts18.  The  judiciary,  prosecution  and  the  Bar  Association  were 
consulted throughout the preparation of the reform. The Judicial Council is involved in 
the state strategic management system adopted by the Law on Strategic Management of 
the Republic of Lithuania19 as an independent participant. This enables the judiciary, as 
one  of  the  three  independent  constitutional  authorities,  to  participate  effectively  in  the 
development  of  the  State's  strategic  directions  and  in  the  negotiations  on  financing  for 
their implementation. 

14   The  Parliament  is  competent  to  appoint  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court,  on  the  proposal  of  the 

President of the Republic, who must consult the Judicial Council. 

15   Constitutional Court, judgment of 2 September 2020, Decision No. No. KT153-N13/2020. 
16   The judge concerned had also appealed the dismissal decision before the Vilnius District Court, which 
granted interim measures, reinstating the judge in the position as Chairperson of the Civil Division. 
17   LRT (2020), Vote on Supreme Court candidate “negates” rule of law in Lithuania – Judicial Council.  
18   Communiqué from the National Courts Administration, of 29 March 2019. 
19   Law No. XIII-3096, adopted on 25 June 2020. 

4 

 
                                                 
The  structure  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  been  modified.  In  November  2019,  a 
Presidential Decree reduced the number of judges in the Supreme Court from 35 to 32. A 
similar reform had occurred in 2012, when the number of judges was reduced from 37 to 
35.  Both  reforms  were  justified  by  the  need  for  better  allocation  of  resources  to  the 
workload  of  the  courts,  and  the  consequent  increase  in  the  number  of  judges  in  lower 
courts.  The  proposal  for  reduction  in  the  number  of  judges  was  submitted  by  the 
President  of  the  Republic  to  the  consideration  of  the  Supreme  Court  before  its 
implementation. This change will not implicate the demotion or dismissal of any judges, 
as the Supreme Court is already working, in practice, with the same number of judges as 
that proposed20. 

The use of digital tools in the justice system is widespread. Lithuania is one of the few 
Member States where electronic case management and court statistics are available in all 
courts21. Electronic means to transmit a case, transmit summons or monitor the stages of 
a proceeding are also available in the majority of the courts22. Data from 2019 show that 
the  submission  of  procedural  documents  in  electronic  form  is  also  increasing23.  All 
published judgments, from all instances and jurisdictions, are available online24.  

The pre-existing digital solutions and the legal framework allowed for some of the 
court  activities  to  be  maintained  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  According  to 
information  provided  by  the  authorities,  the  Government  prepared  a  COVID-19 
management strategy, to be implemented in cooperation with the Judicial Council and the 
National  Courts  Administration,  in  which  it  is  proposed  to  develop  further  the  legal 
framework and the technological means to foster the possibility of conducting remotely 
civil, criminal and administrative proceedings.  

Efficiency 

The justice system presents good results in terms of efficiency. Lithuania maintains its 
short disposition time in civil and commercial cases, both in first instance, and when all 
instances  are  considered25.  The  courts  also  further  reduced  their  already  comparatively 
low backlogs26.  

New  measures  to  further  improve  efficiency  are  foreseen.  Other  than  the  already 
existing  initiatives  to  improve  the  use  of  electronic  means  and  promote  alternative 
dispute resolution methods and mediation, new legislation was adopted, which will allow 
administrative  disputes  to  be  resolved  through  out-of-court  mediation27,  and  draft 
legislation is being prepared that will allow to transfer cases of administrative offences to 
non-judicial institutions.  

20   Three judicial posts at the Supreme Court are already vacant following the retirement of one judge, an 
application  of  the  disciplinary  sanction  of  dismissal  to  another  judge,  and  an  appointment  of  a  third 
judge to exercise functions in the General Court of the European Union. 

