COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
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, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 717 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report  Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report  The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Lithuanian  justice  system  continues  to  present  good  results  in  terms  of  efficiency,  and 
further measures to improve this are being implemented. Digital tools are widely used in the 
justice system, which has contributed to ensuring the continued functioning of courts during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Appointments to high judicial positions remain subject to delays. 
While appointments to the Constitutional Court have resumed, the president of the Supreme 
Court  remains  in  function  ad  interim  since  September  2019.  Initiatives  to  strengthen  anti-
corruption culture in the judiciary are being developed by the National Courts Administration 
and  the  Judicial  Council.  Amendments  to  the  legal  aid  system  are  being  discussed, 
responding to long-standing concerns of lawyers. 

On 4 November 2020, the new anti-corruption action plan 2020-2022 was adopted with the 
aim  of  improving  the  implementation  of  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Programme.  Asset 
disclosure now has  a more efficient  and effective regulation  and updated rules on lobbying 
activities  aiming  at  ensuring  more  transparency  and  publicity  of  meetings  between  elected 
officials  and  lobbyists  are  in  force  since  January  2021.  The  implementation  of  the  revised 
legal framework on revolving doors and cooling off periods has started after their approval in 
July  2020.  Whistleblowers  protection  provisions  are  in  place  and  the  prosecution  office  is 
raising  awareness  to  promote  the  use  of  reporting  channels.  Several  high-level  corruption 
cases  were  investigated  or  brought  to  court.  The  public  procurement  legal  framework  has 
been  improved  to  prevent  frauds  and  corruption  risks  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic.  Furthermore,  recommendations  and  guidance  for  improving  transparency  and 
reducing corruption risks in the implementation of the COVID-19 economic relief plan were 
issued by the Special Investigations Service.   

The legal framework for media pluralism in Lithuania guarantees the basic right of freedom 
of  expression  and  the  right  to  information.  While  the  media  regulators  continue  to  be 
considered  independent  and  effective,  a  debate  about  the  effectiveness  and  impartiality  of 
media  self-regulatory  bodies  has  taken  place.  To  strengthen  media  ownership  transparency, 
the  Ministry  of  Culture  is  putting  in  place  a  publicly  available  Information  System  of 
Producers  and  Disseminators  of  Public  Information.  The  professional  environment  for 
journalists  is  gradually  improving  in  Lithuania,  especially  as  regards  access  to  information 
held in the main public registers. Nevertheless, it appears that authorities sometimes invoke 
data  protection  in  order  to  unduly  limit  access  to  information.  Lithuanian  authorities  have 
taken several measures to alleviate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on media outlets. 

A  project  aimed  at  improving  the  quality  of  law-making  is  under  preparation,  which  will 
include the revision of existing legislation, in order to eliminate outdated or disproportionate 
regulation.  Lithuania  adopted  emergency  measures  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, which are still in place. While the activity of Lithuanian NGOs was impacted by 
the COVID-19-related restrictions, the authorities have provided specific financial support to 
NGOs.  Civil  society  space  remains  open,  and  a  new  NGO  foundation  has  been  created  to 
provide sustainable institutional support for NGOs. The Lithuanian authorities are developing 
initiatives  to  improve  legal  education,  and  there  are  plans  to  integrate  legal  and  anti-
corruption education in general education programmes. 

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), 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  judges1.  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  adjudicates  on  the  constitutionality  of 
legislation and of the acts of the President and the Government2. 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. Lithuania participates in the European 
Public  Prosecutor’s  Office.  The  Bar  is  an  independent  part  of  the  legal  system,  and  is 
financed from contributions paid by advocates and from other sources. 

Independence  

The level of perceived judicial independence remains average to high among the general 
public  and  companies.  In  2021,  the  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  among  the 
general public has further improved for the third consecutive year, and remains average (55% 
rated their perception as ‘fairly  good’ or ‘very  good’, an increase of 3 percentage points in 
relation to 2020)5. Among companies, the level of perceived judicial independence remains 
generally  high  although  in  2021  it  decreased,  countering  the  steady  increase  registered  in 
previous  years (60% perceive it as ‘fairly  good’  or ‘very  good’, a decrease of 6 percentage 
points in relation to 2020)6. 

The  competences  of  the  Judicial  Council  have  been  strengthened,  and  its  composition 
has  been  amended.  Since  November  2020,  the  Judicial  Council  consists  of  17  members 
(previously  23)7.  Amendments  to  the  Law  on  Courts  also  determined  that  judges  may  be 
elected  to  the  Judicial  Council  for  a  maximum  of  two  consecutive  terms8.  The  Judicial 

1   Law on Courts, Art. 119. 
2   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. 

3   Deputy Prosecutors General are appointed and dismissed by the President of the Republic on the proposal of 

the Prosecutor General. 

4   Law on the amendment of the law on the prosecutor’s office, No. I-599, of 13 October 1994, Arts. 22 and 

26. 

5   Figure  47,  2021  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%). 

6   Figure 49, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
7   The  number  of  judges  elected  by  the  General  Assembly  of  judges  was  also  revised.  The  seniority 
requirements for a candidate to the Judicial Council was reduced, requiring a minimum period of service to 
enter the Judicial Council of 3 years (previously 5). 