21   Figure 40, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
22   Figure 27, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
23   National Courts Administration (2020), The Courts of Lithuania - Activity Results 2019. 
24   Figure 28, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
25   Figures 6 and 7, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
26   Figure 13, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
27   Law  No.  XIII-3048,  of  11  June  2020,  amending  Law  No.  X-1702.  The  amendments  will  come  into 

force on 1 January 2020. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
II. ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

The legal and institutional framework to prevent and fight corruption is broadly in place. 
The  competence  to  fight  corruption  is  shared  between  several  authorities.  The  Special 
Investigations  Service  has  competences  to  detect  and  investigate  the  most  serious 
corruption-related  criminal  offenses.  The  Prosecution  Service  conducts  and  coordinates 
pre-trial  investigations  carried  out  by  the  organised  crime  investigation  division  of  the 
criminal  police  and  the  Special  Investigations  Service.  As  regards  the  prevention  of 
corruption,  reforms  strengthening  the  framework  of  conflicts  of  interests  have  been 
adopted. The legal protection of whistle-blowers is in place. 

Lithuania  scores  60/100  on  the  Transparency  international  Corruption  Perception 
Index  and  ranks  11th  in  the  European  Union  and  35th  globally28.  According  to  the 
Special Eurobarometer Survey conducted among EU citizens 2020, 92 % of respondents 
perceive corruption as a widespread problem (EU average 71%) and 26% feel personally 
affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 26%). As regards businesses, 68% 
companies  consider  that  corruption  is  widespread,  (EU  average  63%),  however, 
according  to  the  surveys,  only  15%  consider  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing 
business (EU average 37%)29. Then, 34% of people find that there are enough successful 
prosecutions  to  deter  people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  36%),  while  38%  of 
companies  consider  that  people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are 
appropriately punished (EU average 31%). 

The  legislative  framework  is  broadly  in  place.  It  contains  provisions  criminalising 
corruption  and  covers  active  and  passive  bribery  and  trading  in  influence,  extending  to 
officials operating abroad. The legal framework has been updated with the amendment of 
the Law on the Prevention of Corruption. This Law now obliges civil servants to report 
possible cases of corruption when they obtain credible information about the misdoing or 
witness possible crime.30 

The  implementation of  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Programme  for  2015-2025  is 
lagging  behind.  The 
ongoing,  though  some  of  the  measures  foreseen  are 
Governmental Commission for Coordination of the Fight against Corruption is composed 
by 19 members and is responsible for the preparation, coordination and implementation 
of the National Anti-Corruption Programme, as well as of the coordination and control of 
the  activities  of  state  institutions  in  the  fight  against  corruption31.  The  Commission  is 
under the responsibility of the Prime  Minister. The action plan is implemented and co-
ordinated  together  with  the  Special  Investigation  Service.  As  noted  in  the  European 
Semester  report,  the  implementation  of  the  measures  of  the  anti-corruption  programme 
needs to be stepped up32.  

The competences for anti-corruption policies as well as for preventing, investigating 
and  prosecuting  corruption  are  divided  between  several  authorities.  The  Special 
Investigation  Service  (STT)  is  the  main  agency  with  competences  to  detect  and 
investigate  the  most  serious  corruption-related  criminal  offenses,  including  those 

28   Transparency International (2020), Corruption Perceptions Index 2019. 
29   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 
30   The Law on the Prevention of Corruption, No. IX-904, 2019  
31   Decree No. 21 of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Lithuania on approving the composition of the 
Government Commission of the Republic of Lithuania for the coordination the fight against corruption, 
31 January 2019.  

32   European Commission, Country Report Lithuania (SWD(2020) 514 final), p: 43.  

6 

 
                                                 
committed by the persons occupying leading positions in the civil service33. It prepares 
and implements corruption prevention measures, investigates corruption-related offences 
and promotes anti-corruption awareness raising and education34. The STT is accountable 
to  the  President  and  Parliament.  The  STT  has  started  58  and  53  pre-trial  investigations 
related  to  corruption  offences  in  2018  and  2019,  respectively.35  In  2018,  STT  has 
established  a  new  department  on  analytical  anti-corruption  intelligence.  The  main 
purpose of the new capability is to mitigate threats and risks caused by corruption before 
they materialise into corruption-related crimes, support ongoing criminal investigations, 
supporting  decision-making  on  corruption  prevention  measures  or  anti-corruption 
education programmes. Among other authorities with investigative competences are the 
police, State Border Guard Service, Financial Crime Investigation Service and Customs, 
which conduct pre-trial investigations into corruption-related criminal offenses  in cases 
where the criminal offenses involve the officers of these institutions. 

The divisions of organised crime and corruption investigation within the Prosecutor 
General’s Office and the regional prosecutor’s offices conduct and coordinate pre-
trial investigations carried out by the organised crime investigation divisions of the 
criminal police and the STT. There are in total 20 prosecutors and 15 assistants within 
the division organised crime and corruption investigations of the Office of the Prosecutor 
General.  As  to  regional  prosecutor’s  offices,36  there  are  in  total  40  prosecutors  and  17 
legal  and  technical  assistants37.  Each  prosecutor  has  autonomy  in  deciding  whether  to 
initiate  or  undertake  criminal  investigation.  The  Corruption  Prevention  Commission  of 
the Prosecution Service has competences on corruption prevention within the Prosecution 
Service  and  is  responsible  for  putting  in  place  an  efficient  system  of  corruption 
prevention measures and control.  

Reforms aiming at strengthening the framework of conflicts of interests have been 
adopted. Civil servants, members of Parliament, members of the Government and other 
public  sector  officials  are  bound  to  avoid  any  conflict  of  interest  and  act  in  a  way  that 
would  not  raise  doubts about  their  integrity38.  Elected  and  appointed  officials  and  their 
spouses  are  required  to  publicly  declare  their  assets.  Declarations  of  interest  and  assets 
are filed to the Chief Official Ethics Commission (COEC) and stored in their database. 
On  27  June  2019,  Parliament  adopted  a  new  version  of  the  Law  on  the  Adjustment  of 
Public and  Private  Interests  (LAPPI),  which  entered  into  force  on  1  January  2020. The 
law aimed to ease the procedures for declaring conflicts of interest39. A declaration is to 
be  submitted  within  one  month  after  the  election,  appointment,  or  assignment  to  a 
position.  In  accordance  with  the  new  provisions,  the  data  to  be  declared  has  changed. 
Declarations  of  private  interest  and  assets  are  filed  to  the  Chief  Official  Ethics 
Commission  (COEC)  and  made  public40.  Since  2020,  about  90%  of  these  are  public41. 
The COEC applies an ad-hoc approach, opening investigations mostly based on reports 
by  whistle-blowers  or  the  media.  The  COEC  is  working  on  the  establishment  of  the 

33   In  particular,  the  STT  finalised  a  nationally  well-known  pre-trial  investigation  concerning  political 
corruption and possibly illegal lobbying that was opened in 2016 and involved a major business group. 
In 2019, the STT and the Office of the Prosecutor General launched a pre-trial investigation related to 
corruption in Lithuania’s legal system (see above, Section I). 

34   Special Investigation Service of the Republic Of Lithuania (2019), Annual Report. 
35   European Commission, Country Report Lithuania (SWD(2020) 514 final. 
36   Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai and Panevėžys. 
37  Input from Lithuania for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  
38   Law No. VIII-371, of 2 July 1997, as amended.  
39   The format of declarations remained the same, but only certain parts became compulsory.  
40   The database can be accessed at https://www.vtek.lt/deklaraciju-paieska.   
41   Until 2020 only half were public (Input from Lithuania for the 2020 Rule of Law Report). 

7 

 
                                                 
Register of Private Interests (PINREG), which is expected to become operational at the 
end  of  2020  and  increase  the  efficiency  of  private  interest  and  assets  declaration 
verification through the implementation of a crosschecked information based approach.  

The Chief Official Ethics Commission (COEC) is tasked with supervising lobbying 
activities.  The  Register  of  Lobbyists,  managed  by  the  COEC,  is  public42.  It  provides 
information  on  all  lobbyists  that  are  officially  registered  and  reports  on  their  lobbying 
activities.43 The COEC is modernising the Register of Lobbyists to make more effective 
for lobbyists to submit reports44. The new version of the register is expected to become 
operational  in  December  of  2020.  Parliament  adopted  amendments  to  the  Law  on 
Lobbying  in  June  2020,  which  aim  to  increase  the  transparency  of  lobbying  activities, 
thereby making  the control  of lobbying activities more effective. As regards  ‘revolving 
doors’, the new provisions of the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests 
(LAPPI) foresee a cooling off period. After leaving the civil service, individuals cannot 
take up employment in a legal entity if, during the period of one year immediately prior 
to  leaving  the  civil  service,  they  directly  drafted,  considered  and  made  decisions 
concerning the supervision or control of the legal entity in question (irrespective of the 
form  of  the  legal  entity)  or  decisions  that  granted  funding  from  the  state  or  municipal 
budgets of the Republic of Lithuania to said legal entity and other decisions concerning 
the assets of that entity.  