8   Law on Courts, Art. 119. 

2 

 
                                                 
Council  continues  to  be  entirely  composed  of  judges  appointed  by  their  peers,  which  is 
consistent with Council of Europe recommendations9. The term of office of the judges who 
will no longer be members has not been subject to early termination, as the new rules came 
into  force  after  the  end  of  their  regular  term  of  office.  As  noted  in  the  2020  Rule  of  Law 
Report10, the Judicial Council now has the competence to select the judges-members of the 
Selection  Committee  of  Candidates  to  Judicial  Office,  which,  until  2020,  was  an  exclusive 
competence of the President11. For the first time, the Judicial Council appointed three judges 
as members of this Committee. The Judicial Council has also become one of the participants 
to the independent state strategic management system, established in the Law of the Republic 
of Lithuania on Strategic Management, which entered into force on 1 January 202112. In this 
context, the Judicial Council is being actively involved in the preparation of the 2021–2030 
National Progress Programme.  

After a period of standstill, three new judges have been appointed to the Constitutional 
Court. After the term of office of three Constitutional Court judges, including the President, 
came to an end in March 202013, the Parliament14 rejected the three proposed candidates for 
the  vacancies15,  leading  to  a  substantial  period  during  which  the  three  judges  remained  in 
function  ad interim. Following doubts raised by  political  parties as to  the lawfulness  of the 
continuation  in  function  of  the  three  judges,  the  Constitutional  Court  clarified  that  the 
solution was in line with the provisions of the Law on the Constitutional Court and stressed 
that the Constitutional Court must function without interruption16. According to the law17, in 
case a new judge is not appointed, the judge whose term of office has expired shall act until 
the  new  judge  is  appointed.  This  legal  solution  appears  to  be  consistent  with  Venice 
Commission recommendations18. The Parliament19 resumed the procedure for the renovation 
of  the  Constitutional  Court  in  January  2021.  This  has  enabled  the  appointment  of  the  three 
judges20. On 17 June 2021, Parliament appointed a new President of the Constitutional Court. 

The President of the Supreme Court remains in function ad interim. The appointment of 
a  new  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  pending  since  September  2019.  Following  the 
Constitutional Court’s ruling that the dismissal of the chairperson of the civil chamber of the 
Supreme Court was unconstitutional21, the judge was reinstated in her respective functions as 
judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  including  as  chairperson  of  the  civil  chamber  and  acting 
president  of  the  Court22.  While  this  ensures  the  functioning  of  the  Supreme  Court,  it  is 

9   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, paras. 26-27.  
10   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4. 
11   Law on Courts, Article 55(1). The new provision came into force on 1 January 2020. 
12   See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4. 
13   There  are  a  total  of  nine  Constitutional  Court  judges,  and  they  are  appointed  for  a  single  nine-year  term. 
Pursuant to the Lithuanian Constitution, a third of the Constitutional Court justices are replaced every three 
years. 

14   Legislature 2016-2020. 
15   Constitutional Court justices are appointed and dismissed by Parliament. 
16   Statement by the Constitutional Court of 16 June 2020. 
17   Law on Constitutional Court, Art. 4. 
18   Venice Commission Opinion (CDL-AD(2014)033), para. 20. 
19   Legislature 2020-2024. 
20   As stressed by the Venice Commission, while it is important to provide for anti-deadlock mechanisms, such 
as  continuation  in  function  ad  interim,  in  order  to  ensure  the  functioning  of  state  institutions,  these 
mechanisms should not act as a disincentive to reaching an agreement (Venice Commission Opinion (CDL-
AD(2013)028), paras. 5-8). 

21   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4. 
22   Constitutional Court, judgment of 2 September 2020, Decision No. KT153-N13/2020. 

3 

 
                                                 
important  to  proceed  with  the  appointment  procedure23.  However,  further  delays  are 
expected,  as  according  to  the  Law  on  Courts,  the  procedure  for  the  appointment  of  the 
President of the Supreme Court can only take place once the full composition of the Supreme 
Court  is  ensured24,  and  one  judicial  position  in  the  Supreme  Court  remains  vacant  due  to 
delays in the selection procedure.  

The  National  Courts  Administration  and  the  Judicial  Council  are  taking  initiatives  to 
strengthen  the  anti-corruption  environment  in  the  judiciary.  Strengthening  the  anti-
corruption culture in the justice system is one of the five priorities included in the National 
Courts  Administration  (NCA)  programme  for  the  period  2020-2022.  In  this  context,  the 
NCA, in cooperation with the Judicial Council, is organising seminars on professional ethics, 
and  developing  measures  to  strengthen  the  control  of  private  interest  declarations.  The 
Judicial  Council  has  also  set  up  an  inter-institutional  working  group,  which  includes  a 
representative  of  the  Special  Investigation  Service,  to  strengthen  the  anti-corruption 
environment in the judiciary25. These efforts address concerns regarding the negative impact 
on the image of the justice system raised by the suspicion of members of the judiciary being 
involved  in  corruption  cases,  in  the  context  of  criminal  cases  that  remain  pending  since 
201926.  These  suspicions  already  led  to  the  dismissal  of  five  judges,  and  the  suspension  of 
three judges.  

The Bar Association has raised concerns regarding the respect for professional secrecy. 
Under the provisions of the Law on Criminal Intelligence, law enforcement  authorities may 
perform covert actions of information collection that, according to the Bar Association, may 
amount  to  controlling  communication  between  lawyers  and  their  clients27,  even  in  the 
absence  of  criminal  charges28.  The  Bar  Association  had  requested  from  State  authorities 
information regarding the existence of criminal intelligence actions, outside of any criminal 
investigation, against members of the Bar, which was refused29. The refusal was challenged 
before national courts. The Bar Association’s appeal was dismissed in a final decision. The 
Bar  Association  has  brought  an  application  before  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights30. 
On  9  December  2020,  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  informed  the  Lithuanian 
Government  of the admissibility of the case.  The Bar Association  also  challenged the legal 
regulation  on  criminal  investigation  activities  before  the  Vilnius  Regional  Administrative 
Court.  Following  its  decision,  the  Bar  Association  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Administrative 
Court  of  Lithuania.  The  judicial  proceedings  before  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  of 
Lithuania are pending. 

23   See footnote 20. 
24   The President of the Supreme Court is appointed by Parliament, upon a proposal from the President of the 

Republic from among the judges appointed at the Court. 

25   Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary  (ENCJ)  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 

Report, p. 25. 

26   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 3. 
27   According to Lithuanian law, lawyers benefit from privileges protecting professional secrecy. These include, 
among  others,  the  prohibition  to  examine,  inspect,  or  take  the  lawyer’s  documents  or  files  pertaining  to 
professional activities, and to control information transmitted over telecommunications networks and other 
communications, except where the lawyer is suspected or accused of a criminal act. 

28   Contribution  from  the  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe  (CCBE)  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 

Report, p. 3. 

29   The initial request was made in April 2019. 
30   Application No. 64301/19, Lietuvos Advokatura and Others v. Lithuania. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
Quality  

The selection procedures for the judiciary have resumed, after slight delays caused by 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and inherent limitations imposed 
by the quarantine regime declared, the number of selection procedures for the judiciary was 
lower  than  in  201931.  The  selection  panel  meetings  have  resumed  according  to  the  usual 
schedule,  following  the  adaptation  of  procedural  rules  to  the  use  of  videoconference 
equipment.  According  to  the  NCA,  in  2021  a  larger  number  of  selection  procedures  is 
planned in order to compensate the decrease registered in 2020, and ensure the assignment to 
vacant positions32. 

The  Judicial  Council  has  initiated  discussions  regarding  the  funding  model  of  the 
judiciary. In the context of the negotiations on state budget formation, the Judicial Council 
has  raised  concerns  regarding  to  the  allocation  of  funds  to  the  judiciary  and  the  criteria 
thereto. The Judicial Council has initiated a research of national and international practices, 
in order to establish objective and transparent criteria for the allocation of funds. 

Changes  to  the  legal  aid  system  are  being  discussed.  The  Programme  of  the  18th 
Government of the Republic of Lithuania includes a project aimed at reducing the workload 
of lawyers who provide  legal  aid,  and tackling the problem of inadequate remuneration  for 
the  legal  aid  services,  including  provision  for  proportional  remuneration  depending  on  the 
complexity  of  the  legal  services  provided,  and  transparency  of  the  payment  procedure33. 
These changes would respond to longstanding concerns voiced by the Bar Association34, and 
are in line with the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) recommendations 
and  Council  of  Europe  Guidelines35.  The  project,  expected  to  be  implemented  during  the 
current  2020-2024  legislature,  is  however  at  a  very  early  stage,  and  its  rollout  will  be 
preceded by a feasibility study.  

The use of digital tools in the justice system is  widespread.  Lithuania’s procedural  rules 
allow the use of digital technology in courts in civil, commercial, administrative and criminal 
cases  in  a  wide  range  of  situations,  both  regarding  the  participation  of  parties  using 
communication technology, and the admissibility of evidence36. Lithuanian courts appear also 
well equipped with electronic communication tools37. Digital solutions to initiate and follow 
proceedings are broadly in place for civil, commercial and administrative cases38, but are less 
used for criminal cases39. The widespread use of digital tools has contributed to ensuring the 
continued  functioning  of  the  courts  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Despite  the 
improvement in the available video conferencing equipment, stakeholders highlight the need 
to significantly upgrade computer equipment of the court system and other resources relevant 
to  the  digitisation  of  justice40.  Further  measures  to  modernise  the  work  of  the  courts,  in 

31   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 1. 
32   Information received in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
33   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 6.  
34   Information received in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
35   CCBE (2018), Recommendations on legal aid, para. III.1; Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the 
Council  of  Europe  on  the  efficiency  and  the  effectiveness  of  legal  aid  schemes  in  the  areas  of  civil  and 
administrative law, paras. 22 and 23.  
36   Figure 39, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
37   Figure 41, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
38   Figure 43, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
39   Figure 44, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
40   Contribution from ENCJ for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 25-26. 

5 

 
                                                 
particular  to  ensure  the  use  of  communication  technologies  for  the  organisation  of  remote 
hearings in all procedures and reinforce the access of public to case-law, are also envisaged41.  

Efficiency 

The  justice  system  continues  to  present  good  results  in  terms  of  efficiency42.  Lithuania 
maintains its short disposition time in civil and commercial cases in first and second instance, 
while registering an increase in third instance43. The disposition time in administrative cases 
has also decreased, both in first and second instance44. The trend of reduction of the already 
comparatively low backlogs has continued, in all the categories of cases considered45.  