threats  on  environment,  attempts 

Legal protection of whistle-blowers is in place. The Law on the Protection of Whistle-
blowers entered into January 2019 and applies to  both public and private sectors45. The 
law  foresees  specific  provisions  guarantying  the  protection  of  whistle-blowers  when 
information is provided, among others on: threats to the public and personal safety and 
health, 
influence 
investigations, financing of illicit activity. The Prosecution Service examines the reports 
on breaches and coordinates the process of whistle-blower protection. Within 5 working 
days,  the  status  of  whistle-blower  should  be  confirmed  or  rejected.  If  the  status  is 
rejected,  the  report  is  sent  back  to  the  reporting  person  who  can  appeal  against  the 
decision. In 2019, 75 decisions were made with 36 persons having being recognised with 
the status of whistle-blowers and 39 cases rejected. 

to  obstruct  or  unlawfully 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

The  legal  framework  concerning  media  pluralism  is  based  on  constitutional  safeguards 
and sectorial legislation. The Constitution prohibits censorship and monopolisation of the 
media and guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of information46. The institutional 
framework  consists  of  the  Lithuanian  Radio  and  Television  Commission,  the  Office  of 
the  Inspector  of  Journalist  Ethics  and  the  Public  Information  Ethics  Association.  A 
recently adopted law on public information is intended to ensure greater transparency and 
objectivity of public information. A new media policy document ‘Strategic Directions of 
the  Public Information  Policy  2019–2022’  envisages  a  range  of  measures  to  strengthen 
media pluralism in Lithuania. 

42   The register can be accessed at www.lobistai.lt. 
43   Currently there are 106 registered lobbyists in the country. 
44   Input from Lithuania for the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  
45   Law No. XIII-804, of 28 November 2017.  
46   Between 2019 and 2020 Lithuania climbed two places in the Reporters Without Borders World Press 

Freedom Index, now registering at 28th position worldwide.  

8 

 
                                                 
The institutional framework consists of several bodies. The regulator for audio-visual 
media services, Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission (LRTK), is an independent 
body accountable to Parliament, supervising the activities of audio-visual media service 
providers under Lithuanian’s jurisdiction. Its main decisions, annual reports and studies 
are published and available online. Pursuant to the Law on the Provision of Information 
to  the  Public,  Parliament  appoints  the  chairperson  and  the  deputy  chairperson  of  the 
Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission. The latest edition of the Media Pluralism 
Monitor (MPM 2020)47 has reported a very low risk with regard to the independence and 
effectiveness of the Lithuanian media regulatory authority48. Moreover, the Office of the 
Inspector  of  Journalist  Ethics  is  a  state  institution,  which  assesses  compliance  with  the 
principles of provision of information to the public set forth in the Law on the Provision 
of Information to the Public. It examines complaints and investigates cases of violations 
of honour and dignity and violations of the right to protection of privacy in the media. Its 
independence was also assessed at very low risk by the Media Pluralism Monitor 2020. 
In  addition,  the  Public  Information  Ethics  Association  is  a  self-regulatory  body,  which 
aims  to  ensure  compliance  with  professional  ethics,  foster  public  awareness  of  ethical 
principles  and  raise  awareness  of  critical  analysis  of  news.  Its  members  include  public 
information producers (media outlets) and journalists' organisations. 

Lithuanian  law  provides  safeguards  to  ensure  transparency  of  media  ownership. 
The  Law  on  the  Provision  of  Information  to  the  Public  requires  media  companies  to 
disclose  data  on  their  ownership  structures  to  the  designated  authorities,  namely  the 
Ministry  of  Culture.  The  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2020  has  assessed  transparency  of 
media ownership in Lithuania at medium risk, as in reality public information on media 
ownership is often limited or outdated. It should be recalled in this regard that the revised 
Audio-visual  Media  Services  Directive  encourages  Member  States  to  adopt  legislative 
measures  providing  that  media  service  providers  under  their  jurisdiction  make 
information  concerning  their  ownership  structure  accessible,  including  the  beneficial 
owners49.In  2019,  changes  to  the  Law  on  the  Provision  of  Information  to  the  Public 
pertaining  to  the  Information  System  of  Producers  and  Disseminators  of  Public 
Information  entered  into  force.  According  to  the  Lithuanian  authorities,  the  aim  of  the 
changes is to ensure greater transparency of public information processes and objectivity 
of  public  information.  The  system  should  be  launched  at  the  end  of  2020  and  will 
disclose additional information about media outlets. 