The  implementation  of  the  project  “Increasing  the  Efficiency  of  Judicial  Activities”  is 
ongoing.  The  project  aims  at  increasing  the  efficiency  of  court  activities,  through  the 
development of advanced management models of court resources and case allocation, and the 
modernisation  of  case  management46.  The  implementation  of  the  project,  which  started  in 
2017, was expected to end in September 2021, but has suffered delays due to the COVID-19 
pandemic. New legislative measures to further improve efficiency are also envisaged in the 
Programme  of  the  18th  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  in  particular  to  promote 
out-of-court dispute resolution, and to transfer non-judicial functions currently performed by 
courts to other institutions47. Lithuania is also active in promoting and granting incentives for 
the use of alternative dispute resolution methods48. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The Ministry of Justice and the Special Investigation Service coordinates the anti-corruption 
preventive measures and the Chief Official Ethics Commission of the Republic of Lithuania 
supervises  the  institutional  ethics  standards.  The  STT  is  also  tasked  with  preparing  and 
implementing  certain  anti-corruption  preventive  measures.  The  competence  to  fight 
corruption  is  shared  between  several  authorities.  The  STT  has  competences  to  detect  and 
investigate  the  most  serious  corruption-related  criminal  offenses49.  The  Prosecution  Service 
conducts  and  coordinates  pre-trial  investigations.  In  the  framework  of  the  National  Anti-
Corruption Programme 2015-2025, on 4 November 2020, a new Action Plan for 2020-2022 
was approved by Parliament.  

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the  public  sector  remains  relatively  low.  In  the  2020  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  by 

41   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 7. 
42   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 5. 
43   Figures 6 and 7, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
44   Figures 8 and 9, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
45   Figures 13, 14 and 15, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
46   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 10. 
47   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 
48   Figure 26, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
49   Other  investigation  authorities  are  the  police,  the  State  Border  Guard  Service,  the  Financial  Crime 
Investigation  Service  and  Custom  but  their  competence  is  limited  to  offences  committed  by  one  of  their 
officials.  

6 

 
                                                 
Transparency  International,  Lithuania  scores  60/100  and  ranks  11th  in  the  European  Union 
and 35th globally50. This perception has been relatively stable51  over the past five years52.  

The investigation and prosecution of corruption has continued as regards a number of 
high-level  corruption  cases.  In  2020,  the  STT  started  69  pre-trial  investigations,  with  35 
cases  sent  to  Court53.  60  corruption  related  cases  ended  with  a  fine  and  5  cases  with  an 
imprisonment sanction, while 2 cases ended with both imprisonment and fine54. Additionally, 
6 high-level corruption cases were investigated or brought to Court. One of them, started in 
2016,  involved  a  Member  of  Parliament  and  had  been  suspended  when  Parliament  did  not 
grant  the  Prosecutor  Office’s  request  to  waive  the  immunity  of  the  Member.  Following 
general  elections,  in  December  2020,  the  Parliament  authorised  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  to 
continue  the  investigation,  which  has  resumed  and  the  case  has  been  brought  to  Court 
recently55.  The  legislative  framework  to  tackle  foreign  bribery  is  adequate56  while 
implementation of international recommendations on the need to raise awareness on this issue 
needs further improvement57. In this context, human and financial resources available to law 
enforcement are considered sufficient to perform the tasks but authorities point to the need to 
increase the number of law enforcement officials58. 

A  new  action  plan  to  accompany  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Programme  was 
adopted.  The  anti-corruption  strategic  framework  is  laid  down  in  the  National  Anti-
Corruption  Programme  2015-202559  and  it  is  implemented  and  coordinated  by  the 
Government  with  the  support  of  the  Special  Investigations  Service  (STT).  The  programme 
takes  a  comprehensive  approach  to  corruption  focusing  on  both  the  public  and  the  private 
sector. However, as highlighted by the STT in its latest evaluation, building an environment 
resilient  to  corruption  risks  in  all  public  administration  bodies  needs  a  more  systematic 
approach  and  some  measures  remain  to  be  implemented60.  The  Action  Plan  for  2020-2022 
adopted  by  Parliament  in  November  2020  seeks  to  improve  the  implementation  of  the 
programme.  The  actions  planned  include  improving  the  Central  Electoral  Commission 
information system, revising lobbying rules, strengthening law enforcement capacity to detect 
corruption  cases  including  via  training  and  preventive  action  and  strengthening  the 
whistleblower  protection  mechanism.  The  plan  envisages  setting  up  a  new  system  for 

50   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

51   In 2015 the score was 59, while, in 2020, the score is 60. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

52   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

53   According to the Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, 27 cases were dismissed.  
54   The STT started 52 pre-trail investigations in 2018 while 47 started in 2019. Statistics included in the Input 

from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.   

55   Press release by the Special Investigation Service of 13 May 2021  - https://www.stt.lt/en/news/7481/in-the-

court-a-criminal-case-of-petras-grazulis-a-member-of-the-seimas:3136. 

56  Exporting corruption. Progress report 2020: Assessing enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention 

p. 83.  

57   Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Phase 2 two-year follow-up report: Lithuania.   
58   Information received in the context of the Country visit.  
59   National Anti-Corruption Program 2015-2025.  
60   Progress report of National Anti-corruption Program 2015-2025, Special Investigation Service, 2020. 

7 

 
                                                 
monitoring  and  assessing  corruption  in  the  public  sector  and  improving  corruption 
awareness61.  The  Special  Commission  of  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  has 
the task of monitoring, controlling and coordinating the fight against corruption62, while the 
STT plays a key role in monitoring the results of the plan63. Lithuania plans to draft and adopt 
a new National Anticorruption Agenda (2022-2033) in 2021, replacing the current National 
Anti-Corruption  Programme64.  Finally,  in  December  2020  the  President  of  the  Republic 
inaugurated  the  new  Integrity  Academy.  The  main  objective  of  the  newly  established 
Academy  is  to  bring  together  experts  and  institutions  to  exchange  best  practices  in  the 
prevention  of  corruption  and  to  provide  specialised  anti-corruption  training.  In  the  first 
months of activity, the Academy organised several training sessions for public servants. 

Public procurement legislation has been modified to prevent fraud and corruption risks 
under the COVID-19 pandemic. The public procurement legislation was adapted to respond 
to potential corruption issues in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The new amendment 
entered into force in July 2020 and aims at preventing the participation to public procurement 
of doubtful suppliers trying to profit from the emergency situation65. A specific reference is 
made  for  international  procurement  using  unannounced  negotiated  procedures  where  the 
contracting  authorities  should  consult  with  several  other  national  authorities,  including  the 
STT, in order to acquire as much information as possible on the supplier66. After the adoption 
of  the  National  Action  Plan  2020-2022,  a  new  amendment  has  been  presented  to  the 
Parliament with the aim of pursuing the centralisation of public procurement procedures67.  

The  asset  declaration  framework  for  elected  officials  now  has  a  more  efficient  and 
effective  regulation.  A  new  amendment  to  the  Law  of  Public  and  Private  Interests  in  the 
Public  Service  for  elected  and  appointed  persons  was  adopted  in  July  202068.  It  aims  at 
simplifying  the  process  for  declarations  of  interest  and  specifies  all  the  necessary  details 
needed  to  log  the  declaration  which  must  be  done  by  the  elected  members  in  the  30  days 
following  their  election.  The  Chief  Official  Ethics  Commission  is  responsible  for  checking 
the  declarations,  which  are  also  made  public69.  On  4  January  2021,  the  new  Register  of 
Private Interests (PINREG) became operational70.  

Updated  rules  on  lobbying  aim  at  ensuring  more  transparency  and  publicity  for 
meetings between officials and lobbyists. The new amended law on lobbying entered into 

61   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
62   Ibid., point 5. 
63   Ibid., point 7.  
64   To this end, the Special Investigation Service will receive support in drafting a new anticorruption strategy, 
an action plan for its implementation and monitoring and reporting tools to ensure effective implementation 
and coordination, as well as support on the development of an awareness raising campaign on the strategy. 
This project is receiving support through the European Commission’s Technical Support Instrument. 

65   The amended public procurement Law.  
66   Art. 72, par. 4, provides the list of information that must be provided and sets a time limit of three days to 

react.  

67   The new amendment to the Public Procurement Law.  
68   The amendment to the Law of Public and Private Interests in the Public Service also changed the name of 

the Law which is now Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests. 

69   Ibid, Art. 22.  
70   The aim of this new IT solution is to improve the quality of interest declaration by connecting more than 10 
national authorities. The declaration will be automatically filled with information stored in national registers 
and information systems and  the individual  will receive an email reminder  for completing the  declaration. 
COEC 2020 annual report.  

8 

 
                                                 
force in January 202171 and foresees a cross declaration scheme where lobbyists, politicians 
and public servants must report their meetings in the Register of Lobbyists maintained by the 
Chief Official Ethics Commission (COEC). According to latest COEC annual report, at the 
end of 2020, 122 individuals were registered as lobbyists72 and 273 meetings were registered 
compared  to  209  registered  in  201973.  The  STT  has  provided  the  Parliament  with  its 
evaluation and recommendations to strengthen the proposed framework74.  

The implementation of the revolving doors and cooling-off provisions of July 2020 has 
started. Revolving doors and cooling off period are regulated in the Law on the Adjustment 
of  Public  and  Private  Interests75,  which  establishes  a  one  year  cooling-off  period76. 
Additionally,  COEC  has  the  power  to  derogate  from  the  general  rule  on  a  case-by-case 
basis77.  Since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  amendment  to  the  Law  in  July  2020,  COEC  has 
received  four  requests  for  derogation.  In  one  case  COEC  did  not  take  a  decision  as 
information from the applicant was missing, while in the other two cases the requests were 
refused and in one case the request for derogation was approved78.  

While  whistleblowers  protection  regulation  is  in  place,  awareness  is  lacking  among 
citizens.  In  2020,  49  persons  were  recognised  as  whistleblowers  by  the  Office  of  the 
Prosecutor General79. A dedicated hotline was set up in August 2020 within the Office of the 
Prosecutors and in four months of activities dealt with 198 consultations80. On the basis of the 
information provided through this channel, 16 pre-trial investigations started and 11 internal 
audits were carried out81. The main reported misconducts relate to abuse of powers, failure to 
perform  official  duties,  corruption  in  public  procurement,  but  also  violation  of  COVID-19 
related measures82. In order to promote the use of the hotline and to support other authorities 
in  establishing  their  own  reporting  channels,  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  is 
organising awareness training for public and private entities83. 

Recommendations  and guidance  for  improving  transparency  and  reducing  corruption 
risks in the implementation of the COVID-19 economic relief plan were issued. After the 
COVID-19 outbreak, the Government approved a EUR 5 billion plan to support the economy 
and  limit  the  spread  of  the  pandemic.  The  implementation  of  the  support  plan  has  been 
monitored  by  the  STT.  In  this  context,  the  STT  issued  a  number  of  recommendations  and 
documents  aimed  at  ensuring  transparency  and  reducing  corruption  risks84.  A  single  online 

71   The Law on Lobbying Activities.  
72   Data from the COEC 2020 annual report which includes the figures from 2019.   
73   COEC 2020 annual report.  
74   STT contribution to the Law on lobbying.  
75   The  Law  on  the  Adjustment  of  Public  and  Private  Interests,  latest  amendment  entered  into  force  in  July 

2020.  