A  new  strategy  aims  to  strengthen  media  independence.  The  Media  Pluralism 
Monitor  2020  highlights  the  issue  of  indirect  political  ownership  of  media  through 
subsidiaries  with  political  interests,  especially  with  regard  to  local  and  regional  media, 
resulting  in  a  high-risk  score  for  the  political  independence.  This  appears  to  be  an 
important issue in view of the finding of MPM 2020 which highlights the concentration 
of news media ownership in Lithuania, with few companies owning the majority of news 
media  outlets.  In  2018,  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of 
journalism and safety of journalists published one alert, concerning the establishment of 
an ad-hoc Parliamentary Commission in January 2018 to consider legal amendments in 
order  to  regulate the  governance and  supervision  of  the  Lithuanian  National  Radio  and 
Television50.  According  to  the  Lithuanian  Union  of  Journalists,  the  chairman  of 
Lithuanian  Radio  and  Television  Commission  and  the  European  Broadcasting  Union, 

47   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor. 
48   This finding was also confirmed by stakeholders in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
49   Art. 5(1) Audio-visual Media Services Directive (Directive (EU) 2018/1808). 
50   Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.  

9 

 
                                                 
some  of  the  suggested  amendments  would  have  imposed  political  control  on  the 
Lithuanian National Radio and Television and endangered the independence of the public 
broadcaster.  On  26  March  2020,  taking  into  consideration  the  provisions  set  out  in  the 
Law amending the Law on the National Radio and Television, the Council of Europe’s 
Platform declared this case to be resolved, concluding it is no longer an active threat to 
media freedom51. In February 2019 the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Lithuania 
adopted  a  new  media  policy  document,  ‘Strategic  Directions  of  the  Public  Information 
Policy  2019–2022’,  which  aims  at  shaping  and  coordinating  public  information  policy 
based on clear national priorities, such as promoting content diversity and quality, reliable 
public  information,  greater  media  independence  and  accountability,  and  media  and 
information literacy.  

The right to information is enshrined in the Lithuanian Constitution, and the Law 
on the Provision of Information to the Public regulates the public’s right to access 
administrative documents held by public authorities. However, journalists sometimes 
struggle to get access to public information, as state institutions at times refuse to grant 
it52. The practice of providing journalists with the data of the Centre of Registers for free 
was  abolished  in  September  2018  and  journalists  have  harshly  criticised  this  new 
restriction to access public information53. The Government has put in place a temporary 
solution, however laws needed for a permanent and comprehensive mechanism are yet to 
be adopted. 

A  legal  framework  for  journalists’  protection  is  in  place.  Stakeholders  indicate  that 
the  Government  generally  respects  freedoms  of  speech  and  the  press54.  Nevertheless, 
imprisonment is  among the envisaged sanctions for defamation55. The Media Pluralism 
Monitor  2020  has  assessed  the  basic  right  of  freedom  of  expression  and  the  right  to 
information  at  low  risk,  just  as  the  indicator  of  journalistic  profession,  standards  and 
protection. Amendments to the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public were 
initiated  by  several  members  of  Parliament  in  order  to  prevent  violations  of  the  basic 
principles of informing the public and ensure journalists’ independence from political or 
government  pressure  as  well  as  illegal  persecution  for  criticism56.  These  amendments 
were encouraged by the Union of the Lithuanian Journalists57. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Lithuania  is  a  representative  democratic  republic  with  a  directly  elected  President,  a 
unicameral  Parliament  (Seimas)  and  a  Constitutional  Court  in  charge  of  constitutional 
review of laws. Parliament, the President, the Government, and a group of at least 50.000 
citizens have the right of legislative initiative. The Parliament Ombudsman is tasked with 
protecting and promoting human rights and freedoms. 

51   Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Threats 

to the Independence of the Lithuanian LRT.  

52   Reporters without Borders, information on Lithuania, as confirmed by representatives of NGOs based 

in Lithuania during the country visit.  