76   Art. 15 and 17 of the Law of Public and Private Interests in the Public Service.  
77   Art. 18, idem. 
78   COEC 2020 annual report p. 20.  
79   According to statistics provided in writing by the Office of the Prosecutor General, 86 decisions were taken, 

49 people were recognized as whistleblowers while 37 people were not.  

80   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 13.  
81   Ibid.  
82   Ibid.  
83   Information received in writing by the Office of the Prosecutor General.  
84   Input  from  Lithuania  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report.  One  of  them  was  a  booklet  on  transparency, 
published  in  April  2020,  dedicated  to  state  authorities  working  on  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan 
2020-2022. The STT also took measures to mitigate the risk of corruption at both central and local level.  

9 

 
                                                 
platform  to  disclose  information  about  the  implementation  of  the  COVID-19  plan  was 
proposed  by  the  STT  but  has  not  been  implemented85.  Nevertheless,  the  authorities86 
considered  the  amount  of  information  published  by  relevant  institutions  to  be  sufficient  to 
correctly inform the citizens87. STT has assessed several legal measures adopted to limit the 
impact88.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM  

In Lithuania, the legal framework concerning media pluralism and media freedom 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 information. 
The Law on the Provision of Information to the Public is the main media law. Legislation to 
transpose  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  has  been  adopted89.  The  institutional 
framework consists of the Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission (LRTK), the Office 
of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics and the Public Information Ethics Association90.  

There have been no significant changes in the legal framework concerning the regulator 
for  audio-visual  media  services.  Financial  and  human  resources  of  the  LRTK  have 
remained  stable  and  are  considered  adequate,  especially  since  its  budget  is  funded  by  fees 
collected from the market players91. The LRTK has proposed to the Parliament to extend the 
duration of the mandate of its members from four to five years and to change its name into 
“National Media Commission”92. The Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM 2021) reports a very 
low risk for the independence and effectiveness of the media authority93. 

A  debate  about  the  effectiveness  and  impartiality  of  media  self-regulatory  bodies  is 
under way. Lithuania’s public broadcaster “Lietuvos nacionalinis radijas ir televizija” (LRT) 
proposed an amendment to the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public to have it 
excluded  from  the  supervision  by  the  Public  Information  Ethics  Commission,  a  decision-
making  body  of  the  Public  Information  Ethics  Association,  due  to  the  introduction  of  the 
ethics  controller  function  in  the  LRT  itself.  This  led  to  public  discussions  about  the 
effectiveness and impartiality of the Public Information Ethics Commission, the composition 

85   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 16 
86   Information received by the STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
87   Ibid. 
88  The  main  assessments  are:  2021-01-15  Conclusion  of  the  anti-corruption  assessment  regarding  the 
vaccination procedures against COVID-19 No. 4-01-295; conclusion of the anti-corruption assessment “On 
the draft regulation of the measure “Business Support Fund” due to Covid-19” (23/07/2020, No. 4-01-5781); 
Conclusion  of  the  anti-corruption  assessment  “Regarding  Priority  3  of  the  European  Union  Funds 
Investment  Operational  Program 
for  2014–2020  “Promotion  of  Small  and  Medium  Business 
Competitiveness”,  Measure  No.  03.3.1-LVPA-T-859  “Regulation  of  financing  conditions  for  COVID-19 
products LT” projects” (2020-11-18, Nr. 4-01-9466). 

89   Complete transposition of the AVMSD was notified to the Commission on 27 January 2021. 
90   Lithuania ranks 28th in the Reporters Without Borders 2021 World Press Freedom Index (14th among the EU 
Member States), the same position as last  year, but several places  higher compared to  five  years ago. See 
https://rsf.org/en/lithuania. 

91   Information received in the context of the country visit. 
92   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 22. 
93   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 10. 

10 

 
                                                 
of the Public Information Ethics Association94 and the extent to which the functioning of self-
regulation should be prescribed by law95.  

To enhance media ownership transparency, the Ministry of Culture is putting in place a 
publicly  available  Information  System  of  Producers  and  Disseminators  of  Public 
Information, in line with the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public and Strategic 
Directions of the Public Information Policy 2019 – 202296. The system, called “VIRSIS”, will 
disclose  data  on  media  owners,  including  ultimate  beneficial  owners,  and,  progressively, 
amounts  of  advertising  income  obtained  from  the  public  bodies.  In  order  to  ensure  that  the 
information  in  VIRSIS  is  up-to-date,  it  will  be  synchronised  with  other  state  information 
systems  and  registers  and  it  will  incorporate  relevant  real-time  data.  The  system  will  be 
launched  in  the  course  of  202197.  According  to  the  MPM  2021,  media  ownership 
transparency  is  at  medium  risk98.  News  media  concentration  is  high,  in  particular  since  a 
small number of companies own the majority of news media outlets across different sectors99. 

Lithuanian  authorities  have  taken  several  measures  to  alleviate  the  impact  of  the 
COVID-19 pandemic on media outlets. The pandemic led to a drop in advertising revenue 
of  media  outlets,  with  two  local  newspapers  having  to  terminate  activity.  Private  media 
reduced  the  number  of  investigative  projects.  The  media-specific  support  measures  put  in 
place by  Lithuanian authorities included covering the costs of postal delivery, deferring the 
costs of television and radio transmission facilities and services and ensuring that journalists 
could  travel  across  the  country  when  the  travel  restrictions  were  in  place.  Various 
Government departments also bought media space for public information campaigns on the 
COVID-19 pandemic100. The Government  is  planning a comprehensive review of its media 
policy in 2022. Follow-up measures will include a sustainable media funding model by 2023 
and enhancing media literacy by 2024101102. 

The  framework  for  access  to  information  is  gradually  improving  in  Lithuania. 
According  to  amendments  to  the  Law  on  the  Provision  of  Information  to  the  Public  that 
entered into force on 1 July 2021, journalists are entitled to have free access to information 
held  by  the  real  estate  register  and  the  registers  of  businesses  and  organisations.  Some 
stakeholders  claim  that  the  access  to  information  procedures  are  still  quite  burdensome.  In 
particular, some public bodies, especially municipalities, have invoked data protection rules 
to unduly restrict access to information103.  

94   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 22. 
95   According to the MPM 2021, editorial autonomy is at high risk, since the law does not provide regulatory 
safeguards  to  guarantee  editorial  autonomy,  and  self-regulatory  measures  often  are  not  implemented 
effectively. See 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 14. 

96   The 2020 Rule of Law report pointed to concerns about the availability of information on media ownership, 

as in practice public information on media ownership was often limited or outdated 

97   Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 23. 
98   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 11. 
99   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 12. 
100  Information received in the context of the country visit. 
101  Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 23. 
102  Programme of the eighteenth Government of the Republic of Lithuania.   
103  Information received in the context of the country visit. In a recent case between the journalists’ union and 
the Ministry of Health, the court ruled that the Ministry could not invoke the data protection rules to restrict 
access to information. 

11 

 
                                                 
The professional environment for journalists continues to be safe. Since the 2020 Rule of 
Law  Report,  no  new  alerts  have  been  published  for  Lithuania  on  the  Council  of  Europe’s 
Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists104, or the Mapping 
Media Freedom platform105. The programme of the new Government commits to strengthen 
the framework for protection of journalists against persecution for critical journalism106. 

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.  The  Parliament,  the  President,  the  Government,  and  a  group  of  at  least  50.000 
citizens have the right of legislative initiative. The Parliamentary Ombudspersons are tasked 
with protecting and promoting human rights and freedoms. 

the  application  of 

A  project  aimed  at  improving  the  quality  of  law-making  is  under  preparation.  The 
Ministry  of  Justice  plans  to  carry  out  an  analysis  in  order  to  identify  shortcomings  in  the 
legislative  process  and 
to  prepare  methodological 
recommendations  for  institutions  to  improve  the  quality  of  legislation  and  the  legislative 
process107.  The  project  envisages  initiatives  related  to  assessment  of  the  impact  of  legal 
regulation,  inclusive  public  consultation,  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  existing 
legislation, and deregulation and de-bureaucratisation. The latter initiatives, in particular, will 
include reviewing existing legislation and developing methodological guidance on systematic 
revisions, in order to eliminate outdated or disproportionate regulation, reduce administrative 
and regulatory burdens, and systematise regulatory provisions and related regulations. 

law,  and 

Emergency  measures  declared  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  remain  in 
place. While the state of emergency, as provided for under the Constitution and specified in 
the  Law on the State of  Emergency, was not  declared, the executive declared  a nationwide 
situation of emergency, pursuant to the Law on Civil Protection, and introduced a nationwide 
quarantine, under the Law on Prevention and Control of Communicable Diseases in Humans. 
The declaration of these regimes is a prerogative of the Government108, and does not require 
the authorisation of Parliament. During the periods of quarantine, the work of Parliament was 
not suspended, although some sessions were adjourned. Since January 2021, amendments to 
the  Statute  of  the  Parliament  allow  for  the  sittings  to  take  place  remotely.  One  judicial 
complaint  against  the  quarantine  measures  contesting  the  competence  of  the  executive  to 
declare  such  measures  was  dismissed  by  a  first  instance  court109.  Although  several  appeals 
against  quarantine  measures  were  presented  before  the  Constitutional  Court,  none  of  these 
were  found  admissible.  In  November  2020,  the  two  Parliamentary  Ombudspersons110 
presented  a  report  assessing  the  compliance  with  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  of 

104  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Lithuania. 
105  Mapping Media Freedom, Lithuania country profile.  
106  Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 23. 
107  Input  from  Lithuania  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  24.  The  project  has  been  included  in  the 

Programme of Government, presented on 11 December 2020. 

108  Parliament  is  competent  to  declare  the  regime  of  public  emergency,  which  provides  for  further-reaching 

restrictions. 

109  At the time of writing, the decision is not yet final. 
110  There  are  two  Parliamentary  Ombudspersons,  respectively  in  charge  of  the  investigation  of  complaints 
regarding  activities  of  officials  of  state  institutions  and  agencies,  and  in  charge  of  the  investigation  of 
complaints regarding activities of officials of municipal institutions and agencies. 

12 

 
                                                 
emergency  measures  introduced  in  March  2020.  In  this  report,  concerns  were  raised 
regarding measures of forced isolation of persons returning from abroad, and respect for the 
right to affordable health care and the provision of the highest standard of health protection 
during the quarantine period.  