53   European  Federation  of  Journalists,  Lithuanian  journalists  criticise  new  restriction  to  access  public 

information, 8 August 2018.  

54   Freedom House, information on Lithuania.  
55   Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2019), Decriminalisation of Defamation – Factsheet.  
56  According  to  the  work  program  of  Parliament,  the  draft  law  that  should  have  been  considered  in  the 

spring session of 2020, but has been now postponed. 

57   In this context, it should be recalled that, in line with Council of Europe recommendations, ‘Member 
States  should  put  in  place  a  comprehensive  legislative  framework  that  enables  journalists  and  other 
media  actors  to  contribute  to  public  debate  effectively  and  without  fear’  (Recommendation 
CM/Rec(2016)4) of the Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe, para. I-2). 

10 

 
                                                 
The transparency of the legislative process and the involvement of stakeholders are 
enshrined  in  law.  The  law  provides  that  the timeliness  of  the  public  consultations  and 
the  publication  of  their  results  are  mandatory,  and  requires  the  assessment  of  the 
comments  and  proposals  received  from  the  entities  to  whom  the  draft  legal  act  was 
submitted58.  It  is  also  mandatory  to  conduct  an  assessment  of  the  effect  of  envisaged 
legal  regulation59.  Although  the  Judicial  Council  and  the  Prosecution  services  are  not 
vested  with  legislative  initiative,  their  participation  in  the  legislative  process is  ensured 
through  consultation  either  during  the  drafting  phase,  or  as  experts  in  the  relevant 
parliamentary commissions. The Bar Association may draft and submit to the Ministry of 
Justice  legal  acts  on  matters  relating  to  the  practice  of  lawyers,  and  must  also  be 
consulted when relevant60. Draft amendments to the Law on the Bar submitted in 2019 
led  the  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe  (CCBE)  to  warn  of  possible 
incompatibilities  between  the  draft  amendments  and  the  principle  of  confidentiality  of 
communication  between  lawyers  and  clients61.  The  draft  amendments  considered  as 
raising concerns were not adopted. 

The Government adopted measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. An 
‘emergency  situation’  has  been  declared62,  which  was  followed  by  the  declaration  of  a 
national quarantine and the activation of the ‘full readiness level’ of the civil protection 
system63. While the quarantine ceased on 17 June, the emergency situation regime is still 
in place. 

The possibility of individual constitutional review was introduced in 2019. Following 
a  constitutional  revision,  individuals  also  have  the  right  to  apply  to  the  Constitutional 
Court, in addition to the President of the Republic, the Government, a group of one fifth 
of  the  Members  of  the  Parliament  and  the  courts64.  The  recognition  of  the  right  to 
individual constitutional review follows recommendations of the Constitutional Court65. 
The Constitutional review is limited to an a posteriori control of enacted laws66. 

include 

the  Parliament  Ombudsman  and 

Independent authorities are active in safeguarding fundamental rights. Independent 
authorities 
the  Equal  Opportunities 
Ombudsman.  The  Parliament  Ombudsman,  accredited  with  ‘A’  status  by  the  United 
Nations  Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (GANHRI)  in  2017, 
recommends to the Parliament, state or municipal institutions and agencies to amend the 
laws  or  other  statutory  acts  which  restrict  human  rights  and  freedoms.  Following  an 
investigation, the Parliament Ombudsman drew the attention of the Minister of Justice to 
the need to ensure proper provision of the presumption of innocence in national law, in 
order to prevent suspects and accused persons from being shown at court or in public as 

58   Arts.  7  and  17(5)  of  the  Law  on  Legislative  Framework,  18  September  2012,  No  XI-2220.  Any 
interested person can submit comments and proposals to the draft legal acts published on the legal acts 
information system of the Chancellor’s office of Parliament. 

59   Art. 8 of the Law on Legislative Framework. In certain cases, it is also mandatory to carry out an anti-
corruption assessment of draft legal acts intended to regulate public relations (Art. 8 of the Law on the 
Prevention of Corruption). 

60   Arts. 57 and 60(2) of the Law on the Bar, 18 March 2004, No IX-2066. 
61   Letter  of  the  President  of  the  CCBE  to  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  of  11  December 

2019. 

62   Resolution  No.  152  of  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  of  26  February  2020  ‘On  the 

Declaration of a National-Level Emergency Situation’. 