The  new  law  on  development  of  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  came  into 
force  in  2020.  The  new  law  stipulates  that  information  on  legal  entities  which  qualify  as 
NGOs, in accordance with the definition provided by Law, shall be collected in the Register 
of  Legal  Entities  and  made  publicly  available111.  This  information  will  serve  as  a  base  for 
collecting  data  on  NGOs,  which  will  be  used  in  government  informed  policymaking.  The 
new  law  also  created  the  NGO  foundation,  which  aims  to  provide  sustainable  institutional 
support  for  NGOs.  The  civil  society  space  in  Lithuania  is  considered  to  be  open112,  and 
although  the  work  of  civil  society  organisations  was  impacted  by  the  COVID-19-related 
emergency  measures  applied  in  the  country,  the  Lithuanian  authorities  provided  financial 
support113,  which  allowed  NGOs  to  pursue  their  activities.  This  was  the  first  time  such 
subsidy  measures  were  implemented  for  NGOs,  as  previously  such  measures  were  only 
available to businesses. 

Several  initiatives  to  improve  legal  education  are  being  developed.  To  foster  the 
knowledge  of  constitutional  rights,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  organises  a  yearly  general 
campaign  for  the  assessment  of  legal  knowledge,  open  to  all  citizens  without  a  legal 
academic  background.  In  2020,  the  content  of the  examination  tested the  knowledge  of  the 
Constitution, based on practical situations. Additionally, a mobile application-game, “I know 
my  rights”,  was  launched  in  October  2020,  which  aims  at  fostering  knowledge  on  legal 
topics, including activities of notaries and bailiffs, criminal and administrative liability, and 
the  Constitution.  The  Government  also  intends  to  integrate  legal  education  and  anti-
corruption education in general education programmes114. 

111  Law No XIII-2626, of 5 December 2019. 
112  Rating  given  by  CIVICUS,  Lithuania;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

113  On 3 June 2020 the Ministry of Social Security and Labour introduced a EUR 2 million subsidy measure for 
NGOs, which allowed up to EUR  5 000 subsidy per NGO and it was later increased up to EUR 10 000. In 
principle, the subsidy was intended to ensure the continuity of social services.  

114  Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 26. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Civicus (2021), Monitor tracking civic space – Lithuania (CIVICUS - Tracking conditions for citizen 
action). 

COEC 
content/uploads/2021/03/Ataskaita_2020_internetui.pdf) 

annual 

2020 

report. 

(https://vtek.lt/wp-

Constitutional Court of Lithuania, Statement of 16 June 2020 (Statement by the Constitutional Court - 
Constitutional Court of The Republic of Lithuania (lrkt.lt)) 

Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe  (2018),  Recommendations  on  legal  aid,  para.  III.1; 
Guidelines  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  the  efficiency  and  the 
effectiveness of legal aid schemes in the areas of civil and administrative law. 

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (2021), Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law 
Societies of Europe (CCBE) for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

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 
(https://rm.coe.int/cmrec-2010-12-on-independence-efficiency-responsibilites-of-judges/16809f007d). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2013), Opinion  on  the  Draft  Amendments  to  three 
Constitutional Provisions relating to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme State Prosecutor and the 
Judicial  Council  of  Montenegro  endorsed  by  the  Venice  Commission  at  its  96th  Plenary 
Session (CDL-AD(2013)028).  

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2014), Opinion  on  the  Draft  Law  on  the  Constitutional 
Court  of  Montenegro,  adopted  by  the  Venice  Commission  at  its  100th  Plenary  Session (CDL-
AD(2014)033).  

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2021), Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the 
Council of Europe on the efficiency and the effectiveness of legal aid schemes in the areas of civil and 
administrative law. 

European Commission (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: Businesses' attitudes towards corruption in 
the EU. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Lithuania (lt_rol_country_chapter.pdf (europa.eu)). 

European Commission (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: Corruption. 

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2021), Contribution from the European Network of 
Councils for the Judiciary for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

European Research Council (2021), press release of 13 January 2021. 

Lithuanian  Government 
(https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct). 

(2015), Lithuania  National  Anti-Corruption  Program  2015-2025 

Lithuanian  Government  (2020),  Programme  of  the  eighteenth  Government  of  the  Republic  of 
Lithuania. 

Lithuanian Government (2021), Input from Lithuania for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

Freedom 
Mapping 
(https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/country-profiles/lithuania/). 

(2021), 

Media 

Lithuania 

county 

profile 

Media Pluralism Monitor (2021), Report on Lithuania. 

14 

 
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) (2021), World Press Freedom Index report on Lithuania. 

STT (2020), Booklet on transparency (https://www.stt.lt/naujienos/7464). 

(2020),  Progress 

STT 
(https://www.stt.lt/doclib/iwlpfjmqm2krucnq2u28zyguhkhv7ddy).  

report 

of  National  Anti-corruption  Program 

2015-2025 

STT contribution to the Law on lobbying (https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/en/TAK/)    

Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. 

Transparency  International  (2020),  Exporting  corruption.  Progress  report  2020:  Assessing 
enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (2020_Report-Full_Exporting-Corruption_EN.pdf 
(transparencycdn.org)) 

15 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Lithuania 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in March and April 2021 with: 

  Bar Association  
  COEC 
  Constitutional Court 
  Freedom House  
 
Judicial Council 
  Lithuanian Journalists Union 
  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  
  Public Information Ethics Association 
  Public Procurement Service 
  Office of the Seimas Ombudspersons 
  Special Investigation Service  
  Supreme Court  
  Transparency International Lithuania 

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

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  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 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights 
 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  

16 

 
 
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

17