63   Resolution  No.  207  of  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  of  14  March  2020  ‘On 

Announcement of Quarantine in the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania’. 

64   Art. 106 of the Constitution.  
65   Decision of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania of 28 June 2016, No. KT20-S10/2016. 
66   Art. 107 of the Constitution. 

11 

 
                                                 
guilty  by  publicly  using  means  of  physical  restraint  against  them67.  The  Equal 
Opportunities  Ombudsman  has  a  mandate  to  investigate  complaints  and  provide 
conclusions and recommendations on any issue related to discrimination as defined in the 
Law on Equal Opportunities and the Law on Equal Opportunities of Women and Men. 
The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has 
recommended  the  scope  of  the  Office  of  the  Equal  Opportunities  Ombudsman  to  be 
expanded to facilitate access to justice for all women at the regional and local levels, in 
face of the absence of regional and local branches of the Office68. 

An extensive legal framework ensures the participation of civil society organisations 
in the decision-making process. The civil society space in Lithuania is considered to be 
open69. The National NGO Council, comprised of 10 representatives of national umbrella 
NGOs,  ministries  and  the  Association  of  Local  Authorities  in  Lithuania,  exercises 
functions as an advisory body, and municipalities also have a municipal NGO Councils 
and  municipal  Communities  Councils  which  serve  as  advisory  bodies  to  the  local 
administrations.  A  new  Law  on  Development  of  NGOs  was  adopted  in  2019,  which 
creates  the  legal  basis  for  a  National  NGO  fund,  which  is  set  to  become  a  sustainable 
mechanism  of  strengthening  institutional  capacities  of  NGOs  in  2020.  The  Parliament 
‘Group  for  development  of  civil  society’,  allows  civil  society  organisations  to  discuss 
legislative matters with members of Parliament. 

67   Parliament Ombudsperson, Communiqué (2020), Physical abuse may only be used by an officer when 
the  person  does  not  comply  with  the  lawful  instructions  or  requirements  of  the  officer  or  otherwise 
opposes the officer; see also ENNHRI, The rule of law in the European Union – Reports from National 
Human  Rights  Institution.  The  order  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  and  the 
Minister of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania “Regarding Convoy Procedure Rules” was amended 
on 26 May 2020. Legal provisions no longer envisage the mandatory use of handcuffs or other means 
of physical restraint. 

68   European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2020), Submission to the European Commission in 

the context of the preparation of the first annual Rule of Law Report. 

69   Rating  by  CIVICUS;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed,  obstructed, 

repressed and closed. 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order.*  
*  The  list  of  contributions  received  in  the  context  of  the  consultation  for  the  2020  Rule  of  Law 

report can be found at (COM website). 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2019),  Decriminalisation  of  Defamation  – 
https://cmpf.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/decriminalisation-of-

Factsheet. 
defamation_Infographic.pdf.   

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor. 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020/.   

CIVICUS, Lithuania country profile. https://monitor.civicus.org/country/lithuania/.  

Constitutional Court of Lithuania (2016), Decision No. KT20-S10/2016.  

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (2019), Letter of the President of the CCBE to the 

President of the Republic of Lithuania (11 December 2019). 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee  of  Ministers  to  member  states  on  judges:  independence,  efficiency  and 
responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2016),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2016)4  on  the 

protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors. 

Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists  – 

Lithuania – https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/lithuania.  

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists, 
Threats  to  the  Independence  of  the  Lithuanian  LRT.  https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-
freedom/all-
results?p_p_id=sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_cacheability=cache
LevelPage&p_p_col_id=column-
4&p_p_col_count=1&_sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet_keywords=&_sojdashboard_WAR_
coesojportlet_orderByCol=&_sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet_orderByType=asc&_sojdash
board_WAR_coesojportlet_selectedCategories=11709544&_sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportle
t_selectedStringFilters=resolution.resolvedalerts&_sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet_cmd=ge
t_pdf_dashboard.  

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2010),  Report  on  the  Independence  of  the  Judicial 
System  Part  I:  The  Independence  of  Judges  adopted  by  the  Venice  Commission  at  its  82nd 
Plenary Session, CDL-AD(2010)004. 

European Commission (2018, 2019, 2020), EU Justice Scoreboard.   

Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482 – Businesses' attitudes 

towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Flash  Eurobarometer  483  –  Perceived 

independence of the national justice systems in the EU among the general public. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2020),  Flash  Eurobarometer  484  –  Perceived 

independence of the national justice systems in the EU among companies. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Flash Eurobarometer 502 – Corruption. 

European Commission (2020), Country Report Lithuania (SWD(2020) 514 final. 

European  Federation  of  Journalists  (2018),  Lithuanian  journalists  criticise  new  restriction  to 
https://europeanjournalists.org/blog/2018/10/08/lithuanian-

access 
journalists-criticise-new-restriction-to-access-public-information/.    

information. 

public 

European  Network  on  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (2020),  The  rule  of  law  in  the 

European Union – Reports from National Human Rights Institution. 

13 

 
 
European  Union  Agency  for  Fundamental  Rights  (2020),  Submission  to  the  European 

Commission in the context of the preparation of the first annual Rule of Law Report. 

Freedom  House,  information  on  Lithuania.  https://freedomhouse.org/country/lithuania/freedom-

world/2020.   

GRECO (2014), Fourth evaluation round – evaluation report on Lithuania corruption prevention 

in respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors.   

GRECO (2019), Fourth evaluation round – compliance report on Lithuania corruption prevention 

in respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

Lithuanian Government (2020), Input from Lithuania to the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

LRT  (2019),  Investigators  decry  Lithuania's  Supreme  Court  ruling  that  may  “negatively  affect 
fight  against  corruption”’.  https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1119922/investigators-
decry-lithuania-s-supreme-court-ruling-that-may-negatively-affect-fight-against-corruption.   

LRT  (2020),  Vote  on  Supreme  Court  candidate  “negates”  rule  of  law  in  Lithuania  –  Judicial 
Council.  https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1166309/vote-on-supreme-court-candidate-
negates-rule-of-law-in-lithuania-judicial-council.  

National  Courts  Administration  (2020),  The  Courts  of  Lithuania  -  Activity  Results  2019. 

https://www.teismai.lt/data/public/uploads/2020/04/trumpa-ataskaita-lapai-en-04-14.pdf.   

National  Courts  Administration,  Communiqué  (2019),  The  courts  have  presented  their 
courts. 

operational 
https://www.teismai.lt/en/the-courts-have-presented-their-operational-results-the-court-reform-
accelerated-case-hearing-in-courts/6690.  

accelerated 

hearing 

results: 

reform 

court 

case 

the 

in 

Reporters without Borders, information on Lithuania. https://rsf.org/en/lithuania.   

Seimas 

https://e-
seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/e42b7360100211e5b0d3e1beb7dd5516?jfwid=-fxdp8swm.  

(2015),  National  Anti-Corruption 

2015-2025. 

Strategy 

for 

Seimas  Ombudsperson,  Communiqué  (2020),  Physical  abuse  may  only  be  used  by  an  officer 
when the person does not comply with the lawful instructions or requirements of the officer or 
otherwise  opposes 
the  officer.  http://lrski.lt/en/news/780-seimas-ombudsperson-physical-
abuse-may-only-be-used-by-an-officer-when-the-person-does-not-comply-with-the-l.  

Special  Investigation  Service  (2015),  Inter-institutional  Action  Plan  for  the  Implementation  in 
2015-2025.  

2015-2019 
https://www.stt.lt/data/public/uploads/2019/12/nkkp_tvp_vertimui_en.doc.   

the  National  Anti-Corruption 

Programme 

for 

of 

Special  Investigation  Service  of  the  Republic  Of  Lithuania  (2019),  Annual  Report  2019. 

https://stt.lt/doclib/oflnfo1bhmfv3h73f1wenwnc22ssqzwk.   

Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Lithuania (2019), Communiqué (14 March 2019) 

Tyrimas ‘Lietuvos korupcijos žemėlapis 2018’ atskleidė korupcijos tendencijas. 

Transparency International (2020), Corruption Perceptions Index 2019. 

Virtual country visit to Lithuania in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

14 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Lithuania 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in May and June 2020 with: 

  Bar Association 
  Freedom House  
  Media Authority – Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
  Ministry of Justice 
  National Courts Administration 
  National NGO Coalition 
  Office of the Prosecutor General 
  Special Investigation Service  
  Supreme Court 
  Transparency International Lithuania 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

